Of course this comes from someone who doesn't own an Apartment Building.

Seattle can't do anything, but King County and Washington State can.

We can engage in a policy of De-Seattlization to take away power from the overburdening edicts of the densifiers and redirect our energies towards building a regional system of rail, transit, housing, apartment building, workspaces away from the tired core of Seattle. We also need to rectify the Property Taxes so you pay what you get for.

Only then will fairness ensue.

And, correspondingly, if the tenant chooses to end the relationship, they should have to keep paying rent until the owner finds a new tenant.

If I lease a Mercedes AMG but can only afford a Ford Focus who's problem is it? Yea, mine for trying to live a fancier life than I am willing to earn. So how is it any different if I want to lease a high-rise apt downtown for $4k but can only afford sharing a duplex with my three buddies in Shoreline for $500 a month each?

It's incredibly hard to conduct a serious debate about this important issue facing Seattle unless we define the terms we're using. "Affordable housing" has a bureaucratic meaning. The city of Seattle uses that term to describe public-owned housing for very poor people:

http://www.seattle.gov/housing/Links.htm

However, when you're talking at a bar with your friends about "affordable housing", you're talking about a one bedroom apartment that doesn't rent for $2200.

Let's please please get our vocabulary straight so we can have a meaningful discussion.

@5) So, because you assume that you know how developers will act based on an invisible "profit motive", any action by those whom they wish to exploit is futile? Wow, you are certainly a genius economist. We are all wondering why the whole world isn't banging on your door for your economic wisdomery. Where is your seat at the UN? Close sarcasm.

Meanwhile, the rest of us in the real world realize that hitting the developers' pockets is THE best and the ONLY strategy. They are the ones building - seeking to draw blood out of the real local estate and the tenant pool. You are very stupid indeed to assume that their governance is best left to themselves. Or are you one of those moronic "invisible hand is magic" toadies?

@4 While people should certainly make pains to live within their means, in this context, your argument makes no sense. The Ford Focus you're leasing isn't going to suddenly double in value. However, the hitherto affordable apartment you and your bros share can suddenly cost twice as much per month at the will of your landlord, with fairly little notice.

Well put @7. I can't tell what @5's point is (nor @2 and @4, but that's expected. @3 is also a dumbass).

I didn't even realize it wasn't already a requirement for an expiring lease to go month-to-month; every lease I've ever signed either says that, or to be renewed for the same length.

Interesting choice of photos. This is a new amazon office tower and not housing. Was this a subtle jab at amazon? Or is this just another example of the sloppy journalism we are getting here lately.

How about making it legal to divide a house into a duplex or triplex? Right now it's not legal unless the land is already zoned for apartments.

Oh, right, I forgot, we don't care about making it easy to GET a rental, only keep one if you already have it.

"ask the landlord to sign a certificate promising he or she isn't raising rents in order to get tenants to move out."

What possible upside is there for the landlord to sign such a certificate? This reminds me of when Garfield high tried to get the Twilight Exit to sign a "good neighbor" agreement where they could only serve alcohol between 5 and 10, and none on Sundays. The Twilight Exit correctly told them to shove it, just as landlords would do with this.

@8

Well, how about this analogy. Your Ford Focus doubles in value due to market forces. When you try to sell it at market value, the government tells you that you can only sell at a price THEY deem fair. Would you calmly accept such a tyrannical theft of your property rights or find ways around it?

I think investing in good public transit to make underdeveloped areas better connected is the best thing the county can do to keep rents affordable and the quality of life in Seattle high. Of course this doesn't protect renters currently living in those areas, or the most vulnerable renters in other parts of the city. That's a more difficult question.

Also, everyone should read this breakdown of cost of new construction: http://markasaurus.com/2013/10/22/why-ca…
They're San Francsico numbers, but land cost and subsidy fees will be the only real difference in porting to Seattle numbers. It's not advocating for anything, but it's important to know this stuff:

Thank you, Heidi, for this informative article on possible and feasible solutions to the San Fransisco-sized rent problem that has mushroomed in Seattle. Quite frankly, I am appalled at the current price gouging of property owners in University Place who are evicting renters because others are willing to pay exponentially more during the U.S. Open in June--and getting away with it! If this shit is allowed there, what can be done to stop this blatant greed anywhere else here in Washington State? My own apartment complex has been going through some big renovation projects, and I'd hate for my rent to suddenly increase to unaffordable levels.

