What exactly is affordable housing and how does it work?

[CompassNorth]

I don't understand why anyone who makes enough money to afford the market rent on a luxury apartment would want to live next door to someone on government assistance that cannot really afford to live in the same building?

What message does this send? Work hard and make money so you can live next door to someone on welfare who makes a fifth of your salary?

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by CompassNorth

I don't understand why anyone who makes enough money to afford the market rent on a luxury apartment would want to live next door to someone on government assistance that cannot really afford to live in the same building?

What message does this send? Work hard and make money so you can live next door to someone on welfare who makes a fifth of your salary?

What message does it send if City-Data allowed some one with one fifth of my intelligence the ability to post. I could, you know post on another message board, of course......

[jsvh]

Giving people money or discounts to live in one place but not the other is bad policy. Maybe they want to spend that extra money on a car or maybe they would rather spend it on celebration with their family, regardless, we need to stop trying to control peoples lives and make their own decisions. Give everyone a Basic Income and let them spend it as they choose.

[erick295]

Originally Posted by CompassNorth

I don't understand why anyone who makes enough money to afford the market rent on a luxury apartment would want to live next door to someone on government assistance that cannot really afford to live in the same building?

What message does this send? Work hard and make money so you can live next door to someone on welfare who makes a fifth of your salary?

The purpose of mixing income levels is to avoid creating high concentrations of poverty in particular areas, which can lead to a lot of problems. Look no further than the housing projects that used to exist in Atlanta to see what happens when people are segregated based on income. People have a much better chance of overcoming poverty if they aren't completely surrounded by it.

If you ask me it sends the message that a human being is worth more than their paycheck, but I know that viewpoint isn't too popular in certain circles.

[CompassNorth]

Originally Posted by onemanarmy

What message does it send if City-Data allowed some one with one fifth of my intelligence the ability to post. I could, you know post on another message board, of course......

Well, you're safe since City-Data doesn't decline members based on their intelligence. If they did, you could always go to another message board.

If you have to point out your intelligence level on a forum, I would say it is probably lacking. No matter which way you slice it, one fifth of nothing is still nothing.

[testa50]

Affordable housing requirements are counterproductive to the aim of creating affordable housing.

Requiring new, nice buildings to provide some extra units at a loss just serves as a tax on the units that are profitable, and constrains overall supply. You end up with less new construction, less supply of new housing, and thus higher costs for all housing types.

The better policy is to eliminate barriers to construction, such as affordable housing requirements, and let the market create an amount of new supply commensurate with demand. The benefits will be across the board, even if most of the new housing is of the luxury variety (hint: most new housing is at least semi-'luxurious' and thus unaffordable to low income people, as has been the case always, everywhere).

[CompassNorth]

Originally Posted by erick295

The purpose of mixing income levels is to avoid creating high concentrations of poverty in particular areas, which can lead to a lot of problems. Look no further than the housing projects that used to exist in Atlanta to see what happens when people are segregated based on income. People have a much better chance of overcoming poverty if they aren't completely surrounded by it.

If you ask me it sends the message that a human being is worth more than their paycheck, but I know that viewpoint isn't too popular in certain circles.

So you're telling me that if you take a poor poverty stricken individual who is living on welfare and move them in next door to me, they are going to overcome poverty and no longer require welfare assistance? I don't believe so. I believe they would continue accepting the government assistance and be perfectly content with it.

With these programs, does the government gradually decrease their assistance so it requires the individual to eventually provide 100% for themselves?

I believe there are some people who truly need the assistance, but it should only be for short term. I do not agree that they should be moving them into a luxury community and subsidizing their rent. Too many people take advantage of this and play the system.

[erick295]

Originally Posted by CompassNorth

So you're telling me that if you take a poor poverty stricken individual who is living on welfare and move them in next door to me, they are going to overcome poverty and no longer require welfare assistance?

Statistically speaking, yes, it's more likely. There's a wealth of research available on this very complex subject, and not all of it is conclusive. If you want to do some reading, Wikipedia is a good place to start since it cites references where you can get more detailed information and use any experience you might have with sociology to draw your own conclusions.

Concentrated poverty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Mixed-income housing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or you could go with your gut. I'm sure it knows best.

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by testa50

Affordable housing requirements are counterproductive to the aim of creating affordable housing.

Requiring new, nice buildings to provide some extra units at a loss just serves as a tax on the units that are profitable, and constrains overall supply. You end up with less new construction, less supply of new housing, and thus higher costs for all housing types.

The better policy is to eliminate barriers to construction, such as affordable housing requirements, and let the market create an amount of new supply commensurate with demand. The benefits will be across the board, even if most of the new housing is of the luxury variety (hint: most new housing is at least semi-'luxurious' and thus unaffordable to low income people, as has been the case always, everywhere).

I would like to point out, that in an ideal world I agree. However, human beings are far from perfect and subject to greed, nepotism, and self preservation. So let's move to real world, and were I disagree.
tax credits are not required, affordable housing is not required. The DEVELOPER applies for them and the government sets the terms. The Ponce City Market would not have been renovated without the tax credits, if so why has it taken 20 years. It also was not redeveloped during the greatest real estate bubble in U.S. history, with plenty of free money available.

I want to stress this point that these tax credits are in place so that people are not displaced because suddenly their part of town becomes desirable. Lastly, these folks are not section 8. Anyone can apply for the affordable housing apartments, there are no government forms to fill out. You just are required to provide a letter from your employer with our salary. You don't even need 1040's are tax information.

[onemanarmy]

Originally Posted by CompassNorth

Well, you're safe since City-Data doesn't decline members based on their intelligence. If they did, you could always go to another message board.

If you have to point out your intelligence level on a forum, I would say it is probably lacking. No matter which way you slice it, one fifth of nothing is still nothing.

I think it went over your head...