all these affordable housing do gooders are doing the billionaires' work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I think like many things there is a “middle ground” for missing middle (pun intended). Increasing density doesn’t necessarily need to consist of large apartment buildings. I think having a mix of duplexes, triplexes, and garden apartments would be nice to get a bit more variety in neighborhoods.

I live in Arlington in a desired school district, walkable to a metro station. I managed to buy pre-COVID at a low rate, which isn’t doable for families like mine anymore (dual fed GS-14s and we couldn’t afford to buy our house today). It feels unfair to completely pull up the ladder behind me while aLL around are $2-3M new builds. So now only the very wealthy have proximity to public transit and highly ranked schools.

I believe people of all income levels should have access to taxpayer-funded amenities. Of course there should be real capacity studies, not just rubber-stamping of reports and write offs for developers. I know we already have plenty of rainwater issues in the county and so we can’t encourage building to the lot lines. And I agree with a PP about limiting the number of vehicles that can be registered to an address (with actual enforcement of this).

But I would be totally fine with something other than 5k + SFHs going up all around me. Rich people have been using zoning codes to their benefit for decades now to hoard resources and I don’t think it’s right. Of course not everyone can be in their #1 zip code choice. However, if localities throughout the region relaxed zoning and also added amenities to lower income neighborhoods that are lacking them, it would ease some of the pressure.

Making sure public amenities are well distributed is right. Goes for schools, too, of course. Have to put extra resources in, there, and foot the increased tax bill to do that, or just decrease the resources to the schools that have it all to shift to those that don't. Can't put subway stops everywhere, so relax density restriction right in those areas.

There really should be no publicly funded differentiator such that, as a whole, a family would rather live in one place than another based only on those. That should be the domain of private enterprises. A cute coffee shop or a boutique decides to open up in a wealthy neighborhood area? Sure. Only nice areas keep parks with maintained playing fields and woods? No way.

There wouldn't be a reason to "need" higher density everywhere if there isn't something the system fails to provide with reasonable equivalence from one area to another.

Also, expecting that a particular geographic footprint is going to be as affordable when it has 1.5x the population is arguing against basic supply/demand economics. People who bought years ago aren't pulling any ladder up behind them that wasn't subject to the same conditions when they bought.

[Anonymous]

Builders don't want to build in DC because people like JLG make it very easy for tenants to skip paying rent. People aren't going to spend all this money building stuff if they can't predict how much or even whether they're going to make a profit. They're not charities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

So these new apartments are in fact affordable then? The issue being perhaps they are "too" affordable?

Granted, there are multiple posters, but its hard to tell if the objection is poor people living in these buildings or poor people not being able to afford these buildings and its just millennials leaving their avocado toast crumbs everywhere and parking their fleet of electric SUVs in front of SFHs.

They don't pay enough in property taxes to fund their children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

So these new apartments are in fact affordable then? The issue being perhaps they are "too" affordable?

Granted, there are multiple posters, but its hard to tell if the objection is poor people living in these buildings or poor people not being able to afford these buildings and its just millennials leaving their avocado toast crumbs everywhere and parking their fleet of electric SUVs in front of SFHs.

They don't pay enough in property taxes to fund their children.

They moat likely rent, then. The landlord would pay the property tax and charge rent accordingly. But commercial residential property gets assessed based on business value. A lot can be hidden, there -- a whole industry that basically cooks the books to make taxes much lower than a comparable owner-pccupied unit.

We should be taxing landlords based on owner-occupied comparable valuations to ensure the burden is spread similarly. Then we should be supporting those who need it with rental assistance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand these YIMBY do gooder twerps. They want to raze all SFHs to build dense crap. They love standing on their moral pedestals when they're too stupid to realize they're destroying the middle class and doing the bidding of the billionaires for free. Owning a home is pretty much the ONLY wealth vehicle the middle class has left. But the do gooders want to raze your homes and build giant apartment complexes next to them. Absolutely no one wants to live next to that junk. The middle class will flee, and guess what, developers come in taking all the homes and building a whole bunch of rental crap.

