Difficulty: Not every locality is allowed to impose an income tax.

Example: Seattle is having what one might charitably call an infrastructure problem due to its massive population growth. Washington State does not permit an income tax at any level and further imposes some rather stout limits on the amount of any other taxation.

Follow-up: What now? Washington State voters--to change the law would need to pass at a state level, including in an inevitable referendum--have repeatedly turned down both an income tax and repealing tax limits. In fact, they do the exact opposite and vote in more draconian limits (which, because the drafters of the initiatives are usually either poorly-informed or paid initiative campaigners who want initiatives to keep going to the ballot, keep getting tossed by the state Supreme Court as of late but the earlier ones stand).

Can you explain that?

I don't understand..you lost me.

So, how does this work?

More specifically, what ensures the new development is "affordable"?

Surely, the deciding factor is not the permit cost.

It may promote smaller homes, but that increases affordability.