|
|
|
|
|
by offsign_p
1379 days ago
|
|
Does YimbyAction.org support the 'inclusionary housing' permitting requirement cited in above article? (Based on the site, certainly seems so.) The article describes these mechanisms as the "800-pound gorilla" in what makes development in SF unaffordable (and therefore economically unviable), so having trouble aligning this advocacy with the root cause of the housing shortage. What am I missing? |
|
More broadly, in my experience, Yimbys have mixed-to-negative opinion on inclusionary zoning since it is essentially a tax on new construction, though there are a non-trivial amount of Yimbys who think its a good way to produce subsidized housing.
I personally think we should not be taxing new projects implicitly or explicitly at all, and instead we should use property taxes (especially land value taxes) to subsidize housing either via vouchers or via publicly built housing.
The reality of the CA political system makes all of this very hard to achieve and we often find ourselves settling on taking small but achievable steps.