Josh Hawn🚰🔰
@josh.hawn.xyz
he/him Let’s rearrange the distribution of power and disturb the expectations of people who have assumed a continuity of privileges. 🚲🚰🔰
To be fair, the first third of the flyer is literally:
“IN 2020, SAN FRANCISCO VOTERS PASSED A TRANSFER TAX ON PROPERTIES WORTH OVER $10 MILLION DOLLARS. WE WERE TOLD THE MONEY WOULD FUND A SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM”
and so starts out like it’s complaining about the ballot campaign from 5 years ago.
“IN 2020, SAN FRANCISCO VOTERS PASSED A TRANSFER TAX ON PROPERTIES WORTH OVER $10 MILLION DOLLARS. WE WERE TOLD THE MONEY WOULD FUND A SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM”
and so starts out like it’s complaining about the ballot campaign from 5 years ago.
November 26, 2025 at 4:38 AM
To be fair, the first third of the flyer is literally:
“IN 2020, SAN FRANCISCO VOTERS PASSED A TRANSFER TAX ON PROPERTIES WORTH OVER $10 MILLION DOLLARS. WE WERE TOLD THE MONEY WOULD FUND A SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM”
and so starts out like it’s complaining about the ballot campaign from 5 years ago.
“IN 2020, SAN FRANCISCO VOTERS PASSED A TRANSFER TAX ON PROPERTIES WORTH OVER $10 MILLION DOLLARS. WE WERE TOLD THE MONEY WOULD FUND A SOCIAL HOUSING PROGRAM”
and so starts out like it’s complaining about the ballot campaign from 5 years ago.
The units that get built should be leased *at cost* (this helps drive down market rents overall) and the cost assistance program can of course be used to aid in their affordability, just like any other unit.
November 25, 2025 at 9:57 PM
The units that get built should be leased *at cost* (this helps drive down market rents overall) and the cost assistance program can of course be used to aid in their affordability, just like any other unit.
Either way, I think it's worth taking a multi-pronged approach here. Bond against the revenue to get a few Billion dollars to start building ASAP. At the same time, use remaining revenue to fund the kind of cost assistance program I described above.
November 25, 2025 at 9:57 PM
Either way, I think it's worth taking a multi-pronged approach here. Bond against the revenue to get a few Billion dollars to start building ASAP. At the same time, use remaining revenue to fund the kind of cost assistance program I described above.
Yes, SF could build social housing, but I am not confident in the City's ability to do so in a timely manner. How long would it take to build 10,000 households vs just using the money immediately to aid 10,000 households?
November 25, 2025 at 9:57 PM
Yes, SF could build social housing, but I am not confident in the City's ability to do so in a timely manner. How long would it take to build 10,000 households vs just using the money immediately to aid 10,000 households?
Even if those new housing units cost more than the median rent, there is empirical evidence that it lowers the median rent overall. Keep doing this and that same $200M of Prop I revenue can go further and help even more households.
November 25, 2025 at 8:34 PM
Even if those new housing units cost more than the median rent, there is empirical evidence that it lowers the median rent overall. Keep doing this and that same $200M of Prop I revenue can go further and help even more households.
This requires lowering the typical market price of rents throughout the city. That requires increasing the supply of housing units throughout the city. The city can accomplish this by making it easier for more housing to be built.
November 25, 2025 at 8:34 PM
This requires lowering the typical market price of rents throughout the city. That requires increasing the supply of housing units throughout the city. The city can accomplish this by making it easier for more housing to be built.
Let's suppose the average recipient household got $1,800 per month. The Prop I revenue would cover ~9,260 or 2.5% of households. If revenue doesn't change, the only way we can expand the program to more households is to decrease the price of rent that needs to be subsidized.
November 25, 2025 at 8:34 PM
Let's suppose the average recipient household got $1,800 per month. The Prop I revenue would cover ~9,260 or 2.5% of households. If revenue doesn't change, the only way we can expand the program to more households is to decrease the price of rent that needs to be subsidized.
let's do some math use a round number of $200M per year. Assuming we put that revenue into a lottery system where the city will pay a household the difference between median rent and 30% of their income (best way to get direct help now to the most people now), how many households would that help?
