Youve done it for the conservator of music and youve done it with other tenant cases, unjust cases that were presented to you. This is, again, another speculator that has taken advantage of a house that was occupied by longterm tenants as you know, these types of homes are usually anywhere between 14 to 25 cheaper. And when they come in the market, theyre usually snagged by a speculator that knows he or she could buy them much cheaper than other comparable homes and dwellings and then they get busy with getting rid of their tenants. This particular speculator has paid 1. 1 million for this home. And, as you can see on the permit application, he is going to be paying 440,000 to turn this very modest unit that has been occupied by the elderly couple for the past 29 years,s to a 30,000 square foot luxury palace of fine arts and 700 square foot little unit or a. D. U. , whatever you want to call it in the back of the garage. How much do you think he stands to gain after this . Were talking
We realised the n. B. S dont like inclusionary. That is one thing. But from a technical standpoint, that was very well vetted. It was run by the City Controllers Office by ted rosenfield and ted egan. They had four. Four consultants. One followup piece is specific to the fees to make them as much as possible equivalent to the cost of doing the onsite affordable which was set in the previous round of feasibility. This is a equivalency analysis which is down in the weeds. They concluded that a week and a half ago and that is what will be coming forward in more trailing legislation to button that up. Were not reopening a large policy or ideological conversation about inclusionary housing. Were truly going to get down into the details to make it work right. Simultaneously, were very involved in a much more serious conversation about Construction Costs, which are going through the roof. This whole thing about throwing inclusionary under the bus because it is a convenient target doesnt have