3 ms·

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://

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.
  - nbantique 8y ago
    Can you help me understand why she changed her position on SB827 and held rallies opposing 827? She says she is "not against housing & this is not the right way to build". Her actions prove different. I have not seen any solutions from her. She is not building enough to compensate for the growing economy. Like @raldi notes any apartments -- of any height ! -- are illegal to build in 78.6% of SF: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ . what are her solutions to fix this then?
    - abalone 8y ago
      She's approved more housing in her district than anywhere else in the city combined, so that's a little unfair. And she has answered exactly your question, if you care to take a look: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-postmortem-lets-build-housing-right-way/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-postmortem-lets-build-housi...

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.
- nbantique 8y ago
  Can you help me understand why she changed her position on SB827 and held rallies opposing 827? She says she is "not against housing & this is not the right way to build". Her actions prove different. I have not seen any solutions from her. She is not building enough to compensate for the growing economy. Like @raldi notes any apartments -- of any height ! -- are illegal to build in 78.6% of SF: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ . what are her solutions to fix this then?
  - abalone 8y ago
    She's approved more housing in her district than anywhere else in the city combined, so that's a little unfair. And she has answered exactly your question, if you care to take a look: http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-postmortem-lets-build-housing-right-way/ http://www.sfexaminer.com/sb-827-postmortem-lets-build-housi...