4 ms·

This article is a bit unfair to Kim and Leno. It says they are "cooler" on housing than Breed, but that's not really accurate. They all want more housing. The p

This article is a bit unfair to Kim and Leno. It says they are "cooler" on housing than Breed, but that's not really accurate. They all want more housing. The policy difference is over how hard to negotiate with developers for working class housing. The only quote from Kim is this: "If I’m going to give you ten additional storeys, I’m going to want you to increase your middle-income housing programme." You can debate whether a purely free market approach will address this effectively, but it's inaccurate to characterize fighting hardest for low- and middle-income housing now as a "cooler approach". Cities need housing for service industry workers -- especially as more professionals move in.

raldi 8y ago
The problem is, Kim doesn't seek to maximize below-market-rate units produced -- she instead seeks to maximize the percent of all units produced that are below-market-rate. In other words, given a choice between building 1,000 market-rate units and 200 BMR, or building 100 market-rate units and 100 BMR, she'll pick the latter.
- abalone 8y ago
  Do you have a source for that claim? She claims to have "negotiated and won more affordable and middle-income housing than any city legislator."[1] [1] http://kalw.org/post/mayoral-candidate-jane-kim-takes-affordable-housing-crisis http://kalw.org/post/mayoral-candidate-jane-kim-takes-afford...
  - raldi 8y ago
    See, for example, <https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2016/01/s-f-affordable-housing-jane-kim-developers.html> https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/20..., which refers to "Supervisor Jane Kim's proposed ballot measure that would more than double the amount of affordable housing that every market-rate project over 25 units has to provide" and how "it would destroy the businesses of both market-rate and affordable developers", and yet, "Kim is standing by her proposal". As predicted by the city economist, after this passed we saw a huge drop in the production of both BMR and market-rate units: https://medium.com/yes-in-my-blog-yes/the-25-inclusionary-rate-is-killing-affordable-housing-db143c4abd31 https://medium.com/yes-in-my-blog-yes/the-25-inclusionary-ra...
    - abalone 8y ago
      Your example is from 2016. She ended up compromising at 18%.[1] It doesn't support your characterization. In her district she's facilitated the most new housing construction by a long shot. Your second citation is anonymously written and of questionable quality -- check the comments. [1] https://hoodline.com/2017/05/supervisors-reach-compromise-on-affordable-housing-mandates https://hoodline.com/2017/05/supervisors-reach-compromise-on...
      - raldi 8y ago
        Not exactly. "Under the agreement, the 18 percent rental level will be in effect until January 2018, when it will rise to 19 percent, and then 20 percent in 2019. The condo requirement would rise to 21 percent in 2018 and 22 percent in 2019." "A study by the city controller found that a rate higher than 18 percent would likely slow housing production and reduce the amount of subsidies for affordable units." "Even with the reduction, the levels are the highest concessions required for affordable housing among any major city in the United States." "Peskin and Kim had pushed for a 24 percent requirement" "To date, only two single-building projects without public subsidies have agreed to 25 percent affordable housing" https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/05/18/sf-affordable-housing-compromise-development.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/05/18/sf-...
        abalone 8y ago
        Your primary source appears to be the San Francisco Business Times. Kim actually supported inclusionary housing "up to the maximum feasible amount analyzed by the controller," not beyond it.[1] And none of that supports your exaggerated claim that Kim would prefer 100 units over 1,000 units. She's overseen the construction of the most housing in the city. [1] https://48hills.org/2017/03/real-facts-affordable-housing-debate/ https://48hills.org/2017/03/real-facts-affordable-housing-de...
        buss 8y ago
        I did a secondary analysis, which you can see here: https://github.com/sbuss/sf-planning-pipeline/blob/master/New%20Pipeline.ipynb https://github.com/sbuss/sf-planning-pipeline/blob/master/Ne... -- scroll down to "Break down by project type" which shows how the category of housing that Jane Kim's Prop C affects has cratered, while the other categories are stable or growing. Even 18% (now 19%) can't be done at the majority of parcels in the city. I guess it's fine for SOMA, which has the highest land values and transit connectivity of any part of the city, but it doesn't work elsewhere.
closeparen 8y ago
Kim’s position is that the city isn’t currently driving a hard enough bargain - that restrictions should be tightened to allow even less construction than the status quo. No one is proposing public funding on a level that would build the hundreds of thousands of homes needed. It’s not a choice between a public and free-market solution. It’s a choice between setting a different goal for the regulatory climate (maximize units vs. preserve small-town character) and implementing token feel-good measures that help a couple thousand people at most.

