I know a lot of us have wondered why buildings only offer higher AMI ranges as opposed to mixing both lower and higher AMI. I found the developers guide online and its super insightful (
https://www.nixonpeabody.com/-/media...Y-Program.ashx) :
The developers basically have various options (found on page 2):
Option A
— 25% of the units must be affordable, with at least 10% affordable at up to 40% of the area
median income (AMI), 10% at up to 60% of the AMI and 5% at up to 130% of the AMI; and
— This option also precludes the developer from receiving any governmental subsidies other than
tax-exempt bond proceeds and 4% tax credits.
Option B
— 30% of the units must be affordable, with at least 10% affordable at up to 70% of the AMI and
20% at up to 130% of the AMI.
Option C
— At least 30% of the units must be affordable at up to 130% of the AMI;
— This option also precludes the developer from receiving any government subsidies; and
— The project cannot be located south of 96th Street in Manhattan or in any other area
established by local law.
Option G
— At least 30% of the units must be affordable at up to 130% of the AMI.
— This option is available within Brooklyn Community Boards 1 & 2 and Queens Community
Boards 1 & 2.
— This option also precludes the developer from receiving any governmental subsidies
There are more options, but its clear that most developers have taken up option C & G which allows them to only include 30% of their units as affordable housing at 130% AMI. The chart on page 5 makes it easier to understand.
Only options A & E include lower AMIs
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
