COMMUNITY COMMENT: Affordable Housing More Important Than Schools, Services, or Jobs?
By IRA KAYLIN
January 16, 2010
On January 11, Falls Church City Council effectively approved the Senior Citizen Affordable Housing Project by agreeing, 6-1, that the Falls Church Housing Corporation and the developer could proceed to prepare a final project.
Technically, a “1st Reading” was approved — not the final approval which is to take place February 22. However, if past is prologue, given the FCHC/City Council’s tried and true technique of short deadlines and piecemeal approvals, it is unlikely that the majority of City Council will vote against the project when it comes up for 2nd Reading. The only wild card in the scenario is a potential lawsuit by the owner of the adjacent properties, who claims that both he and the City will suffer financial losses if the project proceeds as currently designed.
As regards protestations by some Council members that approval of 1st Reading does not preclude rejection of 2nd Reading — we’ll believe it when we see it. The City Council is performing a classic Kabuki Dance, with standard hand wringing and asking hard questions which are almost always dismissed in the end due to a higher “moral” calling and almost obligatory reluctant approval.
Before the citizens have had a chance to see any budget numbers, the City has made its first budget decision by supporting a $2 million “soft loan,” which is so heavily taxpayer subsidized that it is effectively a loan that will never be repaid.
Additional costs of the project result from foregoing potential tax revenues of over $120,000 per year if non tax-exempt firms were to use the proposed project site (which is adjacent to the proposed City Center project), a water hook-up waiver of $240,000, and a negative fiscal impact related to City-supported services of at least $40,000 per year.
These figures are already on top of the City’s budget shortfall, which has increased by a third due to the loss of the water suit against Fairfax County to an amount of approximately $10 million. The shortfall is clearly headed toward a $12 million figure, even if indirect costs are excluded.
It was already unclear, at the $10 million shortfall figure, how the City, try as it might, could avoid further reductions in schools funding and City services. There are no capital improvement projects left to cut or defer (which is another serious problem), and all the low-hanging and not-so-low-hanging fruit has already been picked. As a result, for those of us looking in from the outside, it appeared that further job reductions/furloughs would be inevitable.
The fallback argument of the supporters of the Affordable Housing Project is always that budget issues should not stand in the way of meeting our higher moral obligations. In more normal times, that is a compelling argument. However, as others have mentioned, and with which I fully concur, the City Council has no moral right to terminate/furlough its employees, including school staff — who have their own families to take care of and who may be supporting their own elderly relatives — by adding significantly to the City’s shortfall and by giving, as its first priority, funding of the Affordable Housing project. Where is the morality in that?
City Manager Wyatt Shields has stated that he wanted to meet with citizens to find out our views on community priorities before the final budget proposal is presented. Yet the first $2 million to be spent is already earmarked for Affordable Housing. How can there be a meaningful conversation with the community if the first major budget decision is presented as a fait accompli?
COMMUNITY COMMENTS are welcome on any subject relevant to the City of Falls Church. They may be submitted to contact@fallschurchtimes.com. Shorter submissions may be published as a Letter to the Editors.
By (see byline)
January 16, 2010
I fully agree. I would add that it is neither moral nor ethical, never mind fiscally sound, for the Council to ask the city taxpayers to shoulder this further financial burden, and possibly the loss of independent city status, as a result of its profligacy in the face of the present dire circumstances. The irony is that if this fiscal irresponsibility continues, many Falls Church taxpayers will be in need of affordable housing, and 64 units won’t make a dent in the need.
I feel no moral obligation to support this project with City tax payer dollars because there is not a need in the City for affordable senior housing, we already have the Winter Hill community. If our tax rates were stable and had a sound budget I would support the project but why should my City tax dollars pay for non-residents to move into the City when my tax rates are about to jump $0.25+ (sans CCSA) and we are about to have a huge services and schools cut.
At this rate, in about two years people will finally realize that our schools are outshined by many Fairfax County Schools and that their residents are paying lower taxes, lower water rates, and getting better services than us, and guess what, they also did not pay a dime towards CCSA but can move there if qualified.
I CANNOT IMAGINE GOING FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT, WHILE A RELATIVELY TINY EXPENDITURE WOULD IMPROVE THE CITY AND IT’S IMAGE AS A TERRIFIC PLACE TO LIVE, WORK, SHOP, DINE, TAKE CARE OF BUSINESS AND START A BUSINESS. WITH THE ADDITIONAL INCOME FROM EXISTING AND NEW CITY BUSINESSES, THERE MIGHT BE ENOUGH NEW MONEY TO FUND “AFFORDABLE HOUSING”.
What is it with this fuzzy thinking about “moral obligation”? Providing food, clothing and shelter to people who are unable to feed, clothe and shelter themselves is a moral obligation. Making “affordable housing” available in a community that lacks it (assuming that is the case) is a socio-economic objective whose pros and cons should be weighed and measured against competing socio-economic objectives for available government dollars. It is not a moral obligation.