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 https://twitter.com/SonjaTrauss/status/1253212176250109954

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.