"These Californians live in affordable housing: Why did their rent skyrocket?"

Maybe because Californians keep electing the pro-density pro-development politicians whose main purpose is to support their deep-pocketed backers who've made a mockery of the concept of truly affordable housing?

From >Web Link which may be the actual reason for rent increases. Lots of cogs and wheels churning out money for developers in the form of tax credits that they can use, or sell. Like monopoly game.

"Q: Does AB 1482 – The California Tenant Protection Act – restrict the amount that rents can be increased?A: No. Per Section 3 1947.12(d)(1) of the legislation, the Tenant Protection Act does not apply to “Housing restricted by deed, regulatory restriction contained in an agreement with a government agency, or other recorded document as affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income ... or subject to an agreement that provides housing subsidies for affordable housing for persons and families of very low, low, or moderate income....”Since the LIHTC program is a federal regulatory restriction, with a recorded Regulatory Agreement, by a government agency (CTCAC) for affordable housing for households that are considered low or very low income (50%-60% AMI), the protections under AB 1482 do not apply. And here's a q&a from Novogradac that may demystify (or the opposite, depeding on your perspective: >Web Link An LIHTC rental can become just as unaffordable as FMR after time.

@MyFeelz Mayfield Place in Palo Alto is a 100% tax credit privately owned, for very very low income renters. Its owned multi National, billion dollar corporation Related. Raise the rents on tenants every year. Strange thing. The tenants have to prove really stupid things like submitting current grocery store receipt showing the amount on their EBT card, to get re certified every year.

@online name How many 100% tax credit multi family residents complex' are in Palo Alto. I only know of one: Related's Mayfield Place.

Hi @native, my link above that explains how a LIHTC are exempt from rent increase rule had a bad character so it hit a 404 wall, here is the right link
Web Link

Rent increases are based on AMI, and not HUD Voucher systems. The only thing true of both is there is a county-wide utility allowance that is used for Sec 8 and LIHTC buildings.

It seems unfair to only adjust the utility allowance every few years, especially with the doors wide open and the flood of increase in utilities doesn't even come close to the actual cost to the residents.

The CTCAC (who regulate california LIHTC buildings) have charts at their website that updates annually as to the income requirements and the rent allowable. But it's best to start at their main page and examine all of the categories CTCAC governs.

But just reading te Q&A on the link in this post gives a basic idea about how or why rents can increase at and LIHTC building.

Ya know I'm a threadkilla, NTTB! Most people here would rather die than participate in a thread that has a post from me. Happy holidays :)

I think anthropologists will look back at this phase of American social history and conclude that greed destroyed our social fabric. Perhaps this is inevitable in a capitalist nation. Landlords CAN charge what the market will bear, but they don't HAVE to do that. At some point, isn't more than enough enough?

And the greed is not limited to landlords. See: Online Name's comment above. Greedy, egoistic politicians who do the bidding of certain types of developers in exchange for yes votes on legislation that bring us gems such as Builder's Remedy are a big part of the problem.

Vote carefully.

Well, Annette, we agree on something here. Ever since the 10% cap became law, landlords give themselves a 10% raise every year. They don't have to. LIHTC buildings operate from a whole 'nother rule book. Federal tax credits that can be sold to whoever can afford it is like money in the bank.

Reading the SF Chronicle and SJ Mercury is like reading a Police Blotter. Multiple articles which report a Happening but maybe unrelated to other Happenings.

In the SF City a large number of rental units owned by one company which defaulted on loans have been bought by a Canadian Company. The major developers that are now waiting in the wings to take over are out-of-state developers and owners. Or International developers/owners - Menlo Park, etc.

All of these companies have a different tax situation which allows them to side step payments for social security, state insurance compensation that spins into OSHA, etc. All of the elements that a city has to pay for are now short changed on the ability to fund those sustainment elements. WE are being colonized by out-of-state and international companies and coming up short.

You are a taxpayer, US Citizen, homeowner and are being stripped of all of the benefits of your hard work by your own legislature who is cooking up ways that you are going to pay for all of the shortfalls. Meanwhile the out-of-state and international developers and owners are flying to the bank. Read your papers every day - look at where the action and "change" are. Property and the ownership of property is what drives many "end results" that are not discussed while the "change" is being pushed by your legislator,

"How are you supposed to live in affordable housing, but it's not affordable?" she said.

This is why the discussions on affordable housing need to be about affordable housing for people who need it, not cheaper housing for those who don't, which happens so much in the Bay Area. That said, Hong Kong dealt with the very same issues we deal with all throughout the 20th century. They did an experiment with helping poor people create equity--how did that work out? Would it work here?

There's a fundamental problem here in an expensive area in which someone poor has to pay even 30% of their income for affordable housing. It's nickel and diming people, for money that is far more important to them than to the system. When governments pay half a million per unit to create the housing, what's the point in keeping a poor person poor by making them pay 30% or even 50% of their income, when 20% will allow them to live with dignity and won't break the system.

Instead of creating equity for big corporations, too, why aren't these programs in the longterm geared to lifting people out of poverty and helping them into the middle class? Why the big exceptions and breaks for developments that will revert back to market rate anywhere from 25 to 55 years down the line?

Web Link

Web Link -- this was once a great idea

Web Link

@SilverLinings, it's greed on steroids.