Neither developers nor the city can print money. Every dollar developers lose on "affordable housing" comes from someone else -- the people paying market rate.

A 30% portion means basically that two families subsidize one family. If the cost of a subsidy is $100,000 for a housing unit, the two other families would have $50,000 added to their housing costs.

Businesses have to make their profits one way or another, so if we require subsidized units, they will pass that price along to the unsubsidized units, thereby giving benefits to a small few at a cost of a great many. Rather, why not strongly limit zoning to build many more smaller units (ideally owner units, not rentals), so that developers can aim for the same profits over the same amount of land, spread across many more units, thereby reducing the cost of housing for all?

Increasing the cost of development to pay for added city infrastructure is fair since all residents benefit from that. Increasing the cost of development so that a lucky few may benefit from a subsidized home, should be the policy of last resort, not first (especially subsidies that have a fixed time limit, just look at Avalon and their expired subsidies).

Honestly I don't see why the council has to spend so much time micro-managing the development; they have neither the expertise nor the foresight to see where the market will be X number of years from now on.

Until you look up low income in the area
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which recently released its 2017 income limits — a threshold that determines who can qualify for affordable and subsidized housing programs.
Santa Clara County, $84,750 is the low-income threshold for a family of four.

Affordable housing is triage that addresses the worst symptoms of the housing crisis while making the problem worse for anyone not lucky enough to meet the absurdly low levels to qualify. It seems a waste of political capital. Limit office growth to residential growth or under it and your problem solves itself over time. Just enable developers by giving them wide ranging latitude to build what is needed and provide the infrastructure to support. Can you name any place that has solved or even made market prices depreciate by building affordable housing? Expanding special classes slightly doesn't seem like a solution at all. Housing affordability is effecting everyone here.

Here is a simple observation:

You only provide luxury apartments in the market, you force people to over pay for what services they want or need. This is the strategy of supply-side economics. The suppliers work to shape what options the market can choose from. NOT WHAT THE MARKET WANTS. The market is simply like cattle. IF ONLY PREMIUM 93 OCTANE GASOLINE IN THE GAS STATIONS IN A TOWN, NO AVAILABILITY FOR 87 OCTANE GASOLINE, YOU FORCE ALL CUSTOMERS TO BUY OVERPRICED GASOLINE.

The owners complain they are not making enough return on investment. The costs of upkeep and services involved in luxury facilities is significantly higher. That was the CHOICE of the developer. The public is not responsible for that mistake.

The housing market is treated very different to any other market because it is critical in order for any other business activity to have any chance to succeed. Simple enough, you have no workers in the area, and you have no business.

The apartment industry has been arguing a false concept that the market is efficiently providing the choices to the consumer. The truth is that by manipulating the market options, they have manipulated the prices. This has been the intent all along. I am surprised no one ever challenged it as anti-trust market violations.

First we have rent control.
Next we build cheap housing.

For those who want to play God, I think you should study the unintended consequences first. As a MV resident, we live the mess you left to us.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?