4 ms·

> We are supportive of the preliminary approval of a North Bay Shore precise plan which includes 9,850 units of housing, 1,600 of which would be affordable...

by dvdhnt 9y ago

> We are supportive of the preliminary approval of a North Bay Shore precise plan which includes 9,850 units of housing, 1,600 of which would be affordable... I know exactly what they mean by “affordable”, but how the hell are we ok getting to a point where affordable housing only refers to housing that is affordable because it’s being subsidized? Ridiculous.

jdavis703 9y ago
I think this is terminology. When people hear "subsidized" housing they start thinking about project towers and run down section 8 singe family homes. "Affordable housing" still has a fairly positive connotation that won't cause as many people to oppose a project. I agree, it's unfortunate that housing poor people has to be branded, but that's the society we live in.
- jxramos 9y ago
  ah, the old euphemistic jump strategy at play. I can't say I identified affordable housing in such a light but now that you point it out indeed it is subsidized but dodges all the subsidized baggage like so many earlier language plays in euphemism island hopping in an archipelago of nearby clustered ideas.
  - rspeer 9y ago
    In my experience with local politics, "affordable housing" can mean any of three things: - Subsidized housing - Public housing - Increasing density to lower the actual price of housing But homeowners (overrepresented among voters) generally only support the first, as the other two could make their property value go down (y'know, in the affordable direction). You can end up with three groups that are all at odds with each other and all campaigning for "affordable housing". Deft politicians can spin this confusion to make housing scarcity sound like altruism.
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      What's even better is that subsidized housing is generally subsidized by passing on the costs of the subsidy to the unsubsidized units in the development. That is, if it costs the developer $500k per unit, and they're required to sell 200 of their 1000 units for $100k each, the $80M subsidy gets added onto the cost of the remaining unsubsidized units at $80k each. This effectively removes supply through removing development projects that cannot make an open-market profit while handing out the mandated "affordable housing" subsidy. It's truly Orwellian that regulations that make housing less affordable get called "affordable housing".
      - random023987 9y ago
        > It's truly Orwellian that regulations that make housing less affordable get called "affordable housing". To be fair, developers sell units at what the market will bear, rather than on a "cost-plus" basis. Raising developer costs doesn't impact the final sale price. Now one could argue that reducing developer profits means that fewer developers will try to build... but it's properly zoned land, not developers that is in short supply. Or maybe you mean that the requirement that some of the housing be "affordable", means only projects that the remainder of the units are "unaffordable" will be built... but that's the case anyway; given the scarcity of land it doesn't make sense to build affordable housing unless forced. Not that I'm in favor of housing subsidies. It turns a few well-connected or lucky people into lottery winners, and doesn't reduce the overall cost of housing.
        ThrustVectoring 9y ago
        >To be fair, developers sell units at what the market will bear, rather than on a "cost-plus" basis. Raising developer costs doesn't impact the final sale price. Raising developer costs kill off unprofitable developments until the marginal unit created has a cost equal to what the market will bear. It depends on the relative elasticity of supply and demand - we'll hit an equilibrium of fewer units at a higher price, with both less developer profits and less consumer surplus. Whether the loss is mostly borne by purchasers or sellers depends on details of the market. >but it's properly zoned land, not developers that is in short supply. Developers in the Bay Area spend lots of money to figure out whether or not land is properly zoned, due to the community review system and other things that'd be fixed with a by-right zoning policy. Things aren't built to the maximum of the zones - they're built to what's affordable by developers attempting to get permission to build. >given the scarcity of land it doesn't make sense to build affordable housing unless forced It doesn't matter whether housing is affordable at market rates because we build things that are affordable, or through building so much luxury houses that there's so little demand for existing buildings that they now become affordable. If the lot next door added a three-bedroom luxury apartment that cost less than your studio, you'd move out of your current place and into that in a heartbeat. Then your studio now goes on the market and gets whatever it can - likely, a much more affordable price. Adding dense housing makes housing more affordable. It's only obvious if it's cheap and dense - if it's expensive, the affordable units are those that the new residents move out of.
beaner 9y ago
All housing is affordable, otherwise it would never be bought or sold. "Affordable" in this context is a misnomer that just means "subsidized."
- jdavis703 9y ago
  Who is it affordable by though? By that definition a Manhattan penthouse is affordable.
  - WWKong 9y ago
    Yes it is affordable by those who can, you know, afford it. That was the point OP was making.
  - jpatokal 9y ago
    It is, if you're a billionaire who can afford to buy it.
  - beaner 9y ago
    That's right. "Affordable" by itself doesn't say anything about who can afford it. If we were talking about affordable for the middle class, we'd call it "Affordable for the middle class." This is why the term is a misnomer. All housing is affordable, but the term is being used to describe something other than affordability (subsidization).
    - 1_2__4 9y ago
      You’re being so pedantic as to be completely wrong. Affordable does not mean that at least one person on the planet could theoretically purchase it.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - CobrastanJorji 9y ago
        You're arguing different things. You're using a plain English version of the definition of "affordable," beaner is trying to describe the real estate term of art "affordable housing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_housing

by dvdhnt 9y ago

jdavis703 9y ago

I think this is terminology. When people hear "subsidized" housing they start thinking about project towers and run down section 8 singe family homes. "Affordable housing" still has a fairly positive connotation that won't cause as many people to oppose a project. I agree, it's unfortunate that housing poor people has to be branded, but that's the society we live in.

