"SB 827 only promoted the kind of housing we DON'T need- luxury towers that gentrify, further inflate real estate prices, and undermine our power to negotiate community benefits like affordable housing and funding for transit." -@TenantsUnionSF #SB827 https://www.facebook.com/AdamKimSF/posts/209513919645468 …
-
-
Replying to @AdamKimSF @TenantsUnionSF
45 feet is not a tower. Please stop deliberately misleading people.
1 reply 2 retweets 27 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @TenantsUnionSF
The quote mentions luxury housing, gentrification, artificial real estate inflation, lost community benefits, and your biggest issue is a technicality on height?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Some people in SF want to preserve their precious skyline or their unique aesthetic. I'm no NIMBY. Build skyscrapers if you want, but do it environmentally smart, affordable for low & middle classes, & without displacing communities.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
#SB827 gave real estate brokers & developers a free ticket to build more without doing a thing for affordability in SF. Do you think corporate interests like that would care about any of those with that kind of limit removal?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamKimSF @TenantsUnionSF
A) it did not override local inclusionary regulations. So whatever % was in place that a city already approved, that would apply to any 827 project. And B) is a city did not have an inclusionary requirement, 827 imposed one — which would’ve been the largest scale inclusionary
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Program in the state’s history of it had passed.
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.