Cea Weaver

Agreed. Unless that change included differences in "area". Then it would have an impact.

even if the definition of area is changed it still wouldn't change the fundamental math of how much it costs to construct buildings.

Right, but it would change who lived in them. Lol

And I guess you could say that wouldn't solve the housing crisis, so you're initial tweet is correct. But I guess not solving the entire crisis isn't a reason not to do something.

How would it change who lives in the buildings?

If the area includes diff geographies, 80% AMI is a diff income level. Sure this could be the same as just using 60 or 70, and doesn't change construction costs, I think it's worth it for the sake of changing the reference point.

Well AMI is just a descriptor. Call it 80% of AMI or 100% AMI - it makes zero difference in the financing or ultimately the rent. So it doesn’t make housing more or less affordable or change who lives in it like…at all

But if your point is about comms/narrative and highlighting the real cost of subsidized units I don’t think we should be using “AMI” at all and should just go straight to talking abt rent