In the upcoming election, San Francisco Proposition D defines "affordable" housing in a way that surprised me, but made sense when I looked up California state law.

Prop D makes allowances for proposed buildings that will house households making, on average, 120% of median income. (Some households in the building could make 140%, some could make 90%, but when you average them, the building needs to come in under 120%) I wasn't expecting "affordable" to describe housing that the median household can't afford.

But then I looked for info about the California "Builder's Remedy." This is part of California housing law: if San Francisco doesn't build enough housing, then proposals that meet state criteria can start building, skipping local NIMBY politician attempts to thwart. Among those state criteria: the building can qualify by housing 20% low-income or 100% moderate income, where moderate income is 80–120% of median income. San Francisco hasn't built enough housing; nor will it catch up for many years.

Calling that housing "affordable" is eyebrow-raising, but now I see that part of Prop D isn't changing things much. Instead, I should concentrate on the other parts of Prop D.

(Wow, sorry, this blog post is dull as dishwater but I swear tracking down that "moderate income" = 80–120% of median definition took forever. Like, there were presentations that didn't explain their terms and stale links to a no-longer-there PDF and… and anyhow, I wanted to be able to find that definition again if I needed it. Thus this blog post.)