policy choices

One of my professional interest is affordable housing (or BMR, below-market-rate, units).

I truly believe that providing adequate housing is the first step in making the world a better place. By taking away someone's worry about having a roof over their heads, that person can begin to focus on financial stability, health, and making the world a better place.

The latest debate over affordable housing is on-site versus off-site.

Affordable housing policies usually require a certain percentage of large housing projects to be affordable. This percentage of units are sold at a capped price. In SF, that number ranges from 12 to 20 percent. For the developer, the affordable housing requirement cuts into the projects' profits because these units are sold at below-market value, thus the nickname BMRs.

In an effort to compromise, a new type of BMR has emerged, the off-site. These BMRs are located not on the project site but within the City boundary. In SF, the off-site has to be located within one mile of the project site. Another requirement is that the number of BMR will increase relative to the original percentage.

The idea is that the cost of the off-site will be lower and that the developer is making enough on the original market-rate units that there is a financial incentive to opt for more affordable housing units. It's a win-win situation because the developer don't lose out as much and more housing units are created overall.

Is it really?

I am against off-site because w/o integration of the different classes, affordable housing are not as successful. Many of the public housing of the past are slums because throwing a lot of people who are financially strapped is never a good idea, not to mention many of the drugs and mental health issues that are often associated with those in public housing/affordable housing projects.

Housing, like neighborhoods, need to be diverse and integrate different populations to be successful. San Francisco is not as viberant as Los Angeles, scale aside, because it is not economically diverse. On-site BMRs are just another solution to create diversity.

True, BMR is not public housing, it is merely subsidized. Many people will never be able to afford even BMRs. Also, many developers feel that BMR is yet another exaction that is similar to the taking of property, so they argue that off-site is the best compromise.

One reason to leave my job (yes, I've accepted the offer) is that my company is about to embark on off-site BMRs, and it feels wrong to work on a project that wants to create off-site affordable housing.

The debate continues, and I am excited that I learned enough from this last job to be able to know where I stand. The next job will have its share of tough choices, and I welcome the opportunity to help clients make the right choices.

decision time

I got the offer from the law firm. The meeting of the mind was not just in my head.

What's next?