In their infinite wisdom, the YIMBYs and affordable housing idiots are sweeping the last leg of wealth out that is left for the middle class. They ate going to turn the entire counry into permarenters for life. And over time the middle class will be far worse off, because no one will be able to own anything, then they'll still jack up your rents on you in the end. The biggest thing elitists want to control now is land and property ownership. And all these clownshow housing morons are obtaining it for them by ruining your neighborhoods with their amazingly stupid zoning plans.

I concur 100%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

So these new apartments are in fact affordable then? The issue being perhaps they are "too" affordable?

Granted, there are multiple posters, but its hard to tell if the objection is poor people living in these buildings or poor people not being able to afford these buildings and its just millennials leaving their avocado toast crumbs everywhere and parking their fleet of electric SUVs in front of SFHs.

They don't pay enough in property taxes to fund their children.

They moat likely rent, then. The landlord would pay the property tax and charge rent accordingly. But commercial residential property gets assessed based on business value. A lot can be hidden, there -- a whole industry that basically cooks the books to make taxes much lower than a comparable owner-pccupied unit.

We should be taxing landlords based on owner-occupied comparable valuations to ensure the burden is spread similarly. Then we should be supporting those who need it with rental assistance.

I agree with all of this. Why are comparable usually condos assessed at much higher rates than apartments? This is true even when the condo building is old and the apartment building is new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Owning a home is definitely NOT the only way to build wealth. Renting is much cheaper than owning these days and if you rent a cheap place, you can pocket the difference and invest it in SP500. that’s the best way to build wealth for a young couple these days. Especially with having to move around for jobs in this modern economy

Mortgage deductions and first time home buyer credit work into your calculation there?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of issues could be fixed if they would only allow 2 cars per apartment. And you couldn't license a 3rd to that address. We definitely have houses with 9+ cars.

You think there are apartments where people have three+ cars per unit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

I totally agree that concentrating multifamily housing in some geographical areas is a bad idea. In the case you are describing it also sounds like the school boundaries intentionally segregate students by income.

Agree about concentrated poverty. But, one of the isssues with "missing middle housing" is that certain wealthy areas have exempted: Potomac, Kensington. If every party of Montgomery County was participating, I would be more inclined to believe that this wasn't a boondoggle for developers and the County reps who love them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand these YIMBY do gooder twerps. They want to raze all SFHs to build dense crap. They love standing on their moral pedestals when they're too stupid to realize they're destroying the middle class and doing the bidding of the billionaires for free. Owning a home is pretty much the ONLY wealth vehicle the middle class has left. But the do gooders want to raze your homes and build giant apartment complexes next to them. Absolutely no one wants to live next to that junk. The middle class will flee, and guess what, developers come in taking all the homes and building a whole bunch of rental crap.

In their infinite wisdom, the YIMBYs and affordable housing idiots are sweeping the last leg of wealth out that is left for the middle class. They ate going to turn the entire counry into permarenters for life. And over time the middle class will be far worse off, because no one will be able to own anything, then they'll still jack up your rents on you in the end. The biggest thing elitists want to control now is land and property ownership. And all these clownshow housing morons are obtaining it for them by ruining your neighborhoods with their amazingly stupid zoning plans.

Good. If it was up to me you would all be in CECOT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

So these new apartments are in fact affordable then? The issue being perhaps they are "too" affordable?

Granted, there are multiple posters, but its hard to tell if the objection is poor people living in these buildings or poor people not being able to afford these buildings and its just millennials leaving their avocado toast crumbs everywhere and parking their fleet of electric SUVs in front of SFHs.

They don't pay enough in property taxes to fund their children.

