3 ms·
Your primary source appears to be the San Francisco Business Times. Kim actually supported inclusionary housing "up to the maximum feasible amount analyzed by t
by 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 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.