I am glad to hear this, but I renew my objection to the meaningless term, "affordable housing."

Because you care, that's why.

Why isn't this affordable, CC? It is reserved for people that make 60% or less than median family income. This isn't the dreaded "work force" housing that can mean whatever it wants to developers. This is regulated, real affordable housing. The veteran housing is an even better deal...albeit not very much of it.

@ ben: I'm all for lower income housing, or whatever equivalent euphemism you wish to use. However, "affordable" is a relative word, obviously. Using it's ordinary, relative definition, nearly every person lives in "affordable" housing, i.e. housing that is affordable to them.

I'm not insisting on some judgmental or degrading term, just something a little more accurate, whose meaning is a little easier to grasp.

This is the first time I've seen the phrase fleshed out, for example, and I was glad to see it, but until now, I had no real idea what Sarah meant when she repeatedly said, "affordable housing."

Anyone making minimum wage would still not be able to afford to live here.

They kinda forgot the 30% median family income again, didn't they? They keep tearing 'em out and putting people on the street,(The Grove becoming a youth hostel), and forget to put em back. Surprise!!!

Great, tax productive citizens to subsidize waterfront skyrise housing for those that don't earn enough to afford the luxury in a city that has plenty of apartments in that price range.

@ Commenty Colin, I agree. @ Sarah Mirk please use correct spelling and punctuation, especially on the opening sentence of your article. It's not just you either, a lot of Mercury writers are culpable as well, and it takes away from your credibility. Not being snobby, just keepin' it real.

Hoppy, you are misinformed. The new housing is neither "skyrise", nor waterfront. It is 6 stories and closer to the highway than the water. Additionally, there is a convincing amount of evidence that there is not enough apartments in that price range in the inner city.

"construction will be financed through a mix of tax increment financing dollars and $7.57 million in bonds"

Do us a solid and explain the difference between TIF dollars and bonds.

I agree about the term "affordable housing". It's as dumb as "organic" or "new and improved". This is "low income housing". My guess is someone politically corrected it along the way in an attempt to be sensitive.

I still don't understand why prime real estate is being subsidized like this. It seems like the potential tax revenue from this area would do more good.

1. lifer12, calling out the Mercury for spelling/grammatical mistakes is like calling out Toyota for building cars that pollute.

2. The difference between "low income housing" and "affordable housing" is that not everyone has an income. Affordable is a relative term, yes, but relative in the opposite way of that you assume. Affordable, in the context of affordable housing, means affordable for all. The idea is that everyone should be able to afford housing. To call it "low income housing" disqualifies people in school, unemployed mothers getting out of abusive situations, etc.

@ Bronch : now we get to niggle over the word income! Yay. Unless they are penniless street folk, they have an income of some sort to be living there. "Income" doesn't just refer to money obtained from work, but from any source (student loans, gov't benefits, etc).

I'm not arguing that "low-income" is much better, or that it isn't a damagingly pejorative term, just that it's better than the completely relative term, "affordable."

Also, I'd be pissed if we were subsidizing fancy waterfront apartments for students.

But it is better to permanently subsidize high end housing in the Pearl, south Waterfront and other places, right? For an example, compare the real estate tax paid in one of these developments as opposed to right across the river, that will give you a small reality check. BTW, those taxes will NEVER catch up.