20% affordable housing from hundreds of thousands of new units is by definition better than 100% affordable housing from new construction of 0 units. SB827 mandates a minimum of 20% affordable housing from the construction it would legalize. So let's support SB827.
-
-
Replying to @johnleemk @chrsdcook and
Better for renters and massively better for the investors and speculators lining up for this gold rush.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @coolgrey @chrsdcook and
Yeah, the people whose jobs consist of building housing will benefit from legalising the construction of more housing. As a person who needs someone to build housing I'm fine with this.
1 reply 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @johnleemk @chrsdcook and
The benefits to actual construction workers are fairly limited and short-term. The benefits to investors and hedge funds and the like are massive and permit and likely to have a profound impact on the experience of "home" for many, many Californians.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @coolgrey @chrsdcook and
Other people who experience massive and profound benefits: Californians who get homes to live in. If you want to punish investors and hedge funds, there are ways to do so that don't involve banning housing construction.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @johnleemk @chrsdcook and
If you want to build housing, there are ways to do so that don't involve creating such windfalls for the wealthy and setting up a bad pattern of control of housing.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @coolgrey @johnleemk and
The current situation is a giant fucking windfall for anyone who owns existing housing in CA. It’s like someone is writing a giant 300K check to single family homeowners in SF every year.http://www.beyondchron.org/cities-tax-huge-profits-stopping-housing/ …
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @johnleemk and
Much rather have windfalls, if any, go to local families than hedge funds. But obviously we need to change the current system, which will reduce that windfall to families. I am perfectly okay with that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @coolgrey @johnleemk and
What if the hedge funds increasingly own single family homes in California? https://shelterforce.org/2015/07/29/reo_to_rental_wall_streets_latest_idea_hurts_california_communities/ … What if the real estate developers’ investors are public pension funds like
@CalPERS?https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/02/06/exclusive-costs-are-stalling-anew-soma-housing.html …2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @johnleemk and
This is actually a real issue and gets at the inadequacy of the "SFH" language. We need a way to distinguish clearly between investment property and homes.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Primary and secondary residence. Shouldn’t get tax benefits if it’s not a primary residence.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @johnleemk and
The whole model of housing is just f--ked. I can't seen any realistic way of reconciling "housing is a right" with housing as an investment opportunity.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @coolgrey @johnleemk and
No and sorry, America is literally built on this principle of the sanctity of property rights and property rights being a core part of its version of democracy. That’s not changing anytime soon. So you have to work around it or at least mitigate it.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like - 10 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.