>Because it's basically impossible to run truly low income housing at a profit in a city.

I didn't say it needed to be low income housing. For-profit companies are coming into this city and jumping through the AHO hoops in order to provide affordable housing, so it's quite evidently profitable.

As for low-income housing, if developers are unable to provide true low-income housing in the city, then of course city-run housing at a loss is not a waste of resources. It gives people homes, which, as you said, were "impossible" for a for-profit to run.

>when you say "city run", you mean owned/subsidized and operated, right?

To be honest, I don't care. Leaving it to for-profit developers seems like a recipe for housing to disappear as soon as it ceases to be profitable, but whether the solution is a public/private partnership, or a city-owned/contractor-managed situation, or a fully city-owned-and-run project, it would ameliorate the situation.

Just look at this current proposal: we passed AHO years ago, but companies decided it wasn't affordable, so we needed active legislation to appease them. So, it's clearly not obvious what policies we need to appease developers, so who says the policies we put in place today will lead to affordable housing for more than a couple years? City-run initiatives ensure longevity, even if it stops being profitable for a time.