Here's a different way of looking at public subsidies for housing. Can anyone produce evidence that shows that these subsidies ACTUALLY REDUCE the amount of rent that the developer charges?
In the case of Seven Corners apartments ($20 million plus in subsidies) the rents (for studio apartment) were $630, compared to $525 across the street at my building (indoor pool, private balconies, no subsidies.) In the case of Riverside Plaza, the rents were actually HIGHER than market rent (studios $650) - but no one noticed because the Federal government paid most of it. Were all of the subsidized riverfront developments sold and rented at "below market rates?" Not the ones that I know about. It seems to me that, in an effort to help those in need, we're giving all the money to the wrong party - the developer who ends up with a multi-million dollar asset (at no cost to himself.) First, decide WHO you are trying to help. Then, decide HOW MUCH you are willing to subsidize on their behalf. $10,000 per family? $20,000? $100,000. How much for an able bodied person who would rather drink than work? For example: A 4 person family might need an extra $300 each month to pay rent in the apartment of their choice (there are lots of them available.) It makes no sense to give Mr. X $2 million to build an apartment that the family may or may not have access to. How do we know WHO will be living in the "10 or 15 subsidized units" for the next 10, 20, 30 years? Investors (as opposed to "developers") would be eager to build houses and apartments IF they knew that they could attract buyers/renters who could actually afford to buy/rent at market rates. More jobs at higher wages would have the same effect. Lots of developers have become multi-millionaires by "helping the poor." Vicky Heller North Oaks _______________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Unsubscribe, Digest option, and more: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
