COMMUNITY COMMENT: Economic Considerations Needed for Housing Project
By JOHANNAH BARRY
March 15, 2010
The term “Affordable Housing” is rich in meaning and encompasses key values important to Falls Church: diversity, justice, and inclusiveness. These are overarching principles that are central to the character and nature of Falls Church and are woven into the decisions we make as a City.
As a newcomer to Falls Church politics, but an old-timer in the City, I have participated in, and/or observed Council deliberations sporadically over the last several years. In that time, I have heard many thoughtful public comments by concerned citizens and admire the dedication of the men and women on City Council and the tireless efforts of staff.
Last Monday night I was present for extended dialogue regarding “The Wilden” affordable housing project and was deeply disappointed at the inability of thoughtful citizens to hear each other. Somehow, the term affordable housing has been transmuted from a guiding principle and core tenet of the City’s inclusive character to a divisive moral and political litmus test. I did not sense that anyone in the room was “anti” affordable housing. I did sense that some were appropriately hesitant due to the fragile economic underpinnings of the current project and its future projections for the City’s fiscal health.
To be clear, I cast my lot with the latter. A decision to move this project forward at this time would do an economic disservice to the City and calls into question the true motivation of this set of actions. Proponents of the Wilden project did not waver in their rhetoric, framing this issue as a moral imperative. True dialogue would have acknowledged the economic implications of this decision. To reduce this issue, and subsequent conversations and decisions about affordable housing, to a test of one’s moral compass is intellectually dishonest and is behavior not worthy of the citizens who engage in it.
The yearning for this project to finally come to fruition was palpable, and the potential for disappointment should it not was clearly evident. I do not diminish the genuine passion, concern, and extraordinary work of those who have advocated tirelessly for affordable housing. I am aware of the long history of this project. But as Councilman Webb explained, as worthy as the notion is, and as critical as it is to the character of our City, times have changed. The City is now in fiscal crisis. Services and schools have felt the sting. Every person in this City will feel the deeply unpleasant impact of increased taxes, and some people may have to leave this City because they simply can’t afford to live here. One will appreciate the irony of people being driven out of the City because their housing has become unaffordable, due to the effort of creating affordable housing.
To approach this issue with the honor it deserves will require untangling the social goal from the economic driver. It will require patience and discipline – commodities that are arguably hard to come by with the economic pressures on all sides of the issue. Falls Church is worth our best efforts.
Johannah Barry is founder and President of Galapagos Conservancy, a non-profit organization dedicated to the protection of the Galapagos Islands. She is a candidate for Falls Church City Council in the May 2010 election.
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 Editor.
By (see byline)
March 15, 2010
Governments do not make “Affordable housing.” cost is fair market value. What is meant by this phrase is you pay, for someone else, to get them ahead of the game, for social reasons. Whenever I hear the word diversity mentioned I know it means LESS WHITE. Just say less white.
“One will appreciate the irony of people being driven out of the City because their housing has become unaffordable, due to the effort of creating affordable housing.”
C’mon — clearly the amount of city money going into the Wilden project isn’t going to be the dominant factor in the overall cost of housing for city residents.
I understand that people are afraid to spend this money now (and as a parent with kids in the school system, I worry about how the city will afford new school buildings) but I have read that this 2 million is leveraging 12 to 14 million in federal and state money/credits — money that goes away if we don’t use it. I can see why the proponents would think that’s a good use of 2 million…..
Maybe the Wilden project — confusing as it is — is flawed (I have a hard time understanding it all) but please don’t use rhetoric like “people being driven out of the city” over the cost. Question is — is the project so flawed that it is worth losing the federal/state monies — and if so, then what will the city do to support affordable housing in other ways — because it really should be a social obligation….
I think the number is $8M in federal funds – not $12-14M. I’m not sure what the ratio is where it becomes compelling to people.
One thing to consider is what happens to the $8M if we don’t use it? I assume it gets applied to a different affordable housing project somewhere (in Virginia, I think).
This is hypothetical, but what if we don’t use the $8M and it ends up going towards an affordable housing project across the border in Arlington or Fairfax County? How does that impact our social obligation? Is there a social obligation to building the housing inside City limits – or is it a regional thing? I’ve wondered before if there’s a way for Falls Church residents to support efforts in Arlington or Fairfax County (if they have good projects to support – which may or may not be the case) if we’re worried about the impact of the currently proposed project.
