Quote:
Originally Posted by JACKinBeantown
Thanks for mentioning it. Here's the link:
http://news4sanantonio.com/news/loca...rdable-housing
It's negative not because of buildings going up, but the lack of affordable units included in return for tax dollars. Tax dollars, which are paid by citizens, are supposed to provide for the public, not the corporations. It's a gray area with arguments on both sides, including that the city council put a moratorium on the tax breaks and wants to change the rules, but that's the realistic reason the story has a negative slant.
Makes sense... right there in the article is a quote that explains succinctly a good reason to include affordable units, aside from the obvious of giving those without gobs of money a chance of living in a vibrant downtown:
DeAndre Washington moved here from Atlanta and is still furnishing his new apartment on Broadway.
Washington says he almost didn't move downtown because the rents were so high.
“Anywhere from $1,200 to $1,500 for a one bedroom. I almost moved up to the Stone Oak area, right outside 1604, they're a little cheaper," Washington said. |
I think the last paragraph of that sentence is most important.
Quote:
|
The city says developers only get a break on the city's portion of property taxes. They still pay full taxes to school districts, hospitals and emergency services. In terms of economic impact, the city says it’s getting back many times more than it's giving away.
|
The incentives are not as bad as people seem to want to make them out to be.
Plus, these incentives are/were open to developments offering affordable housing. The problem is, downtown is too expensive to development with regards to housing that a developer is going to require a high price point just to make a profit. A developer has to be greatly subsidized in order to even think about offering below market rate prices within downtown.