Don't think so - Mayors office allocates what it has. More limiting to AF is the city $ it takes to compete with MR for sites.
-
-
Replying to @sf4sfsite @kimmaicutler
Owning unusable land costs $$ and ties up capital. Re competition: my understanding was construction costs > initial land $. Am I wrong?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheFederman @kimmaicutler
...we chose "buy 1 and build now" by a small margin. Point is -it's a viable choice that the city would have supported.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sf4sfsite @kimmaicutler
Got it. Though… feels discouraging that “build now” is “get approval in 17yrs” and “break ground after that”.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I think we both agree we need more AF in SF. Speed of dev feels horrendously slow in spite of present need.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
This brings us back to the OP. Barriers to building are intentional, and don’t map directly to available land. We can/should do better.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @TheFederman @kimmaicutler
And yes, it's intentional and yields better outcomes for community
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sf4sfsite @kimmaicutler
Got it: we’re agreeing that barriers to building are intentional. We disagree on whether it is good for the city. But: good baseline for
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I’m curious: what’s your ideal path to solving housing shortage?
6 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @TheFederman @kimmaicutler
So I think we have to also work on the demand side of Supply & Demand
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Tell people to have fewer children than replacement rate.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.