It sounds like something that could be trivially implemented by taxing high income brackets, and directing that money into subsidized low-rent housing.
That targeted homelessness, the most urgent issue, and did so by taxing (tech) companies as opposed to wealthy individuals. More generally the approach the city uses is to negotiate with developers for affordable units as a condition of project approval. Taxing the wealthy is an interesting idea but very far from trivial.
And all that to raise a paltry $300 million a year, enough to build ~700 subsidized housing units, or a drop in the bucket.
>negotiate with developers for affordable units as a condition of project approval
A scheme in which affordable housing activists are motivated to minimize total development to preserve their negotiating leverage, and we "address the housing crisis" by encumbering development to make sure it will never catch up.
You cite no source and are grossly misinformed about prop C. It will build housing for 4k homeless with just half the budget and the rest goes to services specifically targeted at homelessness.[1]
Cost per subsidized housing unit: https://ternercenter.berkeley.edu/construction-costs-series
I presented a more optimistic view of what it could accomplish (produce 700 units a year), where your link indicates it will house 4,000 people in perpetuity. After 6 years, my “grossly misinformed” interpretation would have been a lot more bang for buck.
There are so many more than 4,000 people who struggle with housing that the framing of Prop C as some kind of victory is just bizarre. It’s like winning an increase of $5 per retiree in the pension system.
And you’ve cut the homeless out of the picture. The other half of funds is dedicated to mental health, addiction and other needed services for the homeless population. You’ve completely misunderstood the aims of Prop C.
Prop C is self evidently not enough money to duplicate every rental apartment, or even half of them. You’re really unlikely to find that much tax revenue anywhere. But you’ll easily find that much private capital ready to build market rate projects with BMR set asides, if it’s allowed to.
This is a token effort, not a serious attempt to grapple with the problem. I’m happy for the handful of people who will be helped by it. But to the extent that it convinces others they are “on the right track” or “helping” it is doing more harm than good.
Increase the city income tax from 1.5% to 15%. You'd need around 9 $300k households, each contributing $45k, to build low-rent housing for one family.
[0] https://sf.curbed.com/2018/5/22/17380702/farrell-affordable-...