#15

The University of Washington could pay tuition for all its students for the next century if it sold off its Seattle campus for residential development and moved the whole thing to Yakima.

#9

You seem confused.

Should we move you into a blog with less gifted kids?

@13 Well, if the most reasonably affordable necessities presumed to be required by society for a modicum of success are rendered inaccessible to the average or slightly-below-average citizen, then this so-called market, for better or worse, is in need of intervention if it hasn't already failed.

@13: The trouble with that argument is "due to market forces".
Landlords trying to get around the tenant relocation assistance law jack up the rent not because market forces make the apartment suddenly twice as valuable, but because they want to kick the tenant out without having to pay them that lump sum as specified in the law. It's got nothing to do with the value of the apartment and everything to do with evicting people without having to take on the responsibilities associated with evicting them. Here's a better example:

You're leasing a Ford Focus from a dealer at a previously agreed-upon monthly rate. One month, the dealer tells you that it will cost twice as much going forward. You can't afford that, so you let the lease expire, whereupon one month later, the dealer is leasing the car to his cousin Tony for the old (lower) rate. Would you call that a fair and ethical business practice? Would you say the dealer acted in good faith?
Hell, you're a contractor, right? If you rented heavy equipment from an agency that suddenly jacked up the prices halfway through the rental just to make you end it early (so they could have the equipment available), is that an agency you'd rent from again?

And that's just talking about cars or construction equipment; consumers' protections are much stronger for housing matters because access to housing is one of those things like food and water that people essentially need to survive. This is why in most jurisdictions if someone stops paying their heating bill during the winter, the company isn't allowed to shut the heat off until spring.
But hey, what do you care? You've proudly staked your claim to the imaginary right to deal with your (also imaginary?) tenants however you see fit, regardless of the law.

But if I was leasing a Mercedes I already had the income to pay the monthly lease, right? And the term of the lease (a few years, not 12 months) is set so at the end of the lease I give up the car without much of a chance of renewing the lease.

Tell me again how renting an apartment is like leasing a car? #4, the stupid is very strong with you.

Commendation, on the initiative to find every opportunity to sound like a persecuted whiney victim. "Landlords keep building 'profit centers.'

Yes, and with each building, furthering supply which – in the face of rising demand – lowers prices. Welcome to essential economics.

If you really wanted to lower rents, push Seattle to dramatically increase the flow of new building, with less needless bureaucracy, redundant and inefficient permitting, clumsy, pointless and near-endless hearing processes. The skyrocket of 10,000 new apartments would cause prices to tumble.

But wait, No -- Seattle government isn't really interested in lower rents. It is all about institutionalized CONTROL of private resource.

Welcome to Seattroit.

@21:

But that's not what what's happening here right now. We're not seeing average rents go down with the sudden increase in supply, because the new units coming on the market are already priced well above that average, which simply makes the remaining available units renting for less than-the-average INCREASE in price, because the increase on the higher-end of the market is trending the entire rental supply upward. In order to achieve the scenario you describe, you need to have either some new units come on-the-market at below the average or more existing units fall below it, and neither of these is occurring.

#19

It's more like...the Ford Focus factory and the local government get together and put up a steel template that only matches the Ford Focus...so only Ford Focuses can get in the apartment.

After the apartment maker and the government officials buy up 80% of the apartments for themselves, the offer the others in the worst locations to everyone else.

Then they pass a law saying that you cannot build more apartments, and the only person who can get into the apartment has to drive a Ford Focus, and by the way we're not going to make any more Ford Focuses and for those who do have Ford Focuses, the tax is now 50% of value, and .....................

@23: wew lad

@22

Are you suggesting that average rents today would be at inflation-adjusted 1990 levels if none of those new high-end apartments had been built in the past couple of decades?

Because that seems to me like a rather problematic economic argument.

It does seem quite clear that developers haven't overbuilt in Seattle; increase in local demand has kept pace with or exceeded increase in local supply. But isn't it entirely normal and expected for supply adjustment to trail changes in demand, in the housing sector generally?

I mean, Detroit landowners haven't been bulldozing their money-losing apartment buildings in step with the population decrease, have they? Instead, rents there have plummeted, instead of staying level, which you'd expect if supply reacted quickly to demand, right?

