How does that work in a way that someone that really needs the affordable unit gets it, versus, say, a thrifty young (well paid) engineer?
Are they held back only for people with HUD vouchers or something? Or is "affordable" just a relative term?
Asking because I've never lived somewhere like SFO.
There's often a weird negotiation/ battle that goes on between developers and the city over what percent of units in a new building ate affordable vs market rate. It has nothing to do with them being small or Spartan or anything like that, and everything to do with income requirements and rent caps put on them
I actually studied housing issues in college because I was pursuing a BS with a concentration in housing as I wanted to be an urban planner. I am fully aware of the fact that the term is used that way in some situations and stated so in my comment. But, I write a fair amount about affordable housing and that isn't how I use it.
Good communication starts with context. This is the internet. It is not San Francisco.
In most places in SF, the resistance comes when housing is being replaced and/or the developer doesn’t want to build low-income units (instead preferring to donate to the low-income housing fund). It’s not a clean story.
In SF, the resistance often seems centered on the idea that however much subsidized housing the developer proposes isn't enough for the interest groups fighting it. Often the push is for 100% subsidized, plus assorted "community benefit" donations to non-profits.
Jesus Christ, you wouldn't believe the opposition to it. The preschool next door will be shaded for 2 more hours! The proposed mural doesn't align with the community.
Unbelievable! This would bring another 90 units to the Mission with 15 of them for low income residents.
To be honest, people like to extol the virtues of Bay Area liberalism, but to me the housing policy in the Bay is one of the most systematic (and regulated) form of prejudice. Cities like SF are losing their minorities, their middle class, all to fatten the paycheck of existing landowners. Almost the entire black population has emptied out of SF. It's one of the most pervasive form of class discrimination I've seen.
If you are a home owner or landlord, reduced supply results in asset appreciation.
If you are a renter with rent control, then building more housing in your neighborhood may not seem like much of a benefit either.
Policy makers are always looking for piecemeal solutions, e.g. let's give teachers a rental subsidy, tweak the % of affordable housing that must be build, etc.
Lawmakers really need to create incentives so incumbents have a reason to want more housing.
Almost the entire black population has emptied out of SF.
https://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/6/13189882/1296-shotwell-affor...
No it isn't. No one is seriously proposing knocking down N affordable units unless they're also including N+X affordable units + M luxury units in the new structure. Any such plan would be a massive waste of time because it has zero chance of being approved.
This article is addressing protesters against "The monster in the mission!!!!1" who marched against replacing an empty warehouse and a Burger King with 16 stories of housing. It is also addressing people like Dwyer who thought they were untouchable and important enough to work against building more housing without suffering any consequences.
I've noticed some attitudes starting to shift out in Sunset as lifetime SF residents find their kids coming home from college or getting married, yet being forced to live hours away. Suddenly the anti-development stance is less attractive when it means never seeing your grandkids.
Ultimately I don't think the Bay Area can muster the political will to solve the housing problem. Too many people benefit from eternally-rising housing costs or have a "screw you, I got mine" attitude. The state government will have to step in and remove local zoning control.