Beyond the lack of transparency and raising taxes to subsidize construction (the former sadly par for the course and the latter a done deal as far as the tax increase is concerned) I'm not sure how much scandal I see in this.. Clearly more housing and more hospital beds are needed. More administrative office space to grow hospital bureaucracy, not so much, but it doesn't seem like that's the real objection being expressed here.
Sure the area may lack sufficient facilities like grocery stores, and Muni service there evidently doesn't run late enough, but these seem like reasons to allow further development and more service by transportation providers, not reasons to block desperately needed new housing. The housing should be open to everyone, not set aside for seniors for whom it might not be well situated at least initially, but again it doesn't seem like that's Patrick's objection. I don't see how it matters greatly that the subsidized development would occur in a particular supervisorial district, since the need for housing is not just a citywide but a regional issue, and adding units anywhere will help address the shortage.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))