Just to clarify — in a comment responding to an earlier article on this topic, Carol Jackson said there was 12 million in federal and state subsidies. If I understand what she wrote correctly, the city loan of 2 million would be 12 percent of the total cost of project.
So is 4 million from state and 8 million federal? I would think the federal money might be reallocated out of state if not used? And I think it sounds a bit NIMBY to propose supporting projects only outside our borders.
Suzanne, I’m not sure what the subsidy is. The $8M I mentioned was from one of Carol’s previous comments. I’d love to see a concise FAQ on the project – but I’m not sure anyone is willing to pull it together (and really, we’d probably have two – with conflicting info in it). I also don’t know if the federal money would leave the state or not – but I’m guessing it would be used for affordable housing wherever it’s used.
As for the NIMBY – that’s not my point at all. One of the big pushes for this project is the social/moral obligation, which I think is a valid point, but it’s never been clear why the exact location matters. My tax dollars (one way or another) are part of the $8M (or $12M or $14M) regardless of where it is spent, right? My elected officials (state or federal or whatever) are somehow responsible or involved in the decision to make that $8M available for this effort.
I’m not suggesting this is the situation but if there were two options for 66 units of affordable housing for seniors and one was a really crappy option in the City of Falls Church and the other was an incredibly great option about 500 yards away in Fairfax County – and the people of Falls Church gave $2M (or whatever) to Fairfax County to help build it – wouldn’t that be a better approach for everyone involved?
I know that’s an extreme, made up, example – but I’m just trying to frame the argument.
Here’s another, less extreme (but also made up), example: what if Fairfax County was able to get traction on a large mixed use development (similar to what the original CCSA would have been with the City Center plan) – would the citizens of Falls Church be willing to support that effort instead of our own, less ideal solution? I think some people wouldn’t (because of the economy or whatever) but I think some people who don’t favor The Wilden might be willing to support other, better, projects (at the same cost).
In November, I wrote a summary of the Wilden Project after an earlier article attracted over 50 comments. As Andy Rankin pointed out in a comment after my article, it didn’t answer any of his questions, but it did explain the project under consideration.
To read the article, which was reviewed by Carol Jackson for accuracy, visit http://fallschurchtimes.com/12796/affordable-housing-101/#more-12796.
A woman goes into a department store to buy a new jacket for her child. Money is really tight, but the woman has both a heartfelt desire and a moral obligation to make sure her child is warm and protected when she is outside. As the woman is walking through the shoe department on the way to children’s wear, she spies a really nice coat in her own size, with the price marked down from $625 to $410. Her old coat is not worn out exactly, but … … she knows that she will be needing a new coat at some point. She buys the coat. How much money did she save?
None, not one red cent, notwithstanding the department store’s generous contribution to the sale price. In fact, the woman spent $410 dollars that she really couldn’t afford to spend just then, and for something that she didn’t unequivocally need just then.
This little parable reflects the same logic offered for building the Wilden now, at a substantial short- and long-term financial commitment from city taxpayers during tough financial times, and with the resulting long-term loss of tax revenue caused by its tax-exempt status. If we don’t spend the city taxpayers’ scarce money now to build the Wilden, so the argument goes, the FCHC won’t be able to take advantage of the “sale price,” that is, those federal and state housing funds.
The argument begs the issue of whether we can afford to buy right now, even “on sale,” or whether there is a greater need for scarce city funds elsewhere. It also sounds a lot like the buy-now, pay-later credit card mentality that has caused such havoc in our economy generally. I don’t minimize the value of state and federal funding; I raise the issue of whether the city taxpayers can afford to pay its share of the cost to “buy” the Wilden .
The Wilden is proposed to house senior citizens, most if not all of whom are projected to move from other FCHC-owned housing in the city that will, in turn, be marketed to others, presumably most or all of whom will come from outside the city. It is suggested that the Wilden would be attractive to current older city residents who desire to give up their too-large homes and move into more manageable-sized retirement housing. Anyone who presently owns a home in the city probably can afford to buy into the many retirement communities and assisted-living/continuing-care facilities nearby and could not qualify for residence at the Wilden. (There are 6+ pages of listings and ads for such housing in my phone book.)
The more pressing need for affordable housing appears to be on the part of city workers such as teachers, police and firefighters, and other employees of city businesses who must commute great distances to earn lower wages in Falls Church than it takes to live and raise a family here. The Wilden will not address such needs. Moreover, it appears that it will eat up substantial affordable housing funds for years to come, thus inhibiting or preventing the production of needