I also have not seen any data pointing that these programs are effective. Given all the variables involved and the difficulty in collecting data or even determi

I also have not seen any data pointing that these programs are effective. Given all the variables involved and the difficulty in collecting data or even determining measures of success, it's very easy to argue in one way or the other. This has been my experience with affordable housing as a New Yorker: 1. Units don't necessarily go to those who need them most. A percentage are always set aside for city employees (public data) and when evaluating applications, developers tend to pick the applicants with the highest credit scores and most stable backgrounds. These people tend to be the ones who need the housing the least (source: real estate friend. It's also not common for recent graduates with low incomes but wealthy parents to get the housing (source: people I know who did this). 2. You're allowed to keep the housing forever, even if your income skyrockets. 3. Affordable housing is often built in the wrong locations. It doesn't make sense to put a $800 / month apartment in a luxury neighborhood where residents can't even afford to buy coffee, but this is often what happens. 4. Continuing the point above, developers usually design affordable units in exactly the same way as luxury market-rate units. This raises costs that the developers must recoup from the market-rate units. Do subsidized renters really need marble countertops? 5. The affordable units built are really just a trickle in a waterfall of all the high-end housing coming to market. The best solution would be to encourage the building of quality, affordable apartments directly in the neighborhoods where people need them most. Even better, the city should improve transportation infrastructure so that the free market can fix the affordable housing issue on its own.