AMWJ t1_ix6zalx wrote on November 21, 2022 at 5:30 AM

What exactly is Cambridge's median income? I expected, after the AHO passed, for Cambridge to maintain that as a readily accessible number, so that it's possible to validate that a developer is in compliance. However, I can't find such a number published officially with Google searches.

It seems this specifically applies to anything that the AHO would already apply to - aka where 100% of the units are rented at 1/3 of 85% of median income. As long as that's true, I'm for it.

I do, though, wish the Council was doing more to ensure housing for those below that line. 85% of median income seems to exclude such a huge number of residents of our city, so it seems concerning that this is held up as the cheapest Cambridge can make housing. The city should be pushing for (a) city-run housing, (b) radically cheaper housing solutions, especially for minority communities who've lived in our city for centuries, and (c) pressure on landlords to create processes to rent-to-own.

ik1nky t1_ix7rjqw wrote on November 21, 2022 at 12:00 PM

The city does develop and maintain a large portfolio of housing and that is usually for significantly lower incomes. In addition they subsidize private projects that commit to lower incomes. Recently linkage fees on non residential projects were increased to help fund more of these projects.

ClarkFable t1_ix89z1s wrote on November 21, 2022 at 2:50 PM

More city run housing is a bad idea. It’s a inefficient waste of resources. The current AHO plan basically has developers paying for everything, and can create large amounts of affordable housing with mixes of different incomes.

AMWJ t1_ix8bqxw wrote on November 21, 2022 at 3:03 PM

I can't imagine what you mean by waste of resources - the developers are "paying for everything" because they can make money off of the housing they build. And not just a small amount - they're jumping through hoops here to get approved under the AHO because this is a lucrative gig, presumably. Why would the city not be able to run housing at least not taking a loss?

ClarkFable t1_ix8e2im wrote on November 21, 2022 at 3:20 PM

>Why would the city not be able to run housing at least not taking a loss?

Because it's basically impossible to run truly low income housing at a profit in a city. It also geographically concentrates low incomes in a way that's suboptimal (something the AHO plan tries to avoid). But just so we are clear, when you say "city run", you mean owned/subsidized and operated, right?

AMWJ t1_ix8p0hw wrote on November 21, 2022 at 4:36 PM

>Because it's basically impossible to run truly low income housing at a profit in a city.

I didn't say it needed to be low income housing. For-profit companies are coming into this city and jumping through the AHO hoops in order to provide affordable housing, so it's quite evidently profitable.

As for low-income housing, if developers are unable to provide true low-income housing in the city, then of course city-run housing at a loss is not a waste of resources. It gives people homes, which, as you said, were "impossible" for a for-profit to run.

>when you say "city run", you mean owned/subsidized and operated, right?

To be honest, I don't care. Leaving it to for-profit developers seems like a recipe for housing to disappear as soon as it ceases to be profitable, but whether the solution is a public/private partnership, or a city-owned/contractor-managed situation, or a fully city-owned-and-run project, it would ameliorate the situation.

Just look at this current proposal: we passed AHO years ago, but companies decided it wasn't affordable, so we needed active legislation to appease them. So, it's clearly not obvious what policies we need to appease developers, so who says the policies we put in place today will lead to affordable housing for more than a couple years? City-run initiatives ensure longevity, even if it stops being profitable for a time.