Anonymous user
SB827: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
imported>Tmccormick No edit summary |
||
Line 58:
@Hyper_lexic<br/> I think it might go too far in the reach - minimum 45’ zoning on current residential side streets would be a real shock.<br/>
=== Could lead to demolition and displacement in low-income areas ===
Line 67 ⟶ 68:
Shane Phillips @shanedphillips [https://twitter.com/shanedphillips/status/950938801181925377 7:54 PM - 9 Jan 2018]<br/> "What would be a smart anti-displacement or displacement mitigation policy to integrate into #SB827? Recognizing that abundant housing is the most effective broad-based anti-displacement strategy, I think there's space for targeted mitigations too."
*Give housing vouchers to anyone evicted for redevelopment. I like this policy because it's automatically means-tested and provides immediate relief. (also suggested by @MarketUrbanism
*Require 1 for 1 replacement of rent stabilized units with affordable units. Problem there is that it doesn't necessarily serve the people actually evicted.
*Residents displaced by redevelopment should have preferential placement in any affordable units built by [https://twitter.com/hashtag/SB827?src=hash <s>#</s>'''SB827''']. Can't really do this with affordable projects funded by state/fed money, but maybe it's possible with private projects?
<br/> Ethan Elkin. "Mitigating Displacement Of Low-Income Renters From New Transit-Oriented Housing." January 9, 2018.<br/>
=== Upzoing could create pressure for less well-off homeowners to sell and relocate. ===
| |||