Great point by Sonja.
If you advocate for transit agencies' lands to be used for subsidized housing only and then complain about fare hikes and service cuts, this is a fiscally incoherent position.
If you prohibit transit from depending on other revenue, then they depend on fares
In an ideal world the Federal government should provide the financing we need but they don't.

Ignoring that only subsidized housing = less housing overall, housing projects including market-rate and commercial directly fund service BART and would-be Muni. Common across the world
And tbc, every development project on public agency's land should have affordable housing on it. Thats a no brainer, but that's never the debate

The debate is whether it should be affordable housing only vs affordable housing + market rate or commercial development.
You'll probably get max 150 subsidized homes on-site. Thats the base social need. If *in addition*, market-rate homes and commercial can be built--that's literal value-capture

Because developers are renting land (it's always public), their profit is put back into public transit
I would totally welcome pushback on this because if you examine regional TOD projects it has been a model for both creating additional revenue for BART and maximizing affordable housing.
You can follow @IDoTheThinking.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: