I think it's more that there is an imminently obvious solution (housing subsidy based off of income, on a sliding scale. And letting that reach 100% for poorer people if needed), but instead we've opted for setting aside stock, which causes a whole range of problems in itself.
So the whole "affordable housing" thing becomes a sort of fiscal cliff: you make a dollar over this amount, and suddenly you lose all the benefits.
Of course it makes sense to help out the less fortunate more than someone who makes more, but maybe there are easier ways.
An example of what some other places do: France offers housing subsidies where the only restrictions are that you're "for real" renting the place (not living at a relative's house). Then it's only a function of your income and age (and capped at something like 80% of your total rent)
So the whole "affordable housing" thing becomes a sort of fiscal cliff: you make a dollar over this amount, and suddenly you lose all the benefits.
Of course it makes sense to help out the less fortunate more than someone who makes more, but maybe there are easier ways.
An example of what some other places do: France offers housing subsidies where the only restrictions are that you're "for real" renting the place (not living at a relative's house). Then it's only a function of your income and age (and capped at something like 80% of your total rent)