'Sounds' like a nice step for tenants here: Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae have said they won't lend toward any plans that don't provide for some portion of affordable housing. Now for the questions:
1. Some portion? What does that mean? What does it mean in terms of number of units? What does it mean in terms cost; what is the definition of 'affordable' knowing that what's affordable to some won't be affordable to others.
2. Does the general proposition have much meaning? Right now about 1/2 the complex is made up of long timers who are already paying what many would consider affordable rents. Saving these people further expense would be like saving someone who is already saved. What is the value here?
3. For those who are already paying 'affordable' rents, what will the deal hold for the future? That is, many long timers are retired or will retire soon. Once on fixed income, in 10-20 years will their rents still be affordable?
4. What about the costs not considered 'affordable'? Maybe this is just a matter of semantics, but sometimes semantics count. Will everybody else be paying 'unaffordable' costs? How does that compute?
5. Are Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae strictly referring to affordable rents? Or are they also referring to affordable opportunities to buy? The same questions about numbers and standards would apply.
6. From what sources are the FMs and the mayor's office getting tenant input? Our councilman? The TA Board? This blog hopes that the FMs and the mayor's office spreads a wider net and gets responses from the grassroots.
The tenants here are generally informed and vigilant. Whatever the outcome, it's for sure they'll remember every time they vote.
No comments:
Post a Comment