How would a ballot measure change that?
-
-
It requires 3 bids, forcing gov to solicit more bids, not just go thru ccho.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yimbyaction @grow_sf and
That doesn't magically give aff. housing developers more capability though.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
There's a reason they partner up for bids & don't bid every project. We can talk silly reqs from MOHCD but a minimum is arbitrary.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jrivanob
If there was a ballot prop to reduce those silly regs, we'd also be for that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @yimbyaction @grow_sf
Okay but that doesn't mean supporting a minimum makes sense. Won't this delay already slow housing construction?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jrivanob
Don't think it will. Currently we only give a briefing on the pipeline to the small group of local affordable devs.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yimbyaction @grow_sf
So why not change just that? Open it up more.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jrivanob
If someone wants to submit a bs proposal that is clearly gonna lose, there's nothing to prevent that.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @yimbyaction @jrivanob
But this was a way to force the bidding process to open up. Is it necessary the best way? Probably not. But all ballot props suck.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like
We shouldn't do ANYTHING at the ballot box. But we think this is an improvement. So we're supporting it.
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.

Become a member at