I’m not against mixed income developments as a way to combat ghettoization, but in a lot of cases in CA the costs are born by the developer (and thus indirectly

I’m not against mixed income developments as a way to combat ghettoization, but in a lot of cases in CA the costs are born by the developer (and thus indirectly the people purchasing the new units) which keeps the regulatory burden/costs of new developments high. So while it does create some below-market housing for those lucky enough to finagle their way in, it keeps the actual market rate construction expensive. In my opinion it would be better for local governments to buy off the units from developers if they so chose, so the full cost is born by the program. Of course, that wouldn’t really solve the problem unless new construction were less restricted, since not enough is being built anyway for the % of “affordable” units to be able to make much more of a dent. What bothers me is that a lot of people don’t actually know how “affordable housing” is implemented, and if they did I bet most wouldn’t support it. Not only because of the complexity and costs it adds to new market rate construction, but also that you still need an income of like $70-$150k to qualify for owned BMR housing in SF and I don’t really care to subsidize people at those income levels.