"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 -
Replying to @AdamKimSF @TenantsUnionSF
Base costs for producing a unit in SF are $700-800K given $200K/unit in land costs and $400/sq ft in construction, excluding contingencies and any addl costs incurred by a long entitlements process — which still leaves 360K financing gap for SF’s median household income of $81K
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Very excited to hear your plan to convince city voters to pay $360K/unit in taxpayer subsidy that will produce more than a token number of units with lottery winning odds of less than 1%.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @TenantsUnionSF
I'm glad you agree that the amount of affordable housing in SF is nowhere close to how much we need. I believe we can do so with progressive taxation, without being an undue burden on the low & middle classes, and without handouts to corporations.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @AdamKimSF @TenantsUnionSF
SF has approved around $410M in its entire history in affordable housing bonds, which at $300K per unit in taxpayer subsidy is not that many units. The controller is reluctant to give a blessing to a larger bond bc it would delay seawall earthquake retrofit and other needs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Meanwhile, existing single-family homes have appreciated, or gotten $300K less affordable in the last year alone. We can subsidize some units, but even if we increase bond size, it will be tiny.
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.