4 ms·

The units are administered by private developers/management. Who collects the extra rent? If the developers, you create strong malincentives to rent to people

The units are administered by private developers/management. Who collects the extra rent? If the developers, you create strong malincentives to rent to people that likely will earn more in the coming years.

Retric 8y ago
The state would get the extra rent allow it to subsidize more affordable housing. However, affordable housing is inherently a terrible idea. There is no reason to subsidize retired people living in highly desirable areas for example. But subsidizing cops is also ineffecint when you can simply pay them more directly and avoid overhead.
gizmo686 8y ago
HUD/local PHA. Affordable housing is not an unfunded mandate. The landloard still receives the full rent; the only difference is who is paying it. Further, we are talking about changing the welfare system. If we had a system where the landlord made substantially less from affordable housing units, we would likely already need to switch systems, because I cannot imagine that being a functional program.
- usaar333 8y ago
  > If we had a system where the landlord made substantially less from affordable housing units, That's how this works in California. Unfunded mandate on developers. Developers agree to it so they get their development permits. (The system is then administered by the successor management office and occasionally audited by the city. Directing excess rent to the government is possible, but introduces a number of calculation and administrative complexities. ) Finally you get the problem that this system is going to push up the median income in affordable housing (income rising, landlords preferring higher income individuals for stability, etc.), hurting the program's intention. That said I think this solution is better, but I don't understand how high the admin cost goes.

4 ms·

The units are administered by private developers/management. Who collects the extra rent? If the developers, you create strong malincentives to rent to people

by usaar333 8y ago

Retric 8y ago
The state would get the extra rent allow it to subsidize more affordable housing. However, affordable housing is inherently a terrible idea. There is no reason to subsidize retired people living in highly desirable areas for example. But subsidizing cops is also ineffecint when you can simply pay them more directly and avoid overhead.
gizmo686 8y ago
HUD/local PHA. Affordable housing is not an unfunded mandate. The landloard still receives the full rent; the only difference is who is paying it. Further, we are talking about changing the welfare system. If we had a system where the landlord made substantially less from affordable housing units, we would likely already need to switch systems, because I cannot imagine that being a functional program.
- usaar333 8y ago
  > If we had a system where the landlord made substantially less from affordable housing units, That's how this works in California. Unfunded mandate on developers. Developers agree to it so they get their development permits. (The system is then administered by the successor management office and occasionally audited by the city. Directing excess rent to the government is possible, but introduces a number of calculation and administrative complexities. ) Finally you get the problem that this system is going to push up the median income in affordable housing (income rising, landlords preferring higher income individuals for stability, etc.), hurting the program's intention. That said I think this solution is better, but I don't understand how high the admin cost goes.