Why does everyone keep using the terms "affordable housing" when what they really mean is " low income housing?" Why not raise teacher salaries instead of feeding developers? Why do we keep building units meant to house people who have no reasonable expectation of being able to afford to live in this area? By that I don't mean PAUSD employees necessarily, but everyone else that this city seems intent on subsidizing. Where's the market rate housing for those who can already pay? If there was more of that, older housing stock would depreciate, thus becoming more "affordable".

@Wesh,

I'm not an expert by any means, but it could be that "low income housing" term is associated to Section 8, and require you to qualify with the government. These are probably not meant for just teachers but anyone who does not make a certain amount based on their location and family size.

My assumption is that they want to make the housing "more affordable" for the teachers, but not require them to go section 8.

Based on average wages for teachers in the area some may or may not qualify.

Web Link

I agree that teachers salaries should be raised, but that is probably easier said than done due to state budget constraints. Keep in mind that most schools in the area do not receive the full funding from the government or parcel tax, are turning to parents to fill the gap in funding. I've seen anywhere between $500 - $5500 annual donations being asked of parents at public and charter schools.

Low And Moderate (income). Employees of school districts do not just include Just 'the professionals' that make reasonable salaries (MVLA,PAUSD, LASD, MVWSD) compared to professionals in public service with government guaranteed pensions. There are many service workers and clerks, aides etc. who do not make 'public service professional' salaries. This housing will include some space for such public workers.
-Remember- Supervisor Joe started his political career many decades ago as a school Board member (in PA).