This is definitely a good point. Let’s think of two scenarios.
1. Stick a lot of affordable housing in building, but math works since the developer can make money selling the high priced units.
2. Increase total housing supply through less restrictive zoning, meaning more developers are building units they plan to sell at list price.
Scenario one is only possible if some people are paying too much for housing, and the people that are squeezed the most are the middle class. Scenario two probably means that the poorest group is displaced.
New York has been attempting scenario one. I’m not sure if SF has tried to accomplish either route, leading to the worst case scenario.
1. Stick a lot of affordable housing in building, but math works since the developer can make money selling the high priced units.
2. Increase total housing supply through less restrictive zoning, meaning more developers are building units they plan to sell at list price.
Scenario one is only possible if some people are paying too much for housing, and the people that are squeezed the most are the middle class. Scenario two probably means that the poorest group is displaced.
New York has been attempting scenario one. I’m not sure if SF has tried to accomplish either route, leading to the worst case scenario.