View Single Post
  #4  
Old Posted Jan 16, 2008, 10:19 PM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
Quote:
Originally Posted by hookem View Post
Seems to me while buying is well out of the reach of the median income, renting is still within reach, and many more rentals might be available soon. So you can still have a diversity of incomes living downtown, without encouraging cheaper construction. I don't think we have to artificially facilitate homeownership; renting is not the end of the world.
Seems logical. They did mention a building in San Diego that I assumed was a rental building. The building looked nice from the outside. Inside, it had small studio's. Enough to cook a meal, sleep and hang your hat. Seems like a nice stepping stone allowing one to live downtown until they can start making more money.

Another thing that is often mentioned that seems totally illogical, is the often mentioned trade-off with builders "affordable housing in exchange for density and height bonuses". Why would the city want to limit density and height if a builder will not commit to setting affordable housing aside? It seems limiting these would reduce the tax base, increase sprawl and force the construction of new city amenities to follow the sprawl.
Reply With Quote