All affordable or mixed income? Debate rages on Seward

[Wesley Mouch]

Also completely correct, but isn't a central city environment the ideal place to start breaking that down? I'd say yes. And isn't it possible that the divides are much more subtle that people think, such that someone making 150k/year could share a wall with someone making 50k/year but neither would feel out of place? It's not like you go around surveying your neighbors about their income.

Behavior such as choice of where you live is not something to 'break down'. People can choose any day of the week to live in one place or another. The idea that central planners should what communities should look like is a mistake.

Build your own great community as you want it to be, and if you do more people will choose to live in your community. Let go of the idea that the ideas and behaviors of others are something to be 'fixed'.

You might want to read this about attempts at creating walkable communities:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/...sprawl/385741/

[Mackinaw]

Behavior such as choice of where you live is not something to 'break down'. People can choose any day of the week to live in one place or another.

What part of my post suggests telling people where to live? Your response is a non-sequitur detached from market reality. Of course people choose where they want to live. This is a discussion about the government's role in creating and fostering neighborhoods. Here, it's about Seward St. The government, representing the people, is playing a role through furnishing public funding to developers. Meanwhile the City government, by and for the people, might also have some say, under its basic land use powers. The discussion is whether tax credits should be furnished in an unlimited fashion, or perhaps limited [[if that is even possible under relevant regulations). If they are, then the developer is likely to build a building that does not permit socioeconomic and/or age diversity. If they are limited, i.e. a condition of their availability is that the developer is capped at, say, 60% subsidized unit, then the building does permit people who aren't poor or aren't old to live there. If you've read closely, you'll know that I am in favor of the later. So I am in favor of giving people more options as to where they may choose to live.

Thanks for mischaracterizing. Read closer.

[Wesley Mouch]

What part of my post suggests telling people where to live? Your response is a non-sequitur detached from market reality. Of course people choose where they want to live. This is a discussion about the government's role in creating and fostering neighborhoods. Here, it's about Seward St. The government, representing the people, is playing a role through furnishing public funding to developers. Meanwhile the City government, by and for the people, might also have some say, under its basic land use powers. The discussion is whether tax credits should be furnished in an unlimited fashion, or perhaps limited [[if that is even possible under relevant regulations). If they are, then the developer is likely to build a building that does not permit socioeconomic and/or age diversity. If they are limited, i.e. a condition of their availability is that the developer is capped at, say, 60% subsidized unit, then the building does permit people who aren't poor or aren't old to live there. If you've read closely, you'll know that I am in favor of the later. So I am in favor of giving people more options as to where they may choose to live.

Thanks for mischaracterizing. Read closer.

You're welcome.

We need not get into parsing each other's writing. Perhaps I did read too much into your statement. I read that you feel we need to 'break down the barriers' that keep us living in silos rather than in an integrated community. I disagree that 'breaking down barriers' is necessary or desirable or achievable.

As to how to best deal with tax credits, I suggest they be discarded. The credits would be better just given to individuals to do with as they please. If you think socioeconomic integration is good, I believe tax credits for affordable housing are the wrong tool. They create the silos. Instead increase the EIC to put the power to buy any residence right into the hands of the elderly or poor. They can then choose to move into any building they can afford, and won't be held in these silos.

Although I argued against subsidized housing and think the 'right to housing' is absurd, I do believe we have a social responsibility to provide housing. After all, the government regulates up the cost of home construction by millions of rules. Thus, we need to help.