don't want to wade into housing discourse which i usually (miraculously, somehow) stay above but the whole "affordable for whom" narrative amongst progressive housing orgs seems like it has been a major strategic misstep for those of us who want to expand public/social housing
"the metrics used to determine affordability" could mean a lot of things! people often end at "change the definition of AMI" which is a red herring. another option is "increase the amount of capital subsidy" which would help the housing be affordable to lower-income HHs.
-
-
but my take is that if you want to build a big coalition for public/social housing, we're really talking about mixed income housing
-
that is everybody’s take given the tiny pie of subsidies for affordability. make a bigger pie, too. we will also need mandates, such as proposed by scott stringer.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.