[abeppu]

> The builder’s remedy says that noncompliant cities must allow housing at any density and any height, anywhere in the city, as long as at least 20% of the new homes are affordable.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/opinion/openforum/article/builde...

For most places in the Bay Area, is there an existing affordability percentage requirement? How much of an increase is this? I'm not a development/construction insider, but a quick search pulls up a claim that builders often are in the range of 10-20% gross profit. Does a 20% affordable unit requirement swing a normal project to being unprofitable, even if cities can't block it for zoning reasons?

https://buildbook.co/blog/home-builders-profit-margin

[jeffbee]

20% IZ is usually a show-stopper when combined with height and FAR limits but the idea is that there must be some point in the solution space that works with 20% IZ.

San Francisco has IZ set at between 20 and 33% depending on the project and this is widely seen as a blanket anti-development policy.

[celestialcheese]

20% was a showstopper when cities could drag things out for 10 years with red-tape and consultant hell.

Now it could be doable with a lot of that red tape is gone.

[Karrot_Kream]

Most cities in the Bay with IZ have close to 10% with a few close to 20%. Indeed, 20% IZ only usually works in high income areas where the market rate for housing is high enough to make the affordable unit requirements profitable. Most Builder's Remedy housing will therefore be proposed in high income areas.