yeah, the modern Bay Area groups started around 2014. I published this piece around then: https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/sf-housing/ …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
@hanlonbt & others, while understanding the need for tenants' rights groups, realized none of the traditionally, older lefty groups really had any good answers for how to handle population growth beyond keeping tenants in place (which is necessary but not sufficient)1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
there were also strange alliances between largely homeowner-controlled neighborhood groups and these tenant orgs that prevented the production of new housing dating back to the 1970s/80s.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
every economic cycle, Bay Area housing values have basically doubled in value. Housing used to be 3-4X median incomes in the late 1970s, now they're 10X+. https://www.paragon-re.com/trend/3-recessions-2-bubbles-and-a-baby …pic.twitter.com/BcgTJDtFNf
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
the Bay Area used to produce a lot of housing in the mid-20th century. it was an upward engine of mobility for people moving from the rest of the US. But this stopped in the 1970s as the flatlands were built out & neighborhoods organized to downzone.pic.twitter.com/s4Vt2tc9TU
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
then homevoters chose to cap their own property taxes through Proposition 13 in 1978, and then this tax benefit effectively got priced into value the of real estate. (It's also inheritable). http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3497 …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
it altered municipal finance too. So cities make more net tax revenue by approving office space, rather than housing.http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-small-city-controls-big-housing-project-20170728-story.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
Cities love office space, bc you get tax revenue but don't have to pay for services like schools/fire/police for residents. This is why San Jose is working with Google to bring 20,000 jobs downtown, why the Central SOMA plan might have 40K jobs but only 7K housing units.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
California cities also have many financial structural liabilities they need to cover. SF has $5.7B in unfunded pension liabilities. Berkeley has $650M, Palo Alto has a billion. So they need to attract things that produce tax $ to pay these off.https://calmatters.org/articles/california-retirement-pension-debt-explainer/ …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
but of course, building lots of office and no housing is terrible for affordability.pic.twitter.com/uttlzG7qKd
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
this is a central dilemma for housing policy in America. We want housing to be both a good investment and be broadly affordable (which is impossible!)http://cityobservatory.org/housing-cant-be-a-good-investment-and-affordable/ …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
You can't have residential real estate appreciating at roughly 7% a year while having stagnating median wages, without a lot of people falling out of the bottom! https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/files/wp2017-25.pdf …
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @itsa_talia and
but Americans don't really want to address this contradiction. They want to do half-assed things. In SF, people created inclusionary housing policy to make new market-rate construction fund below-market rate housing (which is certainly better than exclusionary zoning)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 9 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.