You attribute to me the thought: "The will of the masses is always right."
And yet, that is not what I said, and in fact I specifically mentioned at least one glaring exception to that. I'm don't care to speculate as to why you are incorrectly attributing what I said.
Let's pretend, just for a second, every one of your points: that Mosaic Commons is an unalloyed good, that it would have been voted down (although you are speculating), and that 40B was the only reason it was built.
Nothing in my general position about affordable housing and the value of 40B in general is obviated by this particular stipulated counter-example. What you have demonstrated is that Mosaic Commons was so important to those that wished to build it, that collectively it chose to add affordable housing to the project in order to get it built.
This makes Mosaic Commons exactly the same as a developer, except for the general sense that developers have a more overt motive of money. It is my understanding that Mosaic Commons was not primarily built as a tool for improving affordable housing, but rather affordable housing was a loophole that was exploited.
How did Mosaic Commons improve affordable housing in Berlin? Did it, at all? If so, how much? Did it provide as much or more benefit than Section 8 housing or other programs?
You aren't defending 40B, and you aren't accurately portraying my arguments against 40B. At best, you are merely defending Mosaic Commons, which exploited 40B for its own ends - whether those ends were good or not, those ends had (I would guess) little or nothing to do with affordable housing.
Out of curiosity: what are the price differences between 40B homes and regular homes in Mosaic Commons? Would a person who qualifies for a 40B unit also qualify for a regular unit? (I mean: compare the income required for qualification for both.) I see that many of the 40B units in Mosaic have been on sale for more than the minimum 120 days: is the group considering converting them to market rate (as is allowed in the law)? If not: why not? Is it because the market rate homes are also not selling?
I appreciate the fondness for Mosaic and Camelot: I've a lot of friends who live there. But you have not shown me, through your defense of Mosaic, that 40B is still an overall good for the State of MA, for the residents, for those that are too poor to afford market housing, for those that are too poor to afford even 40B housing, not have you overcome the flaws noted in the Inspector Generals report.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-11-02 04:01 pm (UTC)You attribute to me the thought: "The will of the masses is always right."
And yet, that is not what I said, and in fact I specifically mentioned at least one glaring exception to that. I'm don't care to speculate as to why you are incorrectly attributing what I said.
Let's pretend, just for a second, every one of your points: that Mosaic Commons is an unalloyed good, that it would have been voted down (although you are speculating), and that 40B was the only reason it was built.
Nothing in my general position about affordable housing and the value of 40B in general is obviated by this particular stipulated counter-example. What you have demonstrated is that Mosaic Commons was so important to those that wished to build it, that collectively it chose to add affordable housing to the project in order to get it built.
This makes Mosaic Commons exactly the same as a developer, except for the general sense that developers have a more overt motive of money. It is my understanding that Mosaic Commons was not primarily built as a tool for improving affordable housing, but rather affordable housing was a loophole that was exploited.
How did Mosaic Commons improve affordable housing in Berlin? Did it, at all? If so, how much? Did it provide as much or more benefit than Section 8 housing or other programs?
You aren't defending 40B, and you aren't accurately portraying my arguments against 40B. At best, you are merely defending Mosaic Commons, which exploited 40B for its own ends - whether those ends were good or not, those ends had (I would guess) little or nothing to do with affordable housing.
Out of curiosity: what are the price differences between 40B homes and regular homes in Mosaic Commons? Would a person who qualifies for a 40B unit also qualify for a regular unit? (I mean: compare the income required for qualification for both.) I see that many of the 40B units in Mosaic have been on sale for more than the minimum 120 days: is the group considering converting them to market rate (as is allowed in the law)? If not: why not? Is it because the market rate homes are also not selling?
I appreciate the fondness for Mosaic and Camelot: I've a lot of friends who live there. But you have not shown me, through your defense of Mosaic, that 40B is still an overall good for the State of MA, for the residents, for those that are too poor to afford market housing, for those that are too poor to afford even 40B housing, not have you overcome the flaws noted in the Inspector Generals report.