While the lion’s share — 32 — of the units are market rate, with monthly rents ranging from $2,446 to $3,195, eight have been set aside for formerly homeless ve

While the lion’s share — 32 — of the units are market rate, with monthly rents ranging from $2,446 to $3,195, eight have been set aside for formerly homeless veterans, and 14 units are designated affordable, with monthly rents from $914 to $1,873, and for which 60,000 people applied in a lottery. Is it just odd word choice or does "formerly homeless" mean they're put up somewhere until these are ready to lease? Also, do these homeless vets have work? Or am I misreading this paragraph entirely? This isn't any sort of indictment on the homeless population...just, $914 for something of that size is affordable pretty much only by New York (and I guess SF) standards, and I wonder if instead of putting a dent (maybe even a scratch) in some of the problems that creates chronic homelessness, if this is just cycling through a series of "guests" who stay for maybe months at a time and end right back up on the street. I suppose I have to take the article at its word: "It's a start".