I certainly think that's a valid point to be making. A lot of people like to wax nostalgic about some of the older tax incentive programs—the MURBs and the ARPs—but if you wander around your community today and try to find one of those developments, they've typically been flipped several times and all the affordability has been washed out of them.
The new agreements around purpose-built rental construction tend to have very modest ambitions when it comes to affordability. The agreements are short term and the affordability targets address a very shallow level of affordability. If you want to achieve deep, lasting and permanent affordability, I think you need to align the mission of the housing developers with the outcomes you're looking for.
That would lead to the conclusion that the more development you can spark through the community housing sector, which has a lot more development capacity today than it did 10 years ago, then the more lasting outcomes you're going to generate, because the thing that people most forget is that housing is never less affordable than on the first day the door opens. Over time, as it gets managed, refinanced and invested in, it becomes more and more affordable if it's being operated as a not-for-profit housing business. I would tie the results to the 10-year model and expect that performance to deliver an enormous return on investment to the government.