Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext
If the Feds have $764 million I'd rather they use it to directly build housing on federal lands and then have them, or another level of government, operate it as true affordable housing in perpetuity. Dribs and drabs to private developers aren't the solution.
|
This isn't Federal land, though.
This is private land.
And it was either this or remain a car dealership.
And I doubt that many people on either side of the aisle will be too thrilled if the Federal government starts getting into the business of developing housing or property.
Maybe to a limited degree and in partnership with private developers or suited entities with experience in the field.
And they're not "giving" the money to the private developers.
They're loaning it to them.
You understand that that means the taxpayer will get that money back, right?
- alongside the housing that's being developed that they'll also benefit from.
How exactly is this a bad thing?
Do you have any suggestions of Federal lands in the metro area that you'd love to see such a policy enacted on and developed by the Feds (...or others) into affordable housing?
Bear in mind that what you're suggesting (i.e. that they build and operate affordable housing on their land versus loan to a private developer that could do a mix of both affordable (per municipality requirement) and market housing) is what would actually cost and lose the taxpayer money as a sunken cost.
In this kind of arrangement - in theory - that cost is absorbed by the market component profit that the developer gets, while the taxpayer (through the Feds, Province or Municipality) doesn't take the hit and gets back some money to potentially seed more housing development elsewhere.
Threaded Mode