It’s going to take decades to slow or reverse global warming, so why bother?https://twitter.com/scott_wiener/status/992792083168555008 …
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler
Terrible analogy. Global warming poses an existential threat to our ability as a species to survive on this planet; whereas the affordability crisis does not. It’s just a symptom of the over concentration of tech venture capital in San Francisco.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Enneahedron @kimmaicutler
Whereas a housing crisis only poses a threat to those without secure housing? Cool.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @sshconnection @kimmaicutler
There’s plenty of housing for YIMBY ideologues in libertarian utopia’s like Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee. If you can’t afford what the market is asking for in the SF Bay Area, then you need to move to an area that’s in your price range. The sense of entitlement ...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Enneahedron @kimmaicutler
Shutting the door to a generation looking to pursue careers and have families in San Francisco because you don’t care for having additional apartments in the city is the truely entitled position here.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @sshconnection @kimmaicutler
I’m not shutting the door on anyone. It’s the free-market that’s shutting the door on you. The affordability crisis is directly correlated with the influx and over-concentration of tech venture capital in SF. Your meager tech salary can’t compete with your vc overlords IPO stock.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Enneahedron @kimmaicutler
Ok cool, so you’re ok if we build a lot more apartments then, right?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sshconnection @kimmaicutler
I am for building more apartments - if and only if- the majority of them are affordable to middle and low-income families. However, I’m certainly not in favor of tearing up the city to build more luxury condos for white-collar tech workers. Trickle-down-housing is a fiction.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Enneahedron @sshconnection
It costs $300,000 per unit in taxpayer subsidy to build a new unit that is accessible to a middle-income earning household in SF bc construction costs are so high and the shortage is so bad now. So if you’re willing to pay the taxes for it, sure.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @kimmaicutler @sshconnection
And building more market-rate housing is not going to bring any of those costs down so long as there is an insatiable demand to live in SF, which there already was prior to tech boom 2.0! Within the context of affordability in SF, supply and demand does not apply.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Ok well we can sit here as homes continue to get less affordable at a rate of 12-15% a year and not let any new people in. That’s fine.
-
-
Replying to @kimmaicutler @sshconnection
False dichotomy. We’re not just sitting around. Affordable housing is getting built at record levels along with market-rate housing (4500 units in the past year) and people will continue to move here (10,000 to SF in 2017) because it’s one of the most desirable places to live.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 4 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.