Current Texas law grants state representatives significant power over whether affordable developments receive federal tax credits. Controversially, several representatives have proposed the reduction of their own authority in that regard.
A San Jose Unified School District plan to relocate several schools and build affordable housing in their place has sparked controversy. The district says teachers increasingly can't afford to live in the area.
Steven Falk, city manager for 22 years of the East Bay enclave of Lafayette, expressed frustration with the city's resistance to infill development, calling it incompatible with addressing "the most significant challenges of our time."
Cities can't have it both ways on the housing crisis, asserts an SF Chronicle editorial. Case in point: Berkeley passes a resolution to declare homelessness a state of emergency while opposing legislation to allow BART to develop its parking lots.
With the media rightfully pointing to Houston's sprawling urban development patterns that exacerbated the epic flooding caused by Hurricane Harvey, Paul Krugman also finds fault with cities where urban development is too tightly regulated.
Opponents of development often cast themselves as opponents of developers, whom they see as greedy and exploitative. But demonization does no good when developers—profit and all—are a crucial part of city-building.
Seeing "No Matter Where You're From" signs in liberal-leaning towns makes me both smile and cringe. Why? Because I know the tolerant message belies the real feelings many have towards neighbors, not from other countries, but "other" neighborhoods.
For low-income residents in high-cost areas, there's no substitute for the public sector to provide below-market rate housing. But for middle-income households, the market should be able to produce housing without subsidy. So why doesn't this happen?