Some production. But I think politicians use it to absolve voters of thinking they have any responsibility for finance affordable housing because it’s just easier to blame developers.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @mdweinberg
local politicians use it as the only means available to them, unfortunately.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DarwinBondGraha @mdweinberg
I think they can also educate voters and be clear by saying this will get us to 10 or 15% or maybe 20%+ if there are other factors like office subsidizing the housing. But if people want more then we should do a bond.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @DarwinBondGraha
Production of market rate housing helps people at all levels of affordability and reduces displacement, inclusionary over 10% is net negative for all levels of affordability
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @mdweinberg @kimmaicutler
That's debatable http://www.urbandisplacement.org/sites/default/files/images/udp_research_brief_052316.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DarwinBondGraha @kimmaicutler
That study makes precisely my point (!) as confirmed with its authors, market rate housing reduces displacement, affordable housing reduces it twice as much but producing affordable housing comes with finding tradeoffs
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mdweinberg @kimmaicutler
Oh, I'm glad we agree then, market rate housing isn't the panacea. It's necessary, but it won't house the bottom half of income earners, and it's benefits aren't as quickly and effectively distributed as producing BMR housing.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DarwinBondGraha @kimmaicutler
We agree (if we do) that it is important to create BMR units using strategies that don’t reduce overall housing production
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mdweinberg @kimmaicutler
That's what I think is debatable. Does it reduce overall housing production? If so, is the trade-off worth it to redistribute housing resources down market?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DarwinBondGraha @mdweinberg
it's not as simple as just redistributing down market. It also means that the costs tacked onto the MR units imply that the prevailing rents need to be that much higher for the project to pencil. It also bakes in more inequality.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes
the Mission can support higher %s *because* market-rate rents are high enough to subsidize the BMR. So if you wanted higher %s in Oakland, one might have to wait for rents to get high enough for those %s to pencil if they're otherwise not feasible. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/06/22/sf-strux-2017-residential-real-estate-mission.html …pic.twitter.com/g2Gbfqnjen
-
-
that has to be communicated to the public. Do they want a higher % of deed-restricted units if that means they have to wait for the entire rental market to rise to the price level that can then finance/subsidize that %? Are they OK with the consequences of that if that means
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
newcomers have to be richer and richer by definition to pay those rents... that then enable the production of those BMR units?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - 4 more replies
New conversation -
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.