There are ~30,000 vacant homes in San Francisco. Why emphasis on building skyscrapers that'd add far fewer units than policies addressing vacant properties as solution to affordability crisis? Do u think both issues should be addressed? Genuinely curious. http://www.antievictionmappingproject.net/vacancy.html
-
-
What policies would address this, and why are so many of these properties vacant?
6 replies 0 retweets 6 likes -
I'm convinced nothing short of more utopian plans like these is ever going to make SF or NYC "affordable" for the spectrum of people who work and (therefore want to) live in those places.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @wesenzinna @gcaw and
But also just curious if folks who support more growth/building skyscrapers also support trying to address landlords / developers intentionally keeping buildings empty, which would seem to be flipsides of the same problem.
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
I don't watch this sector, so forgive me for asking such a basic question. But who would want to keep a building empty, when there are so many people eager to pay high rents to live in them?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
The California tax system buffers land owners when they underutilize land. Property tax assessments are capped and inheritable from generation to generation. http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3497 …
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.