This has always puzzled me. When private investment comes to a blighted neighborhood it’s labelled “gentrification” (which is bad, I am told). But when public investment comes, it’s labelled “redevelopment” (which is good, I am told).
Isn’t ANY investment in blighted neighborhoods good? Sure, the people being displaced need a safe/affordable place to live. But the blighted structures they lived in previously weren’t safe.
Isn’t the question we should be asking “What can we do to produce more affordable housing so people don’t have to live in slums?” Saying “Look at those heartless private investors, displacing poor families from blighted, unsafe housing?” seems to miss the point.
“It’s critical for investors to understand that affordable housing is a strong and stable investment, one that’s resilient even when the economy isn’t. We have seen gains in the real estate market slowing, yet the affordable housing market remains strong.”
“Building homes off-site can help speed up the time it takes to complete homes in areas of the country that face extreme weather, Lawrence said, as the initial construction process takes place inside and away from the elements. It’s also more efficient in the sense that workers build the homes in an assembly line approach versus starting from scratch at each job site. Economies of scale not only reduce material costs, but they can also reduce waste generated during construction, Lawrence added. “
Transportation costs for modular are as much as 30 times higher than for SIPs. And SIPs deliver an R28 exterior wall while modular delivers R13. The combined reduction in transportation costs and monetized energy savings make SIPs – in many, but not all cases – a very good choice.
“Affordable housing has shown itself to be a strong hedge against a recession. While higher-end, higher-rent communities are more likely to be plagued with higher vacancies when residents tighten their belts, affordable housing always remains in demand — if anything, demand is even higher in a downturn.”
“To maximize the 179D deduction on commercial buildings, taxpayers need to meet prevailing wage requirements. If met, the amount of the deduction increases five-fold, from $0.50–$1.00 when not met to $2.50–$5.00 per square foot when prevailing wage requirements are satisfied. Similarly for multifamily homes, the maximum §45L Credit quintuples from $500–$1,000 per residence to $2,500–$5,000 per home depending on qualification level. Single-family homes under the new IRA rules do not need to meet prevailing wage requirements to obtain the higher $2,500 to $5,000 45L credit.”