Public housing units are a big mistake. The object should be recorded home ownership, even if the gov't gives them away.
Now how mixed will a economically "mixed" housing project be in 2 years?
Mixed income public housing? A disaster waiting to happen!
Prediction: this idea will be a mess.
So they are going to build a new ghetto? On purpose? Why?
If we absolutely, positively "must" provide subsidized housing (not a legitimate government function in my opinion, but realistically we'll never get rid of it), the subsidies should be in the form of "housing stamps" or vouchers, allowing the beneficiaries to apply the vouchers toward privately developed rental units, or toward private mortgages.
Building new slums (government housing projects) is not the answer, no matter how "integrated" (in two senses of the word) they are with middle-income housing.
But, of course, it gets back to the plantation mentality, and recreating the political bases of Dem mayors, state legislators, and Congresscritters with creatively drawn districts.
mixed use ? Sleeping quarters and retail drug emporium
No way it will be mixed income. Why would anyone who could afford more want to live in one of those places?
There is a bigger lie at the base of all of this, IMO.
Let's say a developer is going to build 30 houses. The local permits he gets require him to make 20% of those houses available for "low income" buyers.
Here's the math:
The correct price for each of these 30 houses based on price per sq foot in the given area, and the materials and labor used should be $350,000 each, for a total of $10,500,000.
The 6 "low income" houses are going to be sold at a price of $200,000 each, based on God knows what kind of computation the local authorities press upon the developer/builder in order for him to get to build ANYTHING AT ALL.
Since the total value at retail of all 30 houses is $10,500,000. and the builder is going to get paid only $1,200,000 for the "low income 6 houses, that JACKS UP the price on the remaining 24 houses to $387,500 in order to get to the full original value, which the developer is entitled to get. This is a SURCHARGE to the buyers who have worked hard to get into a nicer house of $37,500. This is a SURCHARGE of 9.6774%. This leads to higher property taxes for a buyer in states like California, where taxes are based on the purchase price. It is NOT CLEARLY stated how the property taxes are assessed on the low income home sold in a state where the ASSESSOR sets the property taxes.
The higher percentage of houses within the development targeted as being "low income", the more the other houses have to SUBSIDIZE those buyers.
This is a poor premise from the git-go. The lower income person will not make needed repairs and maintain their houses in the same manner as the person who paid MORE than full price for it. They just do not do so. SPARE ME YOUR GNASHING OF TEETH!!!
The "low income houses" are also sprinkled within the whole complex of the build, so you get to pay the higher rate, and cannot avoid the mentality of the low income buyer who got his chance to buy way below the correct price.
The higher taxes paid by the higher priced homes do not get those homeowners any more fire coverage, nor police coverage, nor street repairs, etc. NOT A NICKELS WORTH.
Instead, they get stuck with low income mentalities and a growing cancer on the neighborhood.
I have absolutely NO idea how long these "favored" buyers at the lower price are to stay in their homes, because I don't know that that can be legislated.
I also don't know if an investor with a qualifying income can buy the house and then put Section 8 renters into it.
If you don't know about Section 8 renters, educate yourselves. They can be a landlords worst nightmare.
Hence, they become the whole neighborhoods worst nightmare.
This whole system is just enforced integrated bussing, only with your house, IMO.