Does YimbyAction.org support the 'inclusionary housing' permitting requirement cited in above article? (Based on the site, certainly seems so.)
The article describes these mechanisms as the "800-pound gorilla" in what makes development in SF unaffordable (and therefore economically unviable), so having trouble aligning this advocacy with the root cause of the housing shortage.
Exactly. Study makes a huge assumption that low earned income means the recipient is poor. Investment only income isn't "earned" income, unreported income isn't earned income -- both are probably good targets audits.
Simply pointing out that NIMBY/no builders aren't the sole or even dominate factor of 'Why America can't build.' Or rather, special interest groups who seek to impose their will on public infrastructure excerpt their own form of Nimbyism -- they block development until it conforms to their interests. One can certainly argue the merits or determents of any of this advocacy, but as you state... it makes the outcome harder to achieve.
This won't be popular, but special interests play a far greater role in the chilling affect for modern urban infrastructure than the so called "NIMBYs" do...
. Want to build a new housing complex? How many of the units are earmarked for 'affordable' housing, and you've got to have solar
. Building a new bridge? Better ensure at least one lane is pedestrianized so that that <1% of potential traffic can use it as well
. Want to extend public transit? Maybe, but you can't raise prices as it might affect the poor
. Want to build a park? Will it be fully ADA compliant so everyone can enjoy it.
. Want to install a sidewalk on a roadway? Have you also allocated space for a fully protected bike lane... can't get started without that.