Scott, The esence of my paragraph was focussed subsidies, it was about the ownership system.What do you think about that part part of my paragraph?

I am in favor of IZ. I don’t belive that it will lead to permanently affordable housing unless commuity equity ownership is required for the new homes AND there is $ to make the projects pemcil for the builders. The City can declare IZ’s all over the place, but the current private market market cost of the lots, labor and materials(even without any permitting or impact fees) will not likely make projects pencil for developers without there being a significant period of profit taking from rents on the new units. If there were a state bank to make long term low interest loans for the IZ projects, that woud help. There are certainly local builders that would like to participate in these projects if they could make them pencil.

I would be in favor of giving the State the power to condemn properties for below market prices in order to build permanently affordable housing, but first we would need to get the Supreme court to reverse the rulings that uphold the concept of ‘takings’ in regard to residential realestate.

Satpal is correct when he writes that the problem is “the flaw in the economic structure”. Private equity wnership of residential properties is the fundamental probem. In this system housing is just another investment opportunity rather than a rightful human need. We need to build an alternative system of community ownership such as Community Land Trusts and Co-ops. We won’t be able to turn enough homes into community equity owned homes without the full buy-in of government at every level and the voting public. The work to get there starts with calling out this fundamental problem (private equity ownership of homes) and the goal -at least 50% of homes converted to community equity ownership in order to make them PERMANENTLY AFFORDABLE and not dependent on long term taxpayer subsidies.