Great point by Sonja.
If you advocate for transit agencies& #39; 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 https://twitter.com/SonjaTrauss/status/1253212176250109954">https://twitter.com/SonjaTrau...

In an ideal world the Federal government should provide the financing we need but they don& #39;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& #39;s land should have affordable housing on it. Thats a no brainer, but that& #39;s never the debate

The debate is whether it should be affordable housing only vs affordable housing + market rate or commercial development.

You& #39;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& #39;s literal value-capture

Because developers are renting land (it& #39;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.