5 ms·
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 201
by 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 agoYour 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 agoI 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.