Cea Weaver

no i’m saying i just understood i think at least what was meant by short term benefit argument of “some ‘affordable units’ are better than 0”—even tho it’s not actually affordable. i’m sorry i parroted a rebny talking point, ur right. i just didn’t see it as being in support

This is a major point tho. De Blasio would agree that creating these units that are categorized as affordable is worth destroying affordability in the surrounding area. I would disagree.

yes, that’s true. it’s that housing period, even if it’s high end & unaffordable is a net positive. i can see how i was dismissive of this. i understand where you are coming from, as i disagree with that argument as well

I disagree. I certainly do not see building luxury housing as a net positive.https://twitter.com/zekeluger/status/1431836777002807296?s=21 …

no i meant that is the admin position that housing period, even if it’s high end/lux is considered a net positive. i disagree with that

but i see how i was dismissive and i’m sorry. never would mean to diss anti-displacement/anti-gentrification fight

This is exactly what I mean Sabrina! short term benefits are real BUT may sell out long term fights, and have tons of examples of this. There are lots of examples of reforms that do good things that also prop up industry (ie food stamps) and that’s real a convo to have.https://twitter.com/sabrinafbazile/status/1433902872400367622 …

I also don’t think I was really taking a strong stance! Housing vouchers for example: direct subsidy to landlords and also address homelessness