The goal isn't to push poor people out of the area and replace them with rich people. The goal is to price out landowners who fail to develop housing.
To that end, it's probably better to somehow align the tax consequences with the people who can successfully NIMBY up development projects. That is, subsidizing living next to a high-density apartment complex, rather than subsidizing building a high-density apartment complex. Or in addition.
Like, if building a tall apartment complex in the Mission meant that all the neighbors got $50/month in density subsidies, I'd imagine that a lot of opposition would dissolve.
To that end, it's probably better to somehow align the tax consequences with the people who can successfully NIMBY up development projects. That is, subsidizing living next to a high-density apartment complex, rather than subsidizing building a high-density apartment complex. Or in addition.
Like, if building a tall apartment complex in the Mission meant that all the neighbors got $50/month in density subsidies, I'd imagine that a lot of opposition would dissolve.