Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
The longer version of the story is that CHA's directive, since the time they tore down the highrises, is to build mixed-income developments. This means partnering up with private developers to fund and construct each project.
However, as you know, private developers compete for capital... and with the housing market being so hot, why would investors choose to sign on to a dicey mixed-income development when there's countless juicy market-rate projects to sink their money into?
CHA also wanted the market-rate portion of these developments to be for-sale units... the thought, right or wrong, was that having homeowners in the community instead of 100% renters will lead to better outcomes. But of course, the for-sale market is anemic and has been for over a decade. Millennials aren't as interested in buying a home, and the ones that are interested are often unable to qualify. The limited demand that IS out there is, again, drawn to market-rate developments and not CHA mixed-income communities where there's not much hope of appreciation over time.
CHA has the cash to rebuild 100% public housing, but they're reluctant to do that because the public consensus is still in favor of mixed-income even if such developments are now all but impossible to get off the ground.
|
I think it has less to do with lack of interest and more to do with stagnant wages, obscene debt, and rising COL, but I digress.
Couldn't CHA break up some of their larger plots into smaller plots (thinking Cabrini or something like that) and then sell disparate plots to private developers, let them build, and then build 100% affordable to fill in the gaps, thus creating a mixed use community? Do they already do that?