It didn’t seem high to me esp for a high cost city. But it does depend on the depth of subsidy (income level), length of affordability, and rehab vs NC mix.
-
-
-
But yes this is just NYC money. But leveraging other money makes sense from city perspective.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
That’s only NYC spending. Is there any state spending? I think that’s where the big bucks are in CA.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The preserved units likely have a much lower per unit subsidy. Still impressive numbers nonetheless!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Subsidizing units *without allowing other new housing to be built* is an asinine losing battle. One that SF is fighting (self inflicted...) and NYC is not.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Thanks; good to know. All the more now that I would like to see how these numbers break down.
-
At risk of stating the obvious, SF subsidy amt depends on many things. Other subsidies; new const vs rehab; 9% vs. 4% credits. Can be $300k/unit, or much less...or more (small sites). But a "unit" lasts decades, houses generations, serves hundreds of people if looked at annually.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.