raldi 8y ago

The problem is, Kim doesn't seek to maximize below-market-rate units produced -- she instead seeks to maximize the percent of all units produced that are below-market-rate. In other words, given a choice between building 1,000 market-rate units and 200 BMR, or building 100 market-rate units and 100 BMR, she'll pick the latter.

abalone 8y ago
Do you have a source for that claim? She claims to have "negotiated and won more affordable and middle-income housing than any city legislator."[1] [1] http://kalw.org/post/mayoral-candidate-jane-kim-takes-affordable-housing-crisis http://kalw.org/post/mayoral-candidate-jane-kim-takes-afford...
- raldi 8y ago
  See, for example, <https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/2016/01/s-f-affordable-housing-jane-kim-developers.html> https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/blog/real-estate/20..., which refers to "Supervisor Jane Kim's proposed ballot measure that would more than double the amount of affordable housing that every market-rate project over 25 units has to provide" and how "it would destroy the businesses of both market-rate and affordable developers", and yet, "Kim is standing by her proposal". As predicted by the city economist, after this passed we saw a huge drop in the production of both BMR and market-rate units: https://medium.com/yes-in-my-blog-yes/the-25-inclusionary-rate-is-killing-affordable-housing-db143c4abd31 https://medium.com/yes-in-my-blog-yes/the-25-inclusionary-ra...
  - abalone 8y ago
    Your example is from 2016. She ended up compromising at 18%.[1] It doesn't support your characterization. In her district she's facilitated the most new housing construction by a long shot. Your second citation is anonymously written and of questionable quality -- check the comments. [1] https://hoodline.com/2017/05/supervisors-reach-compromise-on-affordable-housing-mandates https://hoodline.com/2017/05/supervisors-reach-compromise-on...
    - raldi 8y ago
      Not exactly. "Under the agreement, the 18 percent rental level will be in effect until January 2018, when it will rise to 19 percent, and then 20 percent in 2019. The condo requirement would rise to 21 percent in 2018 and 22 percent in 2019." "A study by the city controller found that a rate higher than 18 percent would likely slow housing production and reduce the amount of subsidies for affordable units." "Even with the reduction, the levels are the highest concessions required for affordable housing among any major city in the United States." "Peskin and Kim had pushed for a 24 percent requirement" "To date, only two single-building projects without public subsidies have agreed to 25 percent affordable housing" https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/05/18/sf-affordable-housing-compromise-development.html https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/05/18/sf-...
      - abalone 8y ago
        Your primary source appears to be the San Francisco Business Times. Kim actually supported inclusionary housing "up to the maximum feasible amount analyzed by the controller," not beyond it.[1] And none of that supports your exaggerated claim that Kim would prefer 100 units over 1,000 units. She's overseen the construction of the most housing in the city. [1] https://48hills.org/2017/03/real-facts-affordable-housing-debate/ https://48hills.org/2017/03/real-facts-affordable-housing-de...
        buss 8y ago
        I did a secondary analysis, which you can see here: https://github.com/sbuss/sf-planning-pipeline/blob/master/New%20Pipeline.ipynb https://github.com/sbuss/sf-planning-pipeline/blob/master/Ne... -- scroll down to "Break down by project type" which shows how the category of housing that Jane Kim's Prop C affects has cratered, while the other categories are stable or growing. Even 18% (now 19%) can't be done at the majority of parcels in the city. I guess it's fine for SOMA, which has the highest land values and transit connectivity of any part of the city, but it doesn't work elsewhere.

closeparen 8y ago

Kim’s position is that the city isn’t currently driving a hard enough bargain - that restrictions should be tightened to allow even less construction than the status quo. No one is proposing public funding on a level that would build the hundreds of thousands of homes needed. It’s not a choice between a public and free-market solution. It’s a choice between setting a different goal for the regulatory climate (maximize units vs. preserve small-town character) and implementing token feel-good measures that help a couple thousand people at most.