November 25, 2025 at 8:34 PM
let's do some math use a round number of $200M per year. Assuming we put that revenue into a lottery system where the city will pay a household the difference between median rent and 30% of their income (best way to get direct help now to the most people now), how many households would that help?
I don't want to speak for Jane, but I think she would support a reformed special tax: progressive rates with lower threshold and calculate it on a per-unit basis so that it doesn't target more-affordable apartment buildings or discourage their development.
November 25, 2025 at 8:04 PM
I don't want to speak for Jane, but I think she would support a reformed special tax: progressive rates with lower threshold and calculate it on a per-unit basis so that it doesn't target more-affordable apartment buildings or discourage their development.
"SOCIAL HOUSING IS MIXED INCOME, PUBLICLY OWNED, AND AFFORDABLE"
They have been inconsistent about this definition, too.
They have been inconsistent about this definition, too.
November 25, 2025 at 5:05 PM
"SOCIAL HOUSING IS MIXED INCOME, PUBLICLY OWNED, AND AFFORDABLE"
They have been inconsistent about this definition, too.
They have been inconsistent about this definition, too.
some folks in computer graphics might use it ... I know there's a way to calculate the cross product of two 3D vectors using the determinant but it's such a simple operation that probably nobody really thinks about it in those terms.
November 24, 2025 at 8:57 PM
some folks in computer graphics might use it ... I know there's a way to calculate the cross product of two 3D vectors using the determinant but it's such a simple operation that probably nobody really thinks about it in those terms.
The City of Industry with it's tiny population but huge amount of commercial and industrial parcels really messes with this metric.
November 24, 2025 at 8:08 PM
The City of Industry with it's tiny population but huge amount of commercial and industrial parcels really messes with this metric.
True, but NYC’s Citi Bike growth alone eclipses BayWheels’ total ridership!
November 24, 2025 at 4:31 PM
True, but NYC’s Citi Bike growth alone eclipses BayWheels’ total ridership!
“when legacy-verified commentators who were once seen as centrist or neutral gradually adopt right-wing argumentative styles, narratives, or antagonisms because those behaviours generate more engagement, status, and attention on X/Twitter.”
November 24, 2025 at 5:15 AM
“when legacy-verified commentators who were once seen as centrist or neutral gradually adopt right-wing argumentative styles, narratives, or antagonisms because those behaviours generate more engagement, status, and attention on X/Twitter.”
I had to install my own bidet ffs 😭
November 23, 2025 at 4:26 PM
I had to install my own bidet ffs 😭
Would you believe that my “Luxury Townhome” doesn’t even have crown molding?! Smh
November 23, 2025 at 3:37 PM
Would you believe that my “Luxury Townhome” doesn’t even have crown molding?! Smh
Cool. Do they have this broken down for different metros?
November 23, 2025 at 6:11 AM
Cool. Do they have this broken down for different metros?
“Affordable Housing” is used semantically to mean either:
- per legal definition, monthly costs not not 30% of a households income.
- something more subjective, depending on the person.
Meanwhile, “more-affordable” clearly means “less expensive than it currently is.”
- per legal definition, monthly costs not not 30% of a households income.
- something more subjective, depending on the person.
Meanwhile, “more-affordable” clearly means “less expensive than it currently is.”
November 21, 2025 at 3:52 AM
“Affordable Housing” is used semantically to mean either:
- per legal definition, monthly costs not not 30% of a households income.
- something more subjective, depending on the person.
Meanwhile, “more-affordable” clearly means “less expensive than it currently is.”
- per legal definition, monthly costs not not 30% of a households income.
- something more subjective, depending on the person.
Meanwhile, “more-affordable” clearly means “less expensive than it currently is.”
> I’ve also learned to really love new cuisine.
If Darrell can change, so can NIMBYs.
If Darrell can change, so can NIMBYs.
November 20, 2025 at 4:27 PM
> I’ve also learned to really love new cuisine.
If Darrell can change, so can NIMBYs.
If Darrell can change, so can NIMBYs.
What do you think of the idea of having multiple people representing a single district with proportional representation? What if it were Engardio, Mar, and some 3rd person? What if D5 were Mahmood, you, and some 3rd person?
November 14, 2025 at 7:17 AM
What do you think of the idea of having multiple people representing a single district with proportional representation? What if it were Engardio, Mar, and some 3rd person? What if D5 were Mahmood, you, and some 3rd person?