Isn't that the excuse for impact fees? Of course, these costs somehow don't come up when adding jobs
-
-
Replying to @WatsonLadd @derivativeburke and
Tell you what, you divert the billions being wasted on the CA bullet train to increasing road capacity, then let's talk growth. Not before.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rihallix @derivativeburke and
Impact fees can pay for road increases. Why should Marin get a pass?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WatsonLadd @rihallix and
What's all the focus on Marin? It a cool suburb that doesn't need the homogeneous density that is promoted. Put density next to jobs = SV
3 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @sf4sfsite @WatsonLadd and
In part because supposed anti-gentrification activists (falsely) claim that YIMBYs target only low-income neighborhoods for new development
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mike_cal @WatsonLadd and
& not support destructive legislation like SB35 without adding protections for sensitive neighborhoods state-wide. Don't "build at any cost"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sf4sfsite
I don't get this. The set of projects that can be built with SB 35 is the set of projects that can be built now, just faster.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @derivativeburke
Faster gentrification should not be the goal. And the inclusionary requirement of 10% is insulting to the lower income folks
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sf4sfsite
If not building housing leads to 100% higher rents and building housing leads to gentrification, not clear what you want here
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @derivativeburke
Pace of job growth to slow enough for moderate rate of housing growth to keep up and to get protections in place for sensitive communities
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
sounds like you want... Palo Alto-tification!
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.