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.
They should pay them market based salaries or do without. Problem solved.
If their salaries are coming from taxpayer funds, and this subsidy is coming from taxpayer funds - what's the difference to the taxpayer between the two scenarios?
Looks like an issue specifically to California in the article IMO.
But FWIW, there is a such thing as "Worforce Housing" whereas "moderate" income families (i.e. middle income) are offered subsidies and other sorts of benefits all over the country.
When I worked in housing in metro Atlanta, most of the new apartment communities built (and still being built) especially in regards to the Beltline housing aspect were for "affordable" and "workforce" housing solutions in order to keep down costs.
And FWIW, "affordable" housing can apply to many people in the middle income range already. These sorts of terms have specific meanings in the housing industry and "affordable" is not synonymous with public housing or Section 8, things people usually think of when they hear "affordable housing."
In the last county I worked in while living in metro Atlanta "affordable" meant any family making up to $62k approximately for a family of 4. In metro Atlanta, that is a pretty high amount of money to be able to qualify for affordable housing. For "workforce" developments the income bracket increased to $80k.
ETA: The incomes by family size are determined by local areas and are not set in stone as well. People in CA and in specific locations in New England and in NYC and other expensive locales, due to housing expense usually can have a much higher income than the rest of the country in order to receive subsidies and other types of government assistance.
Last edited by residinghere2007; 03-23-2016 at 10:22 AM..
And then people in CA wonder why their taxes are so high.....
------------------------
PALO ALTO (CBS SF) — Palo Alto is seeking housing solutions for residents who are not among the region’s super-rich, but who also earn more than the threshold to qualify for affordable housing programs.
The city council has unanimously passed a housing plan that would essentially subsidize new housing for what qualifies as middle-class nowadays, families making from $150,000 to $250,000 a year.
The real reason why this has happened is the City Council is
connected to the banks. They are bailing out the banks who
want to keep property prices high, and using taxpayer funds
(which are again) borrowed from banks, to do it.
Isn't that cute ? The higher the tax base (property),
the more interest for banks. The higher the foreclosed
properties, the better for banks.
Are you saying a family of four making $150K to $250K a year cannot rent a place and live without support of the government?
Apparently not in this particular area.
What is the source of funding subsidy for this new construction?
Local corporate and/ or property taxes or something else?
I do not have a first hand appreciation for distance and availability of public transportation in this area.
I do know people who work in DC and Manhattan with daily commutes in excess of 2 hours each way and who do so for a more affording housing and/ or quality of life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
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.