It is very clear that none of you morons took Econ 101. Especially #7.

Seattle loves our buzz-words and bumper sticker slogans; and who can’t get behind something like “Affordable Housing, Now!” Especially when the annual night-out homeless count found 2,813 people sleeping on the Seattle streets (and another 1,000 on the outskirts of town).

But ask the average person on the street to define affordable housing and you might be surprised with the answer (or lack of). Terms like affordable housing, rental subsidies, transitional housing, shelters, Section-8, and low income housing all run together in a hodge-podge of confusing buzz words and political jargon.

If we want to solve these problems we need to all start speaking the same language.

The first step in addressing the very different, yet sometimes linked problems of affordable housing and homelessness will lie in our ability to clearly communicate what we see as the genesis of each problem. Once we are clear with what problems we are trying to correct we can begin identifying existing programs along with their strengths and weaknesses. We need to communicate in clear, easy to understand terms what at the challenges and what is the goal as we move forward in address our housing problems.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING:

The term affordable housing is connected to median income. Once the median income for an area is established then rentals over 30% of a renter’s income is considered cost burdened or unaffordable. So what is median income? Median income is the middle point of a climbing income chart. At one end you have zero income, the other end you have the highest earner in the given area. All earners are put on a chart from lowest to highest in chronological order. Then, the chart is split right down the middle and that point is the median, the exact center of the chart. Median is not the average income of an area, nor is it a bell-curve (majority income). Here’s an example- if the market consists of only 9 people, with the first 3 all making $3 each, then all others earning income that climbs in $5 increments, the median in this case would be $13 (the middle point), and 30% of that would be $3.90 (affordable housing). Now, if all landlords in the area rented at that rate, it would make it very hard for tenants at the lower end of the spectrum to find housing; which is what has been the topic of discussion for those advocating for “affordable” housing.

The confusion comes when using the term “affordable” housing in broad terms. In markets with heavy ends of the spectrum landlords who may in fact be pricing their units at 30% of median income may appear to be price gouging when that is not always the case. Median income for a 2-person household in Seattle for 2014 is approximately 64K. So a 1-bedroom apartment priced at $1600.00 is considered affordable housing by HUD standards, even though this rate would not be considered affordable by someone living in the lower end of the chart.

We need a clear distinction between advocating for rent control, subsidized housing, or homeless shelters and services. All are important discussions and deserve to receive consideration from our city leaders and community stakeholders.

If we are talking about rent controlled areas then we must be clear that rent control legislation is what we are seeking. However, as RCW 35.21.830 currently prohibits rent control in Seattle we need to look at other ways to provide relief to renters.

If we are talking about increased subsidy programs we need to look at the pros and cons of existing subsidized housing in Seattle to see how to best develop any new funding programs.

SUBSIDIZING TENT CITIES AND SHELTERS:

Currently the City is looking at providing 50 new shelter beds and proposing a bill to allow three tent encampments in the city. Funding of new and expanding shelters and tenant cities must be a priority for our legislators. If Seattle moves forward with linkage fees on new construction this should be one of the areas that we use the collected revenue.

As these programs are expanded we must understand that there is no one-size-fits-all regarding our shelter system. Many seniors won’t stay in a shelter because they fear the youth violence, whereas some veterans won’t take a bed that could go to someone else because they are still holding to their idea of honor and service to their fellow man. We need to look at targeted funding/special programs for our seniors and our veterans, as well as growing our teen, single mothers, and family shelters.

The proposed 3 tent cities modeled after the Nickelsville camp can provide community structure that is much safer than the streets would be for a family trying to survive on their own. However, the city still needs to develop a structure for how to best partner with these programs, and provide access to essential services such as one-stop help complexes to give access to city services and help with personal economic recovery. The concern that tent cities may permanently change the personality of a given neighborhood is something that city leaders must consider when engaging this issue. We must resist the urge to fix-it-quick and instead find a long-term solution that meets the needs of those facing homelessness while still respecting the property rights of our neighbors.

HOUSING SUBSIDIES:

Voucher Programs: Voucher programs are generally HUD funded programs that involve HUD paying a portion of said rent. The “Section 8/Housing Choice Voucher” program is a voucher that is given to a tenant to use at ANY rental property that falls within the voucher limits (a 1-bedroom voucher is $879).

