In light of the YIMBYs this week tipping their hand in attempting to no-platform tenants of color at risk of displacement due to SB827, I recommend the @antievictionmap's excellent report, "The Racial Contours of YIMBY/NIMBY Bay Area Gentrification" https://escholarship.org/uc/item/4sw2g485 …
To be concrete, if, say, the city of SF were to buy out one of those condo buildings and rent it out as 100% affordable public housing, then this map would consider it 100% “absentee homeowner” owned. But that wouldn’t be bad—in fact, it’d be an ideal outcome that we all want!
-
-
Why would city-owned housing in the city be considered absentee? The Forbes number comes from Marcus & Millichamp, a national development firm, which is uhh maybe not a more objective sourcepic.twitter.com/WFZd8YlhsU
-
Because all Tim looked at is whether the Assessor’s Office primary address for the homeowner is the unit in question (see https://48hills.org/2014/09/investigation-new-condos-arent-owned-san-francisco-residents/#comment-1908861192 …). For *any* rental property (owned by anyone, city or otherwise) that will say “absentee”.
- 3 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.
