Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

foxy-coxy t1_iy8ycw4 wrote

At this point any new housing helps so i guess I'm not opposed to this but i doubt that the DC government has the resources or expertise to run enough public housing to solve this problem. So sure this can help but we really need to build much much more housing and the private sector will most likely be the best option for most of that building.

23

stache_twista OP t1_iy8z87v wrote

Yeah, even if this passes the cynic in me thinks DC would overpay to contract out all the construction work to some connected firm.

The article also doesn’t share details on how big these projects would be, the tenant split between market-rate / low income and how much the market rate tenants would have to pay (I assume a premium) to subsidize the lower income neighbors and pay back taxpayers.

12

foxy-coxy t1_iy90kco wrote

>The article also doesn’t share details on how big these projects would be, the tenant split between market rate/ low income and how much the market rate tenants would have to pay

Yeah those are key issues. And given the US governments history with these programs I'm not optimistic they'll get them right.

I really want the council to get rid of all single family zoning and incentive private companies to reserve a small percentage of their units for people with vouchers by giving them taxes breaks and further relaxation of zoning laws.

11

SavoryRhubarb t1_iy9omxi wrote

DC’s Certified Business Enterprises (CBEs) can legally charge 12% over retail for supply contracts but often charge significantly more if the contract administrator doesn’t pay attention.

I’m not sure about service or construction contracts, but I am aware of at least one construction contract that was DOUBLED because the private firm had to work under a CBE. And many CBEs are District businesses in name only. It’s a good idea but horribly executed. in its current state.

5

giscard78 t1_iy9aiun wrote

It’s an idea worth exploring but probably doesn’t pencil out

https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/green-new-deal-housing-testimony/

> Under these affordability requirements, the remaining third of households must pay a monthly rent of $4,386—$2,316 for the prevailing rent, and $2,070 for the necessary cross-subsidies. Households that could afford this rent correspond to those who earning 137 percent of Median Family Income. According to ACS data, renters with this level of household income are about 6 percent of all households and 13 percent of renter households.3 And at this rent, there are many competing units, as well as opportunities to own, making it likely that the units set aside for this group will have a hard time attracting tenants at such high rents, or won’t be able to command the type of rent that would generate sufficient operating subsidies to cover for the operating costs and debts from development costs.

> Therefore, it is unlikely that these projects can be financially sustainable without government subsidies, and therefore most likely they won’t be able to raise funds from debt markets without the full faith and credit of the District of Columbia, as proposed in the bill.

and it keeps going

11

stache_twista OP t1_iy9el1k wrote

Yeah, it’s not realistic to ask people to pay ~$4,400 rent to fund “affordable housing” for their neighbors

15