Quote:
|
Originally Posted by octothorp
Over the long-term life of the building, even a low-income rental property should be able to pay for itself--it's not as though these people are being given free accomodation--a lot of them have jobs and can pay modest amounts for their housing (and others are seniors or disabled folk who are given money for their basic living expenses). Say you've got a hundred units, averaging $400 a month--that's 24 million over the first fifty years of the building's life. Some of that goes to ongoing maintenance, yes. But a significant amount can go against the initial cost of the building. And surely it would solve more than the current formula of buying other buildings and displacing people... That costs money too, and doesn't result in an increase in vacancies.
It's not a question of the city not having money, it's a question of it poorly spending the money that it does have.
|
Someone already mentioned the loan costs (with a very generous and unrealistic interest rate).
And anyhow, I didn't realize that as a taxpayer I was actually just loaning money to the city. When do I get my money back?