I’ve done threads on this before and will grab sources if folks want them, but only a small % of calls for service to fire rescue departments are actually fires.

Something like 1 - 5% depending on department.

This coincides with the substantial decline in structure fires over the same period.

NFPA post: www.nfpa.org/en/news-blog...

Wildfire Prepared Home checklist: wildfireprepared.org/wp-content/u...

Nice, gonna have to check it out!

What’s it called?

…economics, culture, geography, etc. ”Make better buildings, and make sure they blend in to their surroundings” is meaningless and unworkable guidance.

Seems worth acknowledging that only upzoning corridors is suboptimal from a livability, integration, and public health standpoint. (Maybe your paper says this, didn’t see it noted in the thread.)

My understanding is that, to the extent they take soft local funds at all, for-profit developers are much better at paying back residual receipts loans.

No, but it’s an extraordinary step to forgive them in full less than 10 years after being issued, and shows that they were toxic assets from the start.

There’s no meaningful way for the public to assess the performance of the City Attorney, with the minor exception of when they sign off on an ordinance that could bankrupt the City.

Yeesh, that story is nuts. Where was the City Attorney’s Office when Council considered this item??

San Francisco's small sites preservation program is the same for what i've seen. The portfolios nonprofits have assembled of these old, small, rent controlled properties are collectively AT BEST just breaking even, which is highly risky for leveraged properties with no upside to offset that risk.

EBALDC pioneered this form of acq/preservation in Oakland and mostly regrets it, but Nikki Bas expanded it and used it to fail upwards into her Supervisor seat.

Realizing that I probably should have googled this before commenting.

I’m currently agnostic about FAR, but I wonder what its history is. Who developed it and what was its original purpose?

Money pits. $8M could have leveraged the redevelopment of those properties into new construction at 2x the density. There‘s a cost to the obsession with preservation.

Link here for other sickos: oakland.legistar.com/LegislationD...