KL Ventimiglia

Housing and planning advocate | More homes, responsible growth and meaningful public accountability I Facts, context and community voice

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@otterbo54348271 “Cars, cars, cars” is a caricature, not an argument. It keeps voters focused on personal ridicule instead of looking under the hood at the SF tech and real-estate money behind Wiener’s Abundance agenda /campaign and who benefits when public safeguards are removed.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@TastelessAlex This personal attack on @paulkruegersd serves a purpose: keep young renters blaming boomers instead of examining whether the Abundance agenda will actually deliver affordability or mainly weaken the safeguards renters and communities depend on. Very sus😒 - follow the YIMBY 💵

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@CSElmendorf You add two legitimate factors: regional underproduction and litigation risk but then does exactly what the article critiques: still assign much of the blame to a labeled group (NIMBYS!!) rather than the institutions that designed and administered the system.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@mateosfo This is how scrutiny gets shut down: attach one project to GDP, climate change, wildfires and national politics until questioning it sounds immoral. More housing may be necessary. That still does not place every project beyond examination.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@laura_waxee @sfchronicle What struck me was majority of responses attacked the age and presumed motives of the people in the room while pretending the actual concerns about this project did not exist. That was not engagement. It was effort to discredit the messengers so no one had to answer the substance

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@laura_waxee @sfchronicle Younger people are right to demand more housing and affordability. But the older residents at this meeting were not opposing all housing in San Francisco. They were questioning whether this particular project is affordable, safe, properly reviewed and supported by infrastructure.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@ch3rryxx13 YIMBY-backed laws too often come with developer loopholes. This 64% rent hike is what that tradeoff looks like.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@cafedujord What’s your point, Jordan? You skipped the funding question and reached for another stereotype instead.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@bilalmahmood An elected official should engage the project - not stereotype a room by age. Leadership means addressing scale, affordability, infrastructure and process, not inflaming a generational divide.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@AdamSinger Your article says the quiet part out loud: presume every concern is dishonest, label residents villains, and treat developers as the heroes. That isn’t housing analysis. It’s ideology designed to make public accountability illegitimate.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@AdamSinger Calling residents “apex predators” while billionaires, developers and well-funded advocacy groups reshape housing law is quite a tell. Debate the project, not caricatures about retirees and Prop 13.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@constans @laura_waxee Who decides what can be built, where, and under which waivers? Lawmakers. Property ownership has never meant an unlimited right to impose any project on a community.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@djw172 @laura_waxee And the state isn’t finished. Roughly 120 housing bills were introduced this session alone. Communities aren’t resisting one settled framework, they’re trying to keep up with laws that keep changing the rules.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@AffordAnything Housing costs are real. So is the need for more supply. But a photo of residents at one meeting doesn’t prove their motives or that every safeguard is merely homeowner obstruction. Debate the project, the affordability and the evidence, not a demographic stereotype.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@maxdubler @markasaurus Thanks for making the implication explicit. You judged the meeting by the apparent age and race of the audience and called the picture an “accurate story” of housing opposition. You never needed to hear their arguments; the stereotype was enough.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@maxdubler @laura_waxee @Safeway @sfchronicle “Apropos of nothing” wasn’t neutral. You invoked race and age to discount the meeting, then apparently felt very based. If representation was your concern, identify the voices that were missing, not why those who showed up should count less

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@maxdubler @laura_waxee @Safeway @sfchronicle Not explicitly Max. You implied the room was less legitimate because it looked older and whiter than San Francisco overall. Why mention race and age at all unless you believed it diminished their right to be heard?

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@CSElmendorf You don’t know my age, whether I rent or own, or what housing policies I support. You’ve simply assigned me a stereotype because I objected to stereotyping others. That is exactly the problem.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@CSElmendorf “Gerontocracy?” Ageism isn’t an argument. Older residents don’t lose their right to question a 22- and 18-story project. Engage the project’s scale, affordability, infrastructure and planning process instead of stereotyping the audience. Do better.

[KL Ventimiglia @eventi29]

@TahraHoops So this isn’t analysis of the Marina project- it’s promotion for your own year-old article, using a photo of older residents as evidence. That’s not reporting. It’s confirmation bias.