They moat likely rent, then. The landlord would pay the property tax and charge rent accordingly. But commercial residential property gets assessed based on business value. A lot can be hidden, there -- a whole industry that basically cooks the books to make taxes much lower than a comparable owner-pccupied unit.

We should be taxing landlords based on owner-occupied comparable valuations to ensure the burden is spread similarly. Then we should be supporting those who need it with rental assistance.

NP. This is "affordable housing" which means that the people living there don't pay anything. It's full of section 8 vouchers for low income/no income persons. When people say "missing middle" I think they mean they're looking for housing for middle class people, but that's not what affordable housing means in reality. I'm sure I wouldn't have qualified for it when I was in my 20s making 30-50k.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of issues could be fixed if they would only allow 2 cars per apartment. And you couldn't license a 3rd to that address. We definitely have houses with 9+ cars.

You think there are apartments where people have three+ cars per unit?

Yes. Are you actually questioning this? I bet the majority of apartments have 3+ cars per address! A 2 bedroom apartment usually has 2 adults per bedroom and then 2 adults in the family room= 6 people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

So these new apartments are in fact affordable then? The issue being perhaps they are "too" affordable?

Granted, there are multiple posters, but its hard to tell if the objection is poor people living in these buildings or poor people not being able to afford these buildings and its just millennials leaving their avocado toast crumbs everywhere and parking their fleet of electric SUVs in front of SFHs.

They don't pay enough in property taxes to fund their children.

Uh, the landlords pay the property tax using your rent. Do you seriously not know this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

So these new apartments are in fact affordable then? The issue being perhaps they are "too" affordable?

Granted, there are multiple posters, but its hard to tell if the objection is poor people living in these buildings or poor people not being able to afford these buildings and its just millennials leaving their avocado toast crumbs everywhere and parking their fleet of electric SUVs in front of SFHs.

They don't pay enough in property taxes to fund their children.

They moat likely rent, then. The landlord would pay the property tax and charge rent accordingly. But commercial residential property gets assessed based on business value. A lot can be hidden, there -- a whole industry that basically cooks the books to make taxes much lower than a comparable owner-pccupied unit.

We should be taxing landlords based on owner-occupied comparable valuations to ensure the burden is spread similarly. Then we should be supporting those who need it with rental assistance.

NP. This is "affordable housing" which means that the people living there don't pay anything. It's full of section 8 vouchers for low income/no income persons. When people say "missing middle" I think they mean they're looking for housing for middle class people, but that's not what affordable housing means in reality. I'm sure I wouldn't have qualified for it when I was in my 20s making 30-50k.

The people cramming 6 adults into a 1 bedroom apartment are generally not receiving public aid. what you are describing are immigrants likely violating the housing code with the landlords tacit concurrence. The landlord should be fined and the lease should be broken. But alas, you want to blame the immigrant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

So these new apartments are in fact affordable then? The issue being perhaps they are "too" affordable?

Granted, there are multiple posters, but its hard to tell if the objection is poor people living in these buildings or poor people not being able to afford these buildings and its just millennials leaving their avocado toast crumbs everywhere and parking their fleet of electric SUVs in front of SFHs.

They don't pay enough in property taxes to fund their children.

They moat likely rent, then. The landlord would pay the property tax and charge rent accordingly. But commercial residential property gets assessed based on business value. A lot can be hidden, there -- a whole industry that basically cooks the books to make taxes much lower than a comparable owner-pccupied unit.

We should be taxing landlords based on owner-occupied comparable valuations to ensure the burden is spread similarly. Then we should be supporting those who need it with rental assistance.

NP. This is "affordable housing" which means that the people living there don't pay anything. It's full of section 8 vouchers for low income/no income persons. When people say "missing middle" I think they mean they're looking for housing for middle class people, but that's not what affordable housing means in reality. I'm sure I wouldn't have qualified for it when I was in my 20s making 30-50k.

Not sure how that addresses the post, which was pointing out that commercial-residential/landlord-owned properties are not pulling their tax weight.