Corey, i am not sure, but I know it was useful in the Oak Street project because of the height, which required steel construction, hence increasing costs. However, the height on Oak Street also had to be shorter than otherwise possible, and deliberately so, because (a) this is within the Congress Street historic district (and hence must mesh well) and (b) the idea of placing low income residents in high -rise housing has been long ago discredited. On Munjoy, the project is urban in the sense that the dwelling units are close together, but suburban in the sense that they are more like houses and not high-rise, so perhaps the project is financially viable (and still able to be rented as affordable units) even without the bond. However, the bond, which is allotted on a competitive basis, does give points for being centrally located (smart growth) so in that sense the project probably would have benefited from applying for it. The bond also requires compliance with LEED principles for sustainability, so that is something else the project would have to look into in order to be awarded the funding. For Oak Street, it slashed the price of rent from $1,400 to $750. Without the bond, there would have been no way this could be "affordable" in anywhere other than Manhattan or Canary Wharf.