Affordable housing is defined by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as housing that does not require a household to spend more than 30 percent of its gross monthly income on housing costs. For rental housing, these costs include monthly rent and utility payments; for owner-occupied housing, these costs include mortgage payments and additional expenses associated with homeownership. A household that spends more than 30 percent of its gross monthly income on housing costs is considered “cost-burdened.”

It appears to me that the definition is compatible with the poster's notion 'affordability is not an intrinsic value of a building' in the sense that the definition depends on income as well as the housing itself. Problems could be addressed by increasing housing or by increasing household income, or by decreasing price, or some combination thereof.

That definition really has no value outside the context of analyzing a given household’s situation. In the context of housing regulation, zoning, etc it really isn’t helpful since all housing is both affordable and unaffordable. Schrödinger’s housing.

> all housing is both affordable and unaffordable. Schrödinger’s housing.

Ah, more pithy, meaningless slogans.

Surely municipalities and landlords know the median gross incomes of households in the areas they serve. Surely there are bands of income where certain types of housing are classified as "affordable" and then "cost-burden", and the quantity of households which fall into these bands are well-known to those who serve them. Landlords set the market rent based on what the market will bear. HUD sets the allowances according to market rent as well.

Yes, to a homeless bum, all housing is unaffordable. To George Soros, it's all affordable housing. But you need to remember that the definition is proffered by Housing And Urban Development, a US Government agency which does things like subsidize rent and help people purchase homes, so I doubt that the state of feline vitality is entirely unknown to them.

That's explicitly the problem with the definition.

You can "solve" the equation by reducing housing costs, but it is also possible that the "problem" isn't housing costs per se but wage depression, and that the "real" solution is to fix the gross monthly income.

> the gross monthly income

"The" gross monthly income, as if there is one blob of income that we could turn a knob and increase, by say, 10%? Are we doing this across the board, from migrant farmworkers to the Fortune 500 C-levels? Does this dovetail with UBI so that people who earned $0 + entitlements, lose their entitlements and begin receiving cash instead?

If rental housing is the #1 monthly expense for the working class, or say, the socio-economic class who needs Affordable Housing, and you "fix" their income (which I think you mean raise it, rather than the financial term of art) if you raise their income by a given amount, and housing costs stay constant, then more people get housed?

That's the "affordable housing" twist - housing could be 99% affordable in an area, and due to lack of supply, there could still be a housing crisis.

Have families considered living with one another, rather than constantly splitting apart at first blush and divorcing at drop of hat? Who doesn't hate it these days when Uncle Billy has to move back into the garage? He's your uncle, think about it.

I mean, the 50s/60s promoted the Nuclear Family for some reason, and it was probably intended to blow up extended family ties, which can make a populace harder to track and control, and because Nuclear Families tend to drive up demand for discrete housings, and also any and all household goods and resources that can no longer be shared. Hmm.

> Affordable housing is defined by the U.S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as housing that does not require a household to spend more than 30 percent of its gross monthly income on housing costs.

This is fantastic, and I do think this definition is meaningful, but what legally binds this definition to what politicians and interest groups discuss? Without a legal binding the term "affordable housing" will continue to be a floating signifier indicating housing that is somehow affordable to all people, conveniently without defining the mechanism by which this will be delivered.

Every year, HUD establishes the ceilings for rental payments, plus utility allowances. Let's say that the ceiling in Houston is $1,800 for a 1BR apartment. That means that landlords who charge $1,800 or less to rent such a unit, are the only ones eligible to participate in the HCV (Section 8) program.

Therefore, people will colloquially refer to HCV-participant communities as "Affordable Housing" because if a landlord charges $1801.00, they're not eligible to receive HUD payments and HCV holders literally can't afford to live there.

Therefore, the landlords are presented with a bright-line; either they're in this public housing "project" or they're not.

Speaking of Projects, the "old way" was for HUD to build the buildings and HUD more-or-less directly managed the Project Housing, and the way it's gone with commercial landlords is a relatively new development, if you will.