Are YIMBYs who oppose inclusionary housing “anti-housing” or do you only use that term for those who want to regulate market rate housing?
-
-
Replying to @DeanPreston @RobertGammon and
The
@SFyimby's I know support inclusionary housing as that boosts social and economic inclusion. I use "anti-housing"for those who oppose building housing, and who promote exclusionary zoning as Gammon's article describes.2 replies 0 retweets 10 likes -
Replying to @beyondchron @RobertGammon and
So does SF Yimby now officially support inclusionary? Trauss has made her opposition to inclusionary clear. And either YIMBY or BARF was the sole paid ballot arg against Prop C that increased inclusionary in SF. Has something changed?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @DeanPreston @RobertGammon and
I just checked the June 2016 ballot handbook for Prop C and Trauss did pay for a No on C argument as an individual. No YIMBY group opposed it.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @beyondchron @DeanPreston and
Even the BOS they said 25% is obviously infeasible. Currently 19% is killing the pipeline. IZ is the most problematic way to fund Affordable Housing. It's cyclical and prone to instability. Help us pass the $3B+ Affordable Housing bond in Nov. We need dedicated funding for AH.
2 replies 5 retweets 33 likes -
Replying to @NeverSassyLaura @beyondchron and
Inclusionary adds a bit of socioeconomic integration. It is not a genuine stable way to fund Affordable Housing, and it means we all waste time arguing about percentages while nothing gets built. We need to be skeptical and honest about neoliberal policies like inclusionary.
1 reply 1 retweet 26 likes -
Replying to @NeverSassyLaura @beyondchron and
I get that you think this is the next "but her emails" but I really think you've picked a losing argument. When the advocates for ever higher IZ so obviously don't care if they kill the golden goose, you lose credibility.
1 reply 0 retweets 21 likes -
Replying to @NeverSassyLaura @beyondchron and
Thanks for responses, Laura. StIll not clear: was SF YIMBY opposed to prop C? Or did Ege and Trauss go rogue on that one?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @DeanPreston @beyondchron and
Opposed. 25% inclusionary with an utter disregard for feasibility is bad policy. And has resulted in ongoing bad policy. It doesn't mean we oppose any and all inclusionary zoning. Just ones that become dumb political footballs.
4 replies 0 retweets 26 likes -
Replying to @NeverSassyLaura @DeanPreston and
The issue with Prop C wasn’t the concept of inclusionary, but the percentages. I think we made that quite clear. What did John Stuart Mill say? “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness,” et seq. Prop C’s percentages were a poison pill for supply.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I guess we'll have to wait for rents to surpass $5,000 a two-bedroom before things pencil again. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/02/06/exclusive-costs-are-stalling-anew-soma-housing.html?ana=twt …pic.twitter.com/mmti3jreOI
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.