The principal obstacle to affordable housing (which, where actually developed can easily be rentals opposed to condo) is NIMBY as intimated in your piece. In Chicago, a federal court order requiring the CHA to build scattered site housing to replace the since torn down high rise projects was entered in the early 60's by Judge Richard Austin and has never been complied with due to zoning restrictions and aldermanic "vetoes" in the City Council. There are development companies that are focusing on affordable housing in the suburbs as well but they are frequently stymied by village governments influenced by neighborhood residents. In some towns, including my own, there are ordinances requiring new developments to provide for a percentage of affordable units within the project but the developers often (usually) avoid this by paying into a fund supposedly devoted to building affordable housing which never is substantial enough to be actually used. These problems are not limited to the west coast. They are national in scope. A principal motive for the resistance is concern for property values, a concern that can not be dismissed as pure greed. Many families have their major capital invested in their homes with the prospect of retirement and old age care always looming for them.
Don't overthink names. They likely weren't thinking cheese at all but liked the sound of the name. I didn't call my first 'Amber' after the sap. We both just liked the name (at the time, I'd only met one 'Amber' in my life.
We decided on Amber Rose, thinking of the Peace Rose.
As to the housing plan, one other thing that needs addressing is how cities segregate low income housing. I'd make the developers build some in upscale neighborhoods, for multiple reasons. Better for the tenants and better to get the snobby to interact with them. Connections like tthat increase the odds of social benefits for each and all.
And yeah, if our country doesn't fall to fascism, I bet it wiil happen here in some states.
The principal obstacle to affordable housing (which, where actually developed can easily be rentals opposed to condo) is NIMBY as intimated in your piece. In Chicago, a federal court order requiring the CHA to build scattered site housing to replace the since torn down high rise projects was entered in the early 60's by Judge Richard Austin and has never been complied with due to zoning restrictions and aldermanic "vetoes" in the City Council. There are development companies that are focusing on affordable housing in the suburbs as well but they are frequently stymied by village governments influenced by neighborhood residents. In some towns, including my own, there are ordinances requiring new developments to provide for a percentage of affordable units within the project but the developers often (usually) avoid this by paying into a fund supposedly devoted to building affordable housing which never is substantial enough to be actually used. These problems are not limited to the west coast. They are national in scope. A principal motive for the resistance is concern for property values, a concern that can not be dismissed as pure greed. Many families have their major capital invested in their homes with the prospect of retirement and old age care always looming for them.
Don't overthink names. They likely weren't thinking cheese at all but liked the sound of the name. I didn't call my first 'Amber' after the sap. We both just liked the name (at the time, I'd only met one 'Amber' in my life.
We decided on Amber Rose, thinking of the Peace Rose.
As to the housing plan, one other thing that needs addressing is how cities segregate low income housing. I'd make the developers build some in upscale neighborhoods, for multiple reasons. Better for the tenants and better to get the snobby to interact with them. Connections like tthat increase the odds of social benefits for each and all.
And yeah, if our country doesn't fall to fascism, I bet it wiil happen here in some states.