That’s maybe the 3rd or 4th Charlotte LIHTC deal with unrestricted units in more than a decade. However, if you think about the term “mixed-income” more broadly, all of them qualify.
www.novoco.com/periodicals/...
Using the tax code is actually better than paying up front and hoping the owner will follow the rules. That’s why the LIHTC is the only affordable rental program to not only survive but grow over the course of multiple decades.
Regardless, political survivability is a virtue. Programs must exist.
I’m very much in support of consolidating funding sources and actually have done it professionally.
That said, four is not really a challenge:
-federal LIHTC equity
-bank loan
-deferred fee
-local $, state LIHTC, etc.
Market rate deals are not that different.
How about that! I probably shouldn’t say that most of them would be at least a bit outside what’s relevant for PRRAC… All of my recordings of course are spot on.
😉
Admittedly I’m too ADD to read the whole article, especially on my phone.
Hopefully the author acknowledges the trade-off between rent levels and production. As in CA could make units more affordable, at the cost of creating fewer of them.
Unfortunately there are no right answers, only choices.
Many people have that view, which is why I responded: they are either
• not comparing it to anything, or
• doing so in an entirely unbalanced manner.
Enough people being wrong doesn’t make them right.
No, I’m not aware of any such study, which is why I don’t make accusations about inefficiency.
My firm is one of those costs, so yes, I would include it.
Yes, MoCo and the Center for Public Enterprise are great. I’ve actively supported them in several ways.
So you weren’t already including those costs in your partial claim? Speaking of, as compared to what?
Or we can just skip to the fact that pretty much all such comparisons ignore the administrative costs of appropriations, inaccurately making them look better.
Inefficient as compared to what? Before answering, consider the relative number of federal, state, and local employees tasked with administering it versus other programs.
I won’t defend the Code’s basis boost approach, but there’s more to the data:
www.novoco.com/notes-from-n...
Accelerated depreciation would increase an investor’s return, allowing higher pricing.
The two conflict only in history, that one came into existence because Regan killed the other.
Good. Those who critique the LIHTC often wrongly presume a need to eliminate it to achieve their desired approach. Glad that doesn’t describe you.
What these “good ol’ days” comparisons never mention:
• the two tax treatments are not inherently mutually exclusive (we could have both);
• affordability results of accelerated depreciation.
On the latter:
www.novoco.com/notes-from-n...
In my experience most agencies are agnostic about mixed use. The real difficulties and challenges come from the debt and equity providers who aren’t comfortable underwriting the two different kinds of income streams.
My understanding is every LIHTC project in CA involves a nonprofit developer so as to receive a property tax exemption. I’m sure many are joint ventures with for profits.
The second one supports my point (look forward to using it).
That was an interesting report, but I don’t recall it supporting the statement above.
I’ve yet to see anyone actually substantiate this claim.
The most important point is they are not alternatives, we need both. I’d argue the efficiency aspect, plus add that vouchers don’t add to production.
Only if there’s some unique expectation to do so under a local program.
An example so unique as to be newsworthy is not doing much to support “rarely ends well.” Exclusionary zoning needs to end so supply can meet demand.
No one is kicked out of LIHTC housing for being over income. In fact, unlike with vouchers, your rent doesn’t even go up as your pay/salary increases.
They’d be even more oversubscribed without the incentives to secure gap funding.
Creating a social housing developer/program would be a great addition to our current system. Many jurisdiction, especially in California, would benefit from adopting the Center for Public Enterprise model.
I genuinely don’t understand the frustration with certain professionals’ positive reaction (was a whole ShelterForce article). The new provisions will create more than a million affordable units over the next decade. That’s good, right?
(Yes, of course the rest of the bill is terrible.)
The field guide (not something I worked on) was meant to help. My understanding is it being well received. However, repeating rules does go against my advice to agencies:
www.novoco.com/notes-from-n...
Huh, that was indeed after my time. I remember there being a problem with some kind of A/C unit back in the early 2000s.