Dear Editor:

While I agree with the substance of Gail Schechter’s article “Affordable in Name Only,”(SF #133) I have one bone to pick with the author. Developers, like myself, use the word “affordable” to signify that our units have some form, any form, of subsidy, so that the prices, or rents, are lower than they would be in the absence of that subsidy. That is the only meaning today of affordable in the “affordable” development community. We do not see the word as connoting the common definition; that is, that the units are “affordable” to poor people. Maybe it is a shame that this is the word that has come to describe our work, maybe the word should be changed to something more descriptive, but I would like to emphasize that is not used by developers as a way to fool or trick anyone. It has simply become a technical term of art, deracinated from its common usage.

We often encounter problems of this type. No one thinks they are getting processed meat when they receive e-mail “spam.” No one expects a box of chocolates when they get credit enhancement from Fannie Mae. Unfortunately, no one in the development community expects we are talking about building housing that is affordable to the very poorest of the poor when we talk about affordable housing. This criticism only extends to [Schechter’s] discussion about semantics and the motives of developers. [Her] point that there needs to be affordable housing for the poor (in the common usage of the word) in the Northshore suburbs of Chicago is incontrovertible.

Peter Levavi is senior vice president at Brinshore Development, LLC, an affordable housing development firm in Northbrook, IL.

Copyright 2004