View Single Post
Old 12-10-2018, 04:26 PM   #32
para transit fellow
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
I think it would be way more efficient to subsidize tenants than subsidize buildings. If someone qualifies, give them $xxx per month in rent subsidy. Even have it paid directly to the landlord if you don't trust the people you're subsidizing.

This efficiently uses our existing housing stock, because people can make the best choice for them. 20th Ave and 6th street NW is a "good" location, but if someone who is getting the subsidy works far from there they would likely be better served by liVing close to work, or family for childcare, etc. If you let people choose, they will pick what's best for them not just live where subsidized housing is available.

This also solves the NIMBY problem.

What the city does when it owns the building is:

A) lease out the majority part of the building units at market rent
b) lease a portion of the units at subsidized rent to qualified individuals.

...with the goal that the total revenues from ALL rents collected are sufficient to maintain the building costs.

The practice is called cross-subsidization: the income from the market rent suites cover the subsidize the sub market rent. Best part of the strategy is that after the initial acquisition costs, the subsidies are sustained without annual taxpayer dollars.

the disadvantage is that the tenant needing a subsidy can't move to another apartment if their situation changes.

Last edited by para transit fellow; 12-10-2018 at 04:31 PM.
para transit fellow is online now   Reply With Quote