@48hills Can someone correct me if I’m wrong? Wasn’t the developer gonna build 450 market rate units and 250 affordable units? And now instead, in the hands of city/non-profit developer, they are gonna make 200 affordable units now instead? Right?

@48hills The truth about "affordable".

@48hills Hear, hear.

@48hills You are correct about that, Mr. Redmond.

@48hills I don't believe homeowner Tim Redmond would build 82,069 public housing units.

@48hills That is literally exactly how capitalism works. Private developers will compete on the price making stuff more affordable.

@48hills It's not a question of "capitalism" or "developers". It's a question of construction cost. Packing more units into a place that already has 17k people per square mile is going to be very, very expensive. Simple solution -build where it's cheap.

@48hills It's up there with: "I just don't believe we should have them in our neighborhood. I don't hate Black people. That's not how racism works." (Psssst! If not developers who shall build it? Tim Redmond? ) That *is* how housing works. You want it? You pay someone to build it.

@48hills Obviously & ultimately, cost to build per unit matters. Maybe 48 hills thinks losing lots of money per building is how to run a sustainable business? Or perhaps they'd pitch in to work for free/low wages?

@48hills Why don’t they try to get all volunteers to build it free of labor. That might make it affordable 🤦‍♂️

@48hills 95% of all homes in California today were built by a developer for profit. Housing was affordable until we stopped making it profitable to build.

@48hills Many ways to accomplish housing goals with private/public partnerships. Too much politics and too little focus on solutions.

@48hills Well, obviously. And here is four “YIMBY” politicians protesting against increasing temporary *shelter* beds this week. They’re even more irate about low-income public housing. As always.