3 ms·

He's talking about transit being expanded, not housing footprint. More tax revenue means more money available to fund more lines from SFHs that currently exist

He's talking about transit being expanded, not housing footprint. More tax revenue means more money available to fund more lines from SFHs that currently exist elsewhere.

chrisseaton 7y ago
They're talking about a circle of multi-family homes, surrounded by single-family homes, and steadily expanding the size of the circle of multi-family homes so density increases. But it's ok because the outer circle of single-family homes becomes accessible to public transport from taxes. But as the circle of multi-family homes keeps increasing... eventually you develop the last single-family homes and hit the ocean and there's no more single-family homes. So you would lose single-family-homes.
- function_seven 7y ago
  No. He's saying the opposite. That whole blocks won't convert en masse. That individual properties within the new zones will convert to multi-tenant, and that will drive an overall density increase and more taxes, benefiting all units in the area, even the SFHs that didn't convert. If you currently own a SFH, it's entirely up to you whether the house stays that way or not. You can remain as-is, and enjoy the transit benefits that accrue from the deeper tax base.
  - burfog 7y ago
    No, the SFH owners would suffer. I know one. She is geographically in the center of San Francisco. When I visit, I simply park in front of her house. There is plenty of space on the street, free of course. Her street is quiet. It would be reasonable to stand in the street playing catch. Adding multi-tenant houses to her area would ruin it. Her street would become noisy, polluted, too crowded for parking, and too busy to play catch. There is already transit around (two different MUNI lines and two different bus routes) within walking distance. That works for the able-bodied and less-vulnerable people, which she is not. Adding more transit is no benefit to her; she can't safely use the existing transit. Property value doesn't matter to her. If she sold, where would she go? You might suggest a cheaper area, but why her instead of the other people? She has contributed to her community and wishes to continue attending her neighborhood church. She knows her way around; her mind is old and might adjust badly to new surroundings.

He's talking about transit being expanded, not housing footprint. More tax revenue means more money available to fund more lines from SFHs that currently exist elsewhere.

chrisseaton 7y ago

They're talking about a circle of multi-family homes, surrounded by single-family homes, and steadily expanding the size of the circle of multi-family homes so density increases. But it's ok because the outer circle of single-family homes becomes accessible to public transport from taxes. But as the circle of multi-family homes keeps increasing... eventually you develop the last single-family homes and hit the ocean and there's no more single-family homes. So you would lose single-family-homes.

function_seven 7y ago
No. He's saying the opposite. That whole blocks won't convert en masse. That individual properties within the new zones will convert to multi-tenant, and that will drive an overall density increase and more taxes, benefiting all units in the area, even the SFHs that didn't convert. If you currently own a SFH, it's entirely up to you whether the house stays that way or not. You can remain as-is, and enjoy the transit benefits that accrue from the deeper tax base.
- burfog 7y ago
  No, the SFH owners would suffer. I know one. She is geographically in the center of San Francisco. When I visit, I simply park in front of her house. There is plenty of space on the street, free of course. Her street is quiet. It would be reasonable to stand in the street playing catch. Adding multi-tenant houses to her area would ruin it. Her street would become noisy, polluted, too crowded for parking, and too busy to play catch. There is already transit around (two different MUNI lines and two different bus routes) within walking distance. That works for the able-bodied and less-vulnerable people, which she is not. Adding more transit is no benefit to her; she can't safely use the existing transit. Property value doesn't matter to her. If she sold, where would she go? You might suggest a cheaper area, but why her instead of the other people? She has contributed to her community and wishes to continue attending her neighborhood church. She knows her way around; her mind is old and might adjust badly to new surroundings.