Really not sure why you decided to use that quote. The article isn't about that dude. He's mentioned twice, and it's never in the context of building more market rate housing. Hell, it's not even really an article that specifically says "more market rate housing will fix everything." In fact, large swaths of the article are about how cities are failing to build affordable housing, and several parts of the article specifically undercut what you're trying to say here.

>If mental-health issues or drug abuse were major drivers of homelessness, then places with higher rates of these problems would see higher rates of homelessness. They don’t. Utah, Alabama, Colorado, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont, Delaware, and Wisconsin have some of the highest rates of mental illness in the country, but relatively modest homelessness levels. What prevents at-risk people in these states from falling into homelessness at high rates is simple: They have more affordable-housing options.

Also from the article:

>When we have a dire shortage of affordable housing, it’s all but guaranteed that a certain number of people will become homeless.

And what does Worcester have? A shortage of affordable housing. As the WRB's report specifically points out (emphasis mine):

>Worcester may simply need more housing for all to mitigate rising costs. And both the City and private developers are on track to create that housing. For example, according to the Worcester Regional Chamber of Commerce , there are about 24 proposed or under-way housing projects in Worcester lined up for the next few years, creating hundreds of units. Most of these units may be market-rate, however, which may not immediately help to alleviate some of the cost-burden.

While yes, part of the problem is that Worcester doesn't have enough housing, the other half of the equation is that Worcester's residents are increasingly cost-burdened, spending more than 30% of their income on housing. This is happening because incomes in the area are static, while the housing costs keep going up. While building market rate apartments might alleviate some of this problem, it's a big maybe, and the majority of the homeless are people who can't afford to live in that new housing anyway. Building more market rate housing also drives up rents on nearby properties, potentially forcing those residents into homelessness, creating a vicious cycle.

>The housing market is interrelated. The same rules that make it difficult and expensive to build market rate housing make it even more difficult and expensive to build affordable housing.

Except developers are not struggling to build market rate housing in Worcester. As I said, there are 24 housing projects in development in this city and most of them are going to be market rate. Seems like it's actually pretty easy to build market rate apartments in Worcester. Almost like city government is encouraging it. The city could have, y'know, chosen to not greenlight some of those market rate apartments in and offered incentives to build affordable ones, or forced developers to include a less expensive units in those developments, but it didn't, because it was worried that it might scare away developers because that's not as profitable for them. (The horror!) It's only now, after greenlighting nearly two dozen market rate housing projects, that they're considering inclusionary zoning.

>But if we don’t build new market rate housing to keep up with population, then more people become homeless as rents go up and the growing number of renters fight over the same amount of housing.

Except building more market rate apartments increases the rents on nearby properties, causing the very same problem you're claiming it helps avoid. If people are being forced out of their $800 apartments because now the landlord can charge $1500, a glut of $1750/mo apartments is not the solution. This is literally already happening. If 1500+ people are competing for 42 affordable housing units in Main South, chances are those people cannot afford to live in this new housing. Even if building them slightly brings down the rents, and that's a big if.

Build 'em all, let the market sort 'em out is wankery.