The reason “dissonance is strong” among these candidates is that many of them understand the solutions to affordable housing better than ECB does. Building more market-rate housing is great for new Amazonians, but it does nothing for low-income seniors and people living on Social Security. It does nothing for minimum-wage hotel, retail, restaurant and home-care workers, either.
Building low-income and workforce housing requires subsidies and cannot be done by the marketplace. To build affordable housing requires substantial infusions of funds. The MFTE has been a failure in this regard–too few units built, only affordable for 12 years. Instead, recommended tools are: linkage fees, councilmanic bonds to create a land bank, bridge loans to preserve older buildings, a low-interest maintenance loan fund for small building owners, and inclusive zoning. ECB’s cognitive dissonance comes from her continuing to espouse the urbanista trickle-down affordability myth–which takes 20-30 years and never becomes affordable to those making less than 50% of area median income. It’s also a vast exaggeration to assume that paying a one-time 5% linkage fee at the time of permitting, financed over 30 years, would have more than a negligible effect on the number of units built in a market as hot as this. Bottom line: the developers, not homeowners, must pay for more affordable housing. They can afford it.