Lol Nathaniel acts like the org he works for, which transitioned into being a real estate developer, isn’t looking out for its own budget.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
But your organization does participate in political theater in exchange for concessions in citywide affordable housing. That’s what it does. I think parts of it are positive, but I think the concessions in the Mission, which is extremely well organized come at the expense of
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Could you have gotten more than $50M if the neighborhood had allowed more mixed-income projects or if Progs hadn’t defunded the neighborhood’s sole affordable housing developer a decade or so ago after that board fight?
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
the difference I would have is that you might think the Mission isn’t fully gentrified and I think it basically looks like this & the neighborhoods that could proactively be protected as diverse are in the East Bay, but not if SF screws them like the peninsula screwed SF.pic.twitter.com/JjZHbMsNO0
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
So the East Bay’s tenant communities should just be destroyed as regional population inevitably grows instead? Are you no market rate housing anywhere in the Mission? Or under what circumstances are you accepting of mixed-income development and where?
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.