The Section 8 voucher holder is considered a “protected class” in Seattle which means landlords cannot discriminate or refuse tenancy just because they don’t want the Section-8 check. It has become increasingly harder to use Section 8 vouchers in the Seattle area because of the recent rise in rental amounts, but the voucher is still valued for its portability.

The second type of voucher is called “Project Based” which ties the subsidy to the apartment itself. The Project Based program partners with a given apartment building (these apartment owners are community partners working directly with HUD or with a Housing Authority). This means the tenant pays a reduced rent on the apartment. If the subsidized tenant decides to move from the apartment they lose the assistance and the next person moving into that apartment gets the subsidy. As long as the voucher holder stays under 80% of median income they will receive some portion of assistance. If the tenant income surpasses that 80% of median income the tenant loses their voucher. However, in both cases the vouchers are also transferable between household members, and can be given to other family members or even friends as long as they are listed in the household. The vouchers are transferred by promoting a current household member to Head of Household prior to the original voucher holding tenant moving out. Some subsidy vouchers have been known to be handed down through several generations.

It is not uncommon for developers to receive tax-breaks in exchange for a low-income annex to new construction. Contracts usually stipulate that a portion of the new rental space be subsidized for an average of 40-years before moving to market rate.

LIPH: Another type of subsidy is Low Income Public Housing (LIPH). This is housing which is usually owned and operated by the government or a non-profit, although some public housing projects are managed by subcontracted private agencies. Seattle Housing Authority owns some 600 properties in Seattle including single resident homes, duplexes, high rise buildings, and major housing properties such as Yesler Terrace, High Point, Rainier Vista, and New Holly.

Seattle Housing Authority provides subsidy assistance to over 28,000 people in the Seattle area alone each year. This includes over 5,300 Low Income Public Housing (LIPH) units in major apartment complexes, 1,600 town homes, duplexes, single family units, and another 8,500 Section-8 vouchers. King County Housing assists another 7,800 apartments and 11,000 Section-8 vouchers, and smaller programs house thousands more in the Greater Seattle area.

Although some programs such as Senior Housing have a minimum income requirement with rent portion based on a step-program, the majority of LIPH programs do not have such a requirement and ask only a $50 monthly payment for tenants with very low or zero income. This is where the biggest drain is on the Housing Authority’s budget and something we will look at in the next section.

SAVING THE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING WE ALREADY HAVE

In 2014 Seattle Housing Authority presented their Step Forward Proposal. Under the proposal current households with “work-able” tenants would be required to move to a step increase rental program. Unfortunately the program met with fierce resistance and was shelved, possible permanently. But I would like to examine the proposal as well as the circumstances that led to its inception.

Their proposal simply put operated like this: LIPH households that had someone “work-able” between the ages of 24 and 61 and who does not have a disability would move to a step-rental program. Let’s look at a 1-bedroom example of how the program would work: A family in a one-bedroom apartment would pay $140 monthly rent for the first year (four bedroom homes start at $180), rent increased the second year to $340, and so on until it peaked at $720 in the 7th year. The program is easily affordable for even someone working part-time at minimum wage and is in-step with the increased minimum wage law that is currently being applied in Seattle.

Some Seattle City Council members not only refused to engage in discussion of the proposal, but actively encouraged the disruption of town hall meetings that were designed to foster dialogue between the Housing Authority and its tenants.

But what events inspired the proposal in the first place?

In 2011-2012 Seattle Housing lost 11% of its annual budget when HUD announced that it was cutting funding to Seattle Housing Authority. This resulted in massive staffing cuts, but left the tenant subsidies untouched. In other words, Seattle Housing Authority did everything they could in order to keep the tenant programs running as they had always been.

Now, imagine you are the property owner of one of the 4-bedroom homes that SHA owns. The renters are a zero income family paying the standard $50 minimum rental bill each month. This year the roof starts leaking, and someone kicks a hole in the wall, the window gets broken, and the refrigerator needs replacing. Plumbing issues, electrical issues, bedbugs, vandalism, and more. How do you cover the costs of these types of repairs when you’ve only brought in a total of $600 in rent for the entire year? Even the best of tenants will require maintenance now and again; and SHA pays union wages, so the repair job is always quality; but the bills aren’t cheap.

But the biggest source of destruction in many zero-income homes is mold. One of the biggest problems facing a zero-income family is how to pay for electricity. If a family cannot pay their electric bill or intentionally keeps their heat turned off to save money, the result is often mold. Mold can destroy insulation, fixtures, interior and exterior walls, and more.

