Very good questions. The answers - not so much. City govt would rather not discuss the con jobs they regularly play on citizens. Next, we get conned into voting for another tax increase disguised as a bond. These methods are tried and true. They’ve been working for as long as I can remember. The first one I can recall was STNP. Does anyone else reading this remember that one? You’re paying for it.
Anyway, Bill Oakey has an affordability blog. Even he gets suckered by these bond schemes sometimes. I bet he will never get straight answers to his questions:
Part of the problem is affordability is a somewhat subjective term. The fact that people are occupying the housing already in existence means that it is affordable to some, just not all. Using a term like economic diversity might be more appropriate. In essence, rich people are boring. You really want a community that is in reach to people with a variety of incomes.
Good questions, but ones clearly ignorant of the fact that state law actually forbids cities from mandating the inclusion of any variety of “entitlements” such as affordable housing in any proposed development on privately owned land. As such, developers might throw in a few token “affordable” units for PR’s sake, but they’re under no legal obligation to do so (and as such the city cannot legally “audit” them to determine how effectively they’re working). The only reason Mueller was, and still is, one of the only exceptions to the rule is because the city itself owned the land, and could thus dictate to builders what they wanted on it.