Just down right obnoxious – and I think this is an example of that. First, the design looks like the projects (many 100% affordable look like giant, cheap hotels), and is way too big. Second, many of those earning AMI of 80% to 120% Area Media Income (basically the “missing middle”) have been sending the message “we don’t want to live in mega-giant apartments with no parking.” Now, many would love more single family (or townhouse/condo) home Below Market Rate OWNERSHIP opportunities – but apparently state and local “leaders” want to live in their own single family homes while asking all of the working class to rent a unit in giant apartment complexes with no parking space. What happens? The target populations for those units largely won’t submit applications to rent there – we have already seen this with the moderate income units. AND, the reason they won’t go below 80% AMI to your Very/Extremely Low Income populations is because those units, unless they have a Section 8 voucher or permanent subsidy attached (which most don’t), won’t generate the needed revenue to sustain the apartment community – and those properties are very difficult to manage. The buildings serving formerly homeless or those making 30% AMI tend to have higher occupancy rates because those tenants don’t have any other options – while a family of 4 making nearly $160,000/year do. Below is a recent news story about how moderate income properties have much higher vacancy rates, and it should be obvious why.

This “build up and everywhere” method – where the City/state build hundreds of units on every 1/2 acre possible is NOT the solution – and NOT what most families want. No matter what “housing advocates” tell you. Its is short sighted to simply say “we need as many units as possible” to remedy the affordability crisis when a lack of units isn’t the root cause of affordability to begin with (high concentrations of white collar jobs is – which is sort of shifting now). It’s almost like saying “we just need to build everyone an apartment to solve homelessness.”

Go out and talk to those making 80% AMI and up about what they want specifically instead of assuming. Or we will see higher vacancy rates in these types of projects – and continue to wonder why, when it should be obvious.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/05/18/moderate-income-housing-vacant/

Still, a 100% low income project, not subsidized, on unused land, is something that is uncommon. It’s a Builders Remedy project so there is nothing residents can do to stop it anyway.

Note that these 100% affordable projects do not pay any property taxes. An 80% AMI apartment can rent for over $3500 per month, not much different than a market-rate apartment, but the developer gets tax benefits that more than make up any difference in rent.

Also, since this project is not receiving any government subsidies, it does not have to use prevailing wage labor in its construction.

It’s the perfect project (/s). No nearby mass transit. Relatively high rent. No union or prevailing wage labor required. No nearby retail. No property taxes to pay for services like schools, police, fire, etc.. No trees. Creates a heat island. Adjacent to a congested freeway.