<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Advocates offer recommendations to improve the Texas Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program</title>
	<atom:link href="http://texashousers.net/2009/08/07/advocates-offer-recommendations-to-improve-the-texas-low-income-housing-tax-credit-program/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://texashousers.net/2009/08/07/advocates-offer-recommendations-to-improve-the-texas-low-income-housing-tax-credit-program/</link>
	<description>working together to make low-income housing and community development a priority in Texas</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:24:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: concerned practitioner</title>
		<link>http://texashousers.net/2009/08/07/advocates-offer-recommendations-to-improve-the-texas-low-income-housing-tax-credit-program/#comment-987</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[concerned practitioner]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:23:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://texashousers.net/?p=2396#comment-987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[#1: A very large number of units with &quot;deep and important rent subsidies that merit redevelopment&quot; are in &quot;old, undesirable HUD properties located in racially segregated housing in bad neighborhoods&quot;.

In other words, generally speaking you can&#039;t have it both ways. Bringing the discussion from generalities to on-the-ground realities would help. The question is whether resources should go improving the physical environments of those living in these most affordable apartments.

#5: Such penalties encourage developers to build projects that probably should not go foward and accomplish nothing since the unused LIHTCs are not lost but rather roll forward to the next year.

#14: An annual cost of $60k is financially impossible for almost all LIHTC projects. The only way to make it work would be increasing rents.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#1: A very large number of units with &#8220;deep and important rent subsidies that merit redevelopment&#8221; are in &#8220;old, undesirable HUD properties located in racially segregated housing in bad neighborhoods&#8221;.</p>
<p>In other words, generally speaking you can&#8217;t have it both ways. Bringing the discussion from generalities to on-the-ground realities would help. The question is whether resources should go improving the physical environments of those living in these most affordable apartments.</p>
<p>#5: Such penalties encourage developers to build projects that probably should not go foward and accomplish nothing since the unused LIHTCs are not lost but rather roll forward to the next year.</p>
<p>#14: An annual cost of $60k is financially impossible for almost all LIHTC projects. The only way to make it work would be increasing rents.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