So we have to ask ourselves is the current model sustainable? Can Seattle Housing continue to meet the needs of current and future residents with funding being cut and with a City Council that fails to act as an honest broker between the Housing Authority and Tenant Advocates?

I’m not here to debate the merits of the Step Forward proposal. But I will ask if you had previously heard any of the information I just presented? In order to solve our housing problems voters and advocates need to be presented with all the facts and we need city leaders that are able to examine all ideas without giving in to their own hubris and political grandstanding. Don’t like the proposal? Have concerns with certain areas and need more information on exemptions? Bring them to the table and let’s talk about them. I understand and agree that nothing should be rubber stamped. We see the results of failed due diligence in the matter of the tunnel fiasco and we want city leadership that asks questions and is engaged. We need city leaders that encourage honest conversations and debates in an effort to find positive solutions to our housing problems. However, what we’ve seen instead is a city council that encourages shouting down opponents and the obfuscation of facts, and that is doing our city a great disservice. We must be careful about our focus on what other programs the city should fund or expand even as the largest housing program in our region is sinking beneath us.

EXPANDING SUBSIDIZED HOUSING IN THE SEATTLE AREA

There have been a number of proposals for expanding subsidized housing in the Seattle area. Ideas range new construction “linkage fees” assigned to contractors and used to fund smaller low-income housing programs. Others have suggested more flexibility with micro-housing and congregate housing standards, encouraging the building of apartments that trade the comfort of spacious living for a lower rental costs.

However, we as a city also need to look at external forces that hinder low-income housing from being successful. We talked earlier about the issue of mold being rampant in low-income housing units; causing structural damage as well as health issues for tenants. This problem is often overlooked by those that advocate for free homes/housing for the homeless. Although their hearts are in the right place, it is almost certain that any shelter in the northwest will fall into disarray if the person being housed is unable to keep the electricity on.

Educational opportunity, work training programs, economic growth, and addressing Seattle’s perilous relationship with one of the country’s most regressive tax systems are all steps our city leaders must take if we are to ever see a decrease in our need for emergency shelter and subsidized housing services.

For those of us that advocate for our brothers and sisters that are at-risk of losing housing, or that are already living in transitional housing, shelters, tent-cities, or on the street; we must be clear in our message. We must not be afraid to discuss ideas and we must never let “perfect” be the enemy of “good”. We can overcome even the most mountainous of problems one step at a time; unified, armed with knowledge and a willingness to hear all ideas.

David Toledo
Candidate City Council District 5

@25:

But the supply is totally skewed to the high-end of the market; developers aren't building massive numbers of new units to rent for the median or slightly below, they're building as fast as they can for people willing and able to pay way above the average, and the older units are being pulled up right along with it. Sure, some of that is due to the large influx of new tenants, so it's not a closed loop my any means, but that's the difference between here and Detroit, to take your example: as the population goes down there, there's simply no way to support maintaining a steady-state and landowners ARE in point of fact bulldozing their money-losing properties at a prodigious rate: as of last July the city was slated to lose roughly 22% of the available building infrastructure, most of it dilapidated, vacated, abandoned and uninhabitable.

What the fuck did the Ford Focus ever do to any of you?

COMTE.....

These apartments don't come onto the market at a higher price, just because the owner wants a higher price. The higher prices are a function of demand outstripping supply. Whatever the number of new units being built, the demand for those units is outpacing their availability, FORCING rents higher due to scarcity. Rent prices (like hourly wages) aren't set by the owner of apartments (or companies). They are set by the people who accept them! If rents are 'too high,' its a function of people being willing to pay more in the presence of scarcity.

Instead of being anti-builder (limiting supply, and so raising rates), we should become insanely pro-builder - allowing them to flood the market with great, new places to live – and so lowering the price relative to other alternatives.

VACANCIES create lower rent. Laws restricting height and preserving inadequate inefficient housing only make rents go up as people outbid each other for any available space. If you want rents to go down, build more housing, Build the housing that people need. Not micro housing or macro housing but human housing.

You could start with replacing all the 4-6 story buildings that our zoning laws have created through preservationist legislation in the last 20 years. This ridiculous stipulation has created a limited supply for the massive demand in housing. The opposite of Detroit.

