comScore

Are artists the only people deserving of subsidized luxury?

"Subsidizing for one group at the expense or to the exclusion of others in the same building is bothersome to me."

"Subsidizing for one group at the expense or to the exclusion of others in the same building is bothersome to me."

Reader Jody Tharp responds to Dominium shows how to strike it rich via 'affordably housing' welfare:

Is anyone else bothered by this?

"...says University of Minnesota professor Myron Orfield: 'A-Mill tenants don't have to earn a living as artists, but residents have to be able "to demonstrate a commitment to the arts," according to the company."

"....often is it's not single working moms with two kids living there or even struggling artists, but like this one guy who owns a sailboat dealership and likes to paint."

I have wondered how many of these buildings actually house artists who truly earn their living as artists and, if they do, at what level of income does their subsidy disappear? Subsidizing for one group at the expense or to the exclusion of others in the same building is bothersome to me. Are poor artists the only poor who should be subsidized to live in these beautifully re-developed buildings?

I recently heard of a realtor living with his artist wife in a beautiful, desirable subsized building in St. Paul which, if verified, seems would be grounds for not qualifying for living there. A "commitment to the arts" is not the same as making a living in the arts.