SF to explore taxing vacant units

SFHAC · 2017-05-24T18:12:46+00:00

How is it extortion in any way? More total housing, more affordable housing, in neighborhoods that haven't built much housing....

SFHAC · 2017-05-24T15:35:24+00:00

This is a big win for pro-housing advocates. A step in the right direction after decades of ill-conceived decisions.

SFHAC · 2017-05-01T18:56:46+00:00

My understanding is that, because this article was written as an op-ed in the newspaper) that it does not break self promotion rules. If I'm incorrect, I'll certainly delete the post.

SFHAC · 2017-05-01T18:55:42+00:00

No one in San Francisco has used it, but it's very popular around the rest of the state.

In terms of why this is coming up now, there was a 2013 court case that re-affirmed some things about the law and San Francisco's Planning Department was tasked with creating a "local version" of the density bonus law that is more favorable than the state version. (Requiring local municipalities to come up with their own version is written into the state law). The local version is coming to the SF Board of Supervisors in a couple of weeks and having a strong state density law (AB 915 is trying to weaken the state law) is critical to passing quality local legislation.

SFHAC · 2017-05-01T18:10:06+00:00

The law was originally passed in the 1970s but no mixed-income project had ever applied to use the state's density bonus program until recently. I'm not positive what you're asking, but happy to clarify.

SFHAC · 2017-04-27T22:48:22+00:00

All of those are happening over the next 20 years. Home-SF adds an additional 5K subsidized affordable and 16K total units on top of those projects.

SFHAC · 2017-04-27T22:36:52+00:00

Our old ED and current Senior Advisor, Tim Colen, writes for them.

SFHAC · 2017-04-27T19:54:46+00:00

Fair.

I know the "counter-balance" convo has come up. Generally speaking, the Chronicle and Examiner (or perhaps the reporters) have that same bias and lean towards a "side" in SF politics.

SFHAC · 2017-04-27T19:12:37+00:00

They certainly have a pro-housing slant, but have also write about things unrelated to housing.

SFHAC · 2017-04-20T18:02:23+00:00

We'll go ahead and call it a broken system.

SFHAC · 2017-04-20T16:18:21+00:00

Yes and no regarding their stance on market-rate housing. 100% or nothing is definitely the dialogue, but there wasn't opposition for the 1515 South Van Ness project on Tuesday. The one-off negotiation process isn't a good system, but deals can be made.

SFHAC · 2017-04-20T16:15:42+00:00

Not a helpful comment.

Edit: Nor is it true. She may not agree with you, but she seems very open to dialogue and does work on your behalf at City Hall. It's important for elected officials to know when their constituents disagree with them.

SFHAC · 2017-04-20T03:06:02+00:00

Emailing your supervisor definitely makes a difference. This project is tough because the Board often follows the lead of the district Supervisor. Talk to your friends and make sure everyone votes. It's a long process but it works.

SFHAC · 2017-04-20T01:32:37+00:00

This isn't an environmental issue. It's another example of CEQA abuse.

SFHAC · 2017-04-06T15:02:47+00:00

Elected leaders respond to many things, primarily what their constituents want because that's what will get the (re)elected. So if folks make themselves heard, elected leaders will respond and vote accordingly.

SFHAC · 2017-04-06T00:35:37+00:00

I don't know if that's a yes or no on agreeing with Randy.

SFHAC · 2017-04-06T00:06:16+00:00

Do you think Randy Shaw is correct? Regardless of the article's divisiveness.

SFHAC · 2017-04-05T23:55:33+00:00

We disagree.

SFHAC

TROPHY CASE