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.
But in this case the city assessing a luxury tax for such a setup seems pretty reasonable.
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.
If so, then yes. (Assuming it didn't fall under accessory dwelling unit rules.)
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.