Link for reference: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/homeless/microsoft...

From that article:

- $225M of the $475M will be loans below market interest rates, directed at middle-income housing.

- The remaining $250M of the $475M will be loans at market interest rates, directed at low-income housing.

Other than optics, I'm not sure what the point of the $250M in market-rate loans is. I'd think that the main constraint on the development of low-income housing is that it's unprofitable, not that it's difficult to secure financing.

Financing is a pain to put together.

problem though is that even though moderate priced housing pays tremendous returns stupid developers will always chase luxury because they can do stupid well. The fact that M$FT will make money off this doesn't stop it from being a tremendously valuable step for someone who happens to be housing insecure in sea-tac

What's this 'tac you speak of. Tacoma is outrageously cheaper than Seattle. 'tac don't have a problem compared to sea'.

"SeaTac" is the common name for the airport and also the City of SeaTac, Washington, located next door to Burien.

http://www.seatacwa.gov/

I've lived in WA all my life. I know where seatac is. The problem isn't in seatac, it is in Seattle proper. Seatac isn't the correct choice of words. Seattle is. The Tac' of seatac refers to Tacoma and yes I'm playing a game with etymology. The problem is in Seattle, but not if you go south.

> The problem is in Seattle, but not if you go south.

Tacoma has an average home price of $350k. That means, to afford an average home/condo/apartment, you'd need over a $100k+ salary per year. (Using the 28/36 rule). But the average income per person in Tacoma is ~$37k/yr.

That is absolutely a crisis-level problem of massive proportions.

The only way anyone can pretend those prices are even vaguely reasonable, is by comparing it to somewhere like Seattle where the crisis is so much worse.