Calling it "centering" is itself zero sum thinking. We can welcome all sorts of people into SF, we don't have to pick. We just have to build a whole lot of housing.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I think that the current method actually exacerbates and entrenches even more inequality in the region. Inclusionary only goes so far and that’s Jane’s primary tool. But it, in combination with construction costs, now means that only “ultra-luxury” pencils and SF homes have risen
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Have risen from $1.3M to 1.6M in a single year, and then that ripples throughout the East Bay which is where much of the region’s middle and working class still lives.https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2018/04/26/construction-costs-killing-new-bay-area-housing.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
But also I think your analysis ignores how California cities and the state are basically structurally dependent on an ever wealthier set of newcomers. 50% of the property taxes are paid by people who bought in 2010 and after. The Bay pays for 40% of CA’s $95B income tax revenuepic.twitter.com/ThfbibCbmo
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
If the industry slows or reverses, the state of California sees anywhere from $40-100B of losses, which means cuts to teachers, MediCAL etc. The cities can’t raise tax revenue w/out a 2/3s vote but their obligations are rising faster than the revenue increases. SF’s budget 2Xedpic.twitter.com/1hefvXTenC
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.