Affordable Housing Institute : US

[Continued from yesterday’s Part 1 and Part 2.]
 
So far our examination of the UK’s inclusionary zoning scheme, Section 106, has unearthed what we expected — that in a zero-sum game, negotiations are protracted, acrimonious, and coy.  Further, localities — rightly appreciating that equity extract from Section 106 agreements is their principal source of new municipal infrastructure […]

[Continued from yesterday’s Part 1.]
 
Even before examining the specific practice, we’d expect a zero-sum-game form of inclusionary zoning to be beset by protracted negotiations and ongoing acrimony between developers and localities. 
 

Talking about you and me, and the games people play
 
We’d also expect a migration toward a homes-produced number and away from deep affordability, simply […]

Games are more fun when they’re positive-sum — and this applies very directly to affordable housing and inclusionary zoning.
 

Girls just wanna have sums!
 
Because affordable housing always costs money, some lucky stakeholder must fund the cost-value gap.  While this money ultimately is or derives from government, government often wriggles, seeking to find ‘off budget’ ways of […]

[Continued from the previous Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.]
 
Correlation, as we have drummed into our heads in logic class, is not causation, though it definitely has meaning.  Hanna Rosin’s lengthy Atlantic article about the correlation between increased inner-ring suburban crime and the dispersal of formerly public housing residents via vouchers after demolition assembles […]

[Continued from the previous Part 1 and Part 2.]
 
So far, in deconstructing the lengthy Atlantic article about deconcentrating poverty by demolishing public housing and giving residents economic mobility, an article whose premises I find somewhere between flawed and offensive, although they are unstated, indirect, and hard-to-pin-down. 
 

Cough up that theory now, there’s a good […]