Point #2 has been debunked, repeatedly, in large scale statistical analyses performed by numerous different groups around the country. So no, I am not "aware" of it because it isn't true.

​

#1 - it discourages development of new homes. it leads to people living in homes that no longer suit their needs (elderly widows living in 3 bedroom apartments in Manhattan being the common and infamous example). it doesn't help the people already displaced or needing a place to live near their work. It is an exclusionary policy.

​

#3 - So "luxury" housing is OK just as long as you get it first?

​

#4 - Maybe. Who is paying for that and how?

#5 - Every policy that tries to help group A over group B inevitably screws over anyone who falls *just* outside the aided group and isn't really a member of the other group. People earning $1 over an income maximum are no better off than people inside the maximum, yet they are excluded from the program.

​

"Market rate" renters/buyers are humans who need a place to live, too. And to claim that they don't have just as much of a right to live in your neighborhood as you do is to make the same mistakes that got us in to this mess in the first place.