What is also missing from most of these discussions is that by requiring developers to provide low-income housing ... at a loss.
Developers off-set this loss by making the "market rate" housing units super expensive. Cutting out the middle class who do not qualify for the low-income units.
@SadTruffleGreen4mos4MO
When's the last time Beverly Hills actually enacted any of their "blueprints" to build affordable (not low income) housing? Wouldn't those projects mean more work for builders?
And since you brought up, why shouldn't developers shoulder some of the cost of traffic impact?
@ElectoralEagleLibertarian4mos4MO
Depending on size of the housing project & Environmental Impact Reports etc. developers do burden traffic costs: (new signals, widening roads, paying for free bus passes etc) these are in addition to other expensive mitigations. Add in Calif's crazy Bldg &
Energy Codes , Permit Fees etc.... housing prices get to be super expensive just to break even.
@P0pulistCrackersLibertarian4mos4MO
Maybe some of those costs can be mitigated when they build a sauna in the Whatsapp guy's basement, but it does seem kind of disingenuous, and a waste of time, for the city to continually produce affordable housing plans they have absolutely no intention of implementing, right?
@KindBat4mos4MO
Very true. Needs more attention.
