Hacker News Reader

Comment by paraxion | Hacker News Reader

I'm absolutely in no way qualified to interpret results, but it seems like in Western Australia we've had a similar policy since the 1990s, where the WA Housing Authority put policy in place to ensure that no suburb had more than 1 in 9 houses dedicated to public/government housing.

https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/the-su...

That said, there's been some notable kerfuffles when "rich" suburbs didn't want their allocation.

View on HN

Over here in the ACT, we have an official policy of "salt and peppering", i.e. spreading public housing out evenly across the city including in wealthy areas.

Of course, whether the policy matches the reality... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-15/canberra-public-housi...

also, is it better to build public housing in expensive areas (which implies less housing for the same fixed budget), or build public housing at the lowest cost, maximal housing capacity (which implies going to lower cost areas).

In the United States, projects applying for Low Income Housing Tax Credits actually get a 30% boost in their subsidy if they're in qualified low-income Census tracts.

Over in NZ, there isn’t an official rule, but as if by magic, new subdivisions in wealthier areas don’t have social housing, but new subdivisions in more working class areas have plenty.

I wonder if the shire wants to save money by purchasing properties in lower-cost areas.

In Germany, property developers can be forced to build X% of the project as "welfare housing" to avoid this scenario.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com