This policy is good, and this isn't even an edge case. This is a landlord who is about to spend a million dollars on more rental units and doesn't want to provide affordable units.
She wants to build 4 rental units on a lot in downtown. That's an apartment building. Why should an apartment building with 4 units be exempt from offering affordable housing? She will not be occupying those four units. She will be staying in her fifth unit.
If I paid rent to my parents in college would that make their house a 2-unit rental?
I am okay with a certain amount of gray area in the rental market, especially for informal or family situations. If these units ever hit the general market you can hit them with tighter rules later.
Again, in this case, she would not be exempt, she would pay a one time fee for the housing program.
… and doesn’t want to work within the regulations her community has to promote affordable housing.
Doesn’t want to pay anything—submit for an exception, or pay the Hollywood price to do what she wants.
I don’t see what’s unfair. It would be unfair if she could only build the larger building, and was required to have affordable units—or do nothing.
What _sucks_ is that while her and her family were dealing with these restrictions, there has been a world pandemic, and the economy took a swing towards inflation and higher interest rates.
The family is in a worse spot than if they had paid the 77k upfront.
I’m wondering why their story is getting amplified. I guess this is a turn against cities trying to create regulations promoting affordable housing.
So what? She's trying to build an addition and rent it to her kids. Even if she was going to rent to randoms, so what? Is it better she just keeps the property as a single family home?
But in this case the city assessing a luxury tax for such a setup seems pretty reasonable.