That may have been true, but the city’s own analysis shows it isn’t true anymore, and it certainly won’t be true by the time we’ve built enough to lower market rents (yet another reason why this “simulation” is nonsense).
San Francisco simply doesn’t have that many vacant parcels of land.
Alright, this is three times you've said and been called out on the same exact lie. You're going to need to provide some sources, or at the very least some references to sources, to back up your extremely bold and most likely false claims. What specific housing is being targeted for being knocked down for which projects?
https://my.paragon-re.com/Docs/General/SixtyFortyImages/Hous...
By my math, that’s 769 legal units removed or merged between 2012 and 2015.
AKA, it happens all the time. So let’s talk about your definition of “lies”...
Many in San Francisco (and other cities) argue against this. It's certainly not universally accepted.
"The question is: “what if you have to knock down N affordable units to build M market-rate units?” This “simulation” doesn’t even come close to addressing that question."
That's because housing units are virtually never knocked down in San Francisco, so this question basically never comes up. Almost all new housing is built on warehouses, parking lots, gas stations, and so on. See my analysis of all recent housing built in the Mission District:
https://rationalconspiracy.com/2015/05/25/new-york-times-mak...