{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.012318029115341545, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.622222222222222, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Workforce and Affordable Housing: Local Government Inclusionary Housing Programs and the Courts

The current surplus of housing should not disguise the fact that there is a chronic national affordable housing supply crisis. Aside from building public housing with decidedly mixed success, local governments have addressed the problem by means of mandatory affordable housing set-asides for new construction or the application of affordable housing fees to private developments during the land use entitlement process. However, measures meant to address the dearth of affordable housing have struggled in the courts, which have repeatedly pointed to three flaws in these programs: a lack of local authority, a lack of nexus between the proposed development and the need for affordable housing, and affordable housing requirements disproportionate to the need created by the development project.