People move here for the jobs, that’s a good thing. Could we have screwed this up any worse, I doubt it. In article after article I see misplaced blame and anger when the reason and the solution is so plainly obvious. All you have to do is walk around. It is terrible what these preservationists have done to our city.

There absolutely no valid reason to preserve these short ugly buildings unless of course you want to create more economic evictions that does seem to be the goal. What do these structures give us besides sky high rents. The shorter the building the higher the rent. Do these short waste of space buildings do anything else to justify their cost to society. Is that cost worth it? I say no. Tear down that wall, the wall that separates the rich from the poor. That ugly wall the preservationists call precious. It is not worth it.

What we need is to give these preservationists the boot, Better yet hold them accountable for the damage they have done. Build what the people need! Squabbling over how high the rent is and what gets preserved is such a stupid distraction from the real issue. There is a limited supply for the great demand. So why do we continue to support these destructive actions while ignoring the obvious? People need an affordable and decent place to live. Give it to them, without a two hour commute.

@30:

That's seems to me to be something of a misreading of the market. New units are renting for more because the developers are building them with all sorts of high-end amenities that increase the overall cost, thus ensuring they will ONLY go to people who can afford $2000-plus a month: granite counter tops, in-house gyms & rec rooms, rooftop party decks, etc., etc. If the developers were simply interested in increasing supply, they could easily strip out all the extras and probably rent them for several hundred a month less, while still making a tidy profit. So in point of fact the owner DOES want a higher price, because they KNOW there's a huge influx of 20 & 30-something tech workers making six-figure salaries flooding into town and THEY are the demographic these new luxury towers are specifically targeting, NOT the people who were kicked out of older buildings torn down to make room for them.

If it were simply a function of supply and demand, well one just has to look at the sheer number of units coming on the market to see the flaw in that argument: between 2013 and 2017 it is estimated that more than 42,000 units will be built within the general metropolitan region - with some 12,000 of them coming onto the market just this year alone - the largest increase in supply since 1989! And a large percentage of them are being built within the Seattle City Limits. There is more availability right now than there's been in decades, but you don't see rents coming down to reflect that; quite the opposite in fact; rents at the lower end are being pushed up (although in many instances they're still fairly reasonable, depending on the location), not because there is scarcity, but because there is a gap being created between units that normally rent at the low-end and all the new high-end development, with actual shrinkage in the middle range. The developers of new units aren't going to be dropping prices any time soon because they can afford to hold their investments in an environment where interest rates continue to be low and so long as the return on their investment is sufficient to at least cover their nut, even in a glutted market; meanwhile owners of older units see an opportunity to generate additional revenue by bringing otherwise low-rent units "up to market rate", none of which is being predicated on laws of "traditional market forces", but simply because there's an opportunity to do so.

Developers are not the problem, it can be shown via classic economic principles that it is nearly impossible to to eliminate developer profits.

Meanwhile, the owner of Piecoras will make 250% back on their money, abandoning a profitable business while skating free from any of the "blame" that goes toward the developer. http://www.theurbanist.org/2015/05/07/wh…

@32 Is there a brain up there? The fanciest appliances in the world cost maybe an extra $5k over the most basic ones. They are stone-cold, no-doubt-about-it, 0% related to rents.

@34 Yuuuuuuuup!

The real product is living in a hip, walk-able neighborhood. If you want it to be cheaper to buy that product, get more units built. The rest is just (literally) window-dressing.

I wonder how many years before we tear down most of these 5-6 story apartment buildings that are going up everywhere on Capitol Hill. They seem like such a waste of space.

.

Asking for inflationary control on rent (rent control) without inflationary control on energy costs (utilities), property taxes (obvious) and labor costs (repairs) does not in any way make AN OUNCE of sense to anyone who owns investment property. It is not an investor's fault that you or anyone like you cannot afford to purchase your own property. As they have done (oh yes, they too had to start somewhere), you will have to learn to cut back by living in shared housing or in an area you don't always want to live in, making sacrifices (denying the latest gadgets and fancy cars that you can't afford) to save up for your own space. Perhaps pushing for better mass transit to areas you can afford to live in is a better solution than having access to the apartment that you clearly can't afford. The arguments here are so clearly designated between the haves and the have-nots but I feel that only those who have actually been in both positions can think clearly. You don't get to have something just because you want it.