Post

Boston’s chief planner is a true believer in the San Francisco model, in which you make it impossible to profitably build apartments by-right so developers are forced into a politicized discretionary negotiation with the city, which relaxes the rules in exchange for below-market units.

While this system does pretty effectively maximize the percentage of new apartments that are set aside as below market housing for low income people in new buildings, it does so at TREMENDOUS cost to broad housing affordability. cayimby.org/blog/califor...

Because the rents that poor people can afford are too low to pay off the cost of building new homes for them, these requirements act as a stealth tax on new housing. Taxing new homes means that only the highest-end projects get built and each subsidized unit costs tenants $800,000 in excess rent.

you're assuming that "punishing developers and wealthy homeowners" is not the *goal*

people will hear "each affordable-housing unit costs developers and renters $800,000" and think "good, this is as it should be, that's $800,000 less in the pockets of the rich"

I think we've had this conversation before, but it IS possible to strike a balance that eventually leads to a more affordable rental market with a slower increase in rents - as usual I'm talking about the Silver Spring area in MD.

This is possible by funding the IZ program. Most IZ is unfunded.

There it's funded by the county not charging any property taxes on those units plus IZ allows the property itself to be built larger than without. It seems to be a well balanced system but it takes at least a decade for the efforts to affect overall affordability once the building boom begins.

Wishes are free. If anti-affordability voices put their shoulders to the wheel on making public funding a reality, I would have more faith in their prescriptions. Not seeing it though.

In any case, SF anti-affordability advocates got their wish: affordability mandates have been cut to 5% and eliminated completely for developments of fewer than 25 units. The result will be the Manhattanization of San Francisco.

Cities should plan for class diversity, not exclusivity. Because class diversity is the lifeblood of a vital, interesting, and equitable city. A win-win for schooling, medical services, emergency services, commerce, you name it.

Is Manhattanization bad? Why or why not?