Can you help me understand why she changed her position on SB827 and held rallies opposing 827? She says she is "not against housing & this is not the right way to build". Her actions prove different. I have not seen any solutions from her. She is not building enough to compensate for the growing economy.
Like @raldi notes any apartments -- of any height ! -- are illegal to build in 78.6% of SF: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ . what are her solutions to fix this then?
Ed Lee proposed a plan a while back to not base business tax on what we pay our employees but to look at company's revenue/sales amount, and sector. For example schools would have a lower business tax.
He also proposed instead of a flat tax, it would be progressive like income tax. Larger companies would pay a higher effective rate than small ones in the same sector but the Board of Supervisors didn't approve.
The City of SF has trust of over $24 billion and also administers a defined benefit retirement plan for ~65,000 current & retired employees of SF. And the President of the Retirement board who manages 24 Billion I believe is not someone from Goldman or finance background but a police officer?
SF priorities: Get electric bikes and scooters out of SF but create an unsafe city and homeless to walk around naked and dropping their poop and needles everywhere is okay
But she changed her position and held rallies opposing 827 saying allowing more housing near public transportation was not the answer nor going vertical. She says “we are not against housing" and "this is not the right way to build” but her actions prove different. I have not seen any solutions from her
Like @raldi notes any apartments -- of any height ! -- are illegal to build in 78.6% of SF: http://sfzoning.deapthoughts.com/ . what are her solutions to fix this then?