Since being elected @DeanPreston “has opposed development plans and legislative proposals that could have yielded enough units to house more than 28,000 people — including enough affordable housing for nearly 8,500 people. “ sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/hea…
“That total includes his opposition to a state law that could have potentially added homes for almost 20,000 people in his district.”
when we slow roll/block housing (esp projects with a big affordable allotment) in search of some perfect lefty unicorn, it doesn’t just impact a district, or a city. SF not building housing is instrumental in the runaway price increases in the East Bay.
And while the “more dogs than kids” trope about SF ignores the city’s historic toll as gay sanctuary, a city where no families except the very rich or those with property for decades can live—its a big problem!
Role
If you make a deal to have a 100% affordable project in your district by absorbing the affordable requirement from other projects in other districts…it doesn’t help the city-wide need for more affordable units. It’s three card Monty.
Too many California politicians have their eye firmly on whatever housing message keeps their base happy. What we need are more holistic solutions. And a ton more units of all descriptions, near transit and density
If SF blocks housing, not only do we see more in houses and more families leave. Oakland gets gentrified. More people move into the wild/urban interface. Then we have Paradise. And more unhorsed people.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
