Handing buildings to nonprofits to 'preserve' affordability often masks a fiscal chain: the preservation is contingent on recurring public subsidies and programs, while nonprofits operate with weaker public accountability than municipal housing authorities. That creates a durable taxpayer exposure and an accountability gap in local housing portfolios.
— Making this pattern legible reframes housing‑policy debates toward transparency, subsidy conditionality, and governance rules for nonprofit stewards of ‘affordable’ stock.
Arnold Kling
2025.12.29
100% relevant
John Ketcham’s critique (quoted) that nonprofit preservation depends on public subsidy and reduces direct public accountability over housing outcomes.
← Back to All Ideas