For social housing to be a meaningful term in the U.S., it has to entail public or collective ownership.* I’m okay with a big tent that includes public housing (though no/less means testing please). But if a typical mixed-finance LIHTC development counts, we’ve lost the plot.
-
Show this thread
-
* Ownership can be at the production stage & can be transferred to owners subject to resale limitations. This doesn’t mean typical LIHTC developments don’t serve some good in the here and now. A democratically run CLT can mean collective production. A typical np developer: nope
2 replies 1 retweet 23 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @T_Silverstein
I agree but the mechanisms for financing these things are pretty limited and CLTs use the same ones as NPs. (Ie, Section 8 and LIHTC). It’s equity, and CLTs or public housing or “social” housing all need it.
2 replies 0 retweets 5 likes -
Replying to @ceaweaver @T_Silverstein
•Agreed re Cea point that even CLTs rely on same financing mechanisms •I think the greater pt with CLTs is the permanent “affordability”/equity •I still believe we need additional $sources; something like a CLT Acquisition Fund
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Oooorrrr bear w me…. A giant municipal land trust run by a Public housing authority and democratically controlled by residents 
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.