ik1nky t1_j6ok48x wrote
Reply to comment by jWalkerFTW in High Density Housing Development Near South Shore Plaza Receives Pushback by amos106
Well we have inclusionary policies, so all new market rate housing over 9 units brings affordable housing along with it. We also have good evidence that both market rate and affordable housing construction decreases displacement.
jWalkerFTW t1_j6oktaw wrote
Oh for sure it’s a balance. Although “affordable housing” according to the City of Boston is 70% AMI which is completely asinine and puts a big damper on the “inclusionary” policies
amos106 OP t1_j6ot3cz wrote
The fact that affordable housing is 70% of the Area's Median Income is likely due to survivor bias. If the market doesn't have enough housing supply then the prices will go up until they consume larger and larger portions of people's income. Eventually the people on the lower end of the income spectrum are forced out because the housing system is market based and the winners and losers are chosen according to who can afford rent. Inclusionary polices cannot solve a supply problem, and the market but its very design will leave low income (often synonymous with underprivileged and marginalized) people holding the bag.
jWalkerFTW t1_j6owvqh wrote
You can just lower the required AMI percentage though. I mean, that’s literally what urban planners are advocating for. This isn’t a “well the market is God and we can’t do anything about it” situation.
EDIT: I think you might be confused. The cities official requirement to meet the “affordable housing” baseline is 70% AMI. That’s the rule. I’m not talking about a market result.
amos106 OP t1_j6p0juo wrote
Yeah that's true and it would reduce the cost of living for those who do make it into the program, but the affordable housing program is already overloaded as it is and the winners and losers are chosen by a lottery system. Even if the AMI requirement is lowered it would just put more stress on the affordable housing program without actually creating any additional housing, and as it stands the program is already being forced to turn people away. Unless more housing is built the program will further solidify itself as a poverty trap since increasing your income would drop you off a welfare cliff, and the market prices will only keep rising until more units are built.
jWalkerFTW t1_j6p2ag0 wrote
Well yeah, again I’m not saying we shouldn’t build more housing at all
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments