4 ms·
What you’re advocating for is exactly the status quo that got SF into this mess. “Build X affordable units per Y luxury units” has been the go to line for every
by cactus2093 7y ago
What you’re advocating for is exactly the status quo that got SF into this mess. “Build X affordable units per Y luxury units” has been the go to line for every shitty NIMBY supervisor for the past 10+ years and we’ve clearly seen all it does is result in a lot less of both.
We need housing in absolute numbers, real units to fill the very real jobs to housing imbalance of 150,000 more jobs than housing units that were added to the city over the past decade. And we need real units of subsidized housing as well for those at the very bottom of the economy. What we don’t need is feel-good percentage requirements where the denominator just ends up being close to 0.
Also, so-called luxury housing is often like ~15% more expensive than the median housing price in many areas. It’s a name that makes it easy to hate on, but like it or not it is housing for real middle and upper middle class people. The amount of hate it gets, you would think we’re talking about housing for billionaires or something.
- im_down_w_otp 7y agoI'm not advocating for anything. I don't have a horse in this race. I'm just pointing out that changes in zoning alone don't tend to work to increase affordable housing supply for already high-value, desirable areas due to the inherent market incentive for a real estate developer to try to make more money by making more expensive housing units.
- fiter 7y agoPart of this is due to building codes. For example, in California, solar photovoltaic is now required on new buildings.