> Regulations which include language like "X% of units must be for renters making <80% AMI" appear positive, but often favor larger-scale, high-capital projects which exacerbate bifurcation in the housing market and drive even more stock towards the rental/high-HOA model, bundled with big-box retail and other commercial real estate nearby.
I get that this model favor large-scale, high-capital projects, but, given that it explicitly set's aside X% for the <80% AMI, I don't see how it is also increasing inaffordability?
Doesn't more density + some X% set aside for affordable units generally positive? Maybe we need to play around with that X% better, but what's the alternative?
Inclusive zoning (the X% of a building must be affordable) is good because it's important to mix different economic classes in the same area. It makes the poor people richer and it makes commutes shorter.
When it gets high it's not a giveaway to developers. It's actually a backdoor way to ban housing construction; NIMBYs love to claim they want "real affordable housing" and then set the IZ requirement so high nobody can afford to actually create any.
I get that this model favor large-scale, high-capital projects, but, given that it explicitly set's aside X% for the <80% AMI, I don't see how it is also increasing inaffordability?
Doesn't more density + some X% set aside for affordable units generally positive? Maybe we need to play around with that X% better, but what's the alternative?