Affordable housing is against the Constitution!

As affordable housing controversies flare up in right-leaning suburbs, it's worth taking a pulse on what the teabagger take on it is. 

Using this not always lucid but certainly expressive post from the Americans for Prosperity site as a proxy, the answer is what you'd expect: It's against the Constitution!

Comments

[zombie rotten mcdonald]

sheesh.

I know a bit about the tax credit development work, and look, if you don't want to provide moderate income housing that meets WHEDA or Fed requirements, don't do it. It's called the free fucking market, which these cobnuggets profess to love.

But here's the thing; the moderate income program has much higher occupancy rates and much better performances overall, so developers love to avail themselves of the tax credit program, because it is a good deal. Projects I have been involved with are generally fully rented before completion, and have a negligible vacancy rate.

Which market rate can't say, especially nowadays.

And let's be clear; although there are different programs, the most popular, Title 42, is a rent control program that limits the rent charged for tenants that earn within certain limits of the regional averages. Which means the tenants are working people, usually blue collar.

So let's get down to the real underlying objections, shall we? the outcry over increasing crime has nothing to do with the development, but rather the perception that blue collar incomes mean dark-hued people.

Fear of ethnics caused much of the white flight phenomenon, and is at the root of much of the NIMBY attitude seen in suburbs.