jxramos 9y ago
ah, the old euphemistic jump strategy at play. I can't say I identified affordable housing in such a light but now that you point it out indeed it is subsidized but dodges all the subsidized baggage like so many earlier language plays in euphemism island hopping in an archipelago of nearby clustered ideas.
- rspeer 9y ago
  In my experience with local politics, "affordable housing" can mean any of three things: - Subsidized housing - Public housing - Increasing density to lower the actual price of housing But homeowners (overrepresented among voters) generally only support the first, as the other two could make their property value go down (y'know, in the affordable direction). You can end up with three groups that are all at odds with each other and all campaigning for "affordable housing". Deft politicians can spin this confusion to make housing scarcity sound like altruism.
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    What's even better is that subsidized housing is generally subsidized by passing on the costs of the subsidy to the unsubsidized units in the development. That is, if it costs the developer $500k per unit, and they're required to sell 200 of their 1000 units for $100k each, the $80M subsidy gets added onto the cost of the remaining unsubsidized units at $80k each. This effectively removes supply through removing development projects that cannot make an open-market profit while handing out the mandated "affordable housing" subsidy. It's truly Orwellian that regulations that make housing less affordable get called "affordable housing".
    - random023987 9y ago
      > It's truly Orwellian that regulations that make housing less affordable get called "affordable housing". To be fair, developers sell units at what the market will bear, rather than on a "cost-plus" basis. Raising developer costs doesn't impact the final sale price. Now one could argue that reducing developer profits means that fewer developers will try to build... but it's properly zoned land, not developers that is in short supply. Or maybe you mean that the requirement that some of the housing be "affordable", means only projects that the remainder of the units are "unaffordable" will be built... but that's the case anyway; given the scarcity of land it doesn't make sense to build affordable housing unless forced. Not that I'm in favor of housing subsidies. It turns a few well-connected or lucky people into lottery winners, and doesn't reduce the overall cost of housing.
      - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
        >To be fair, developers sell units at what the market will bear, rather than on a "cost-plus" basis. Raising developer costs doesn't impact the final sale price. Raising developer costs kill off unprofitable developments until the marginal unit created has a cost equal to what the market will bear. It depends on the relative elasticity of supply and demand - we'll hit an equilibrium of fewer units at a higher price, with both less developer profits and less consumer surplus. Whether the loss is mostly borne by purchasers or sellers depends on details of the market. >but it's properly zoned land, not developers that is in short supply. Developers in the Bay Area spend lots of money to figure out whether or not land is properly zoned, due to the community review system and other things that'd be fixed with a by-right zoning policy. Things aren't built to the maximum of the zones - they're built to what's affordable by developers attempting to get permission to build. >given the scarcity of land it doesn't make sense to build affordable housing unless forced It doesn't matter whether housing is affordable at market rates because we build things that are affordable, or through building so much luxury houses that there's so little demand for existing buildings that they now become affordable. If the lot next door added a three-bedroom luxury apartment that cost less than your studio, you'd move out of your current place and into that in a heartbeat. Then your studio now goes on the market and gets whatever it can - likely, a much more affordable price. Adding dense housing makes housing more affordable. It's only obvious if it's cheap and dense - if it's expensive, the affordable units are those that the new residents move out of.

beaner 9y ago

All housing is affordable, otherwise it would never be bought or sold. "Affordable" in this context is a misnomer that just means "subsidized."

jdavis703 9y ago
Who is it affordable by though? By that definition a Manhattan penthouse is affordable.
- WWKong 9y ago
  Yes it is affordable by those who can, you know, afford it. That was the point OP was making.
- jpatokal 9y ago
  It is, if you're a billionaire who can afford to buy it.
- beaner 9y ago
  That's right. "Affordable" by itself doesn't say anything about who can afford it. If we were talking about affordable for the middle class, we'd call it "Affordable for the middle class." This is why the term is a misnomer. All housing is affordable, but the term is being used to describe something other than affordability (subsidization).
  - 1_2__4 9y ago
    You’re being so pedantic as to be completely wrong. Affordable does not mean that at least one person on the planet could theoretically purchase it.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - CobrastanJorji 9y ago
      You're arguing different things. You're using a plain English version of the definition of "affordable," beaner is trying to describe the real estate term of art "affordable housing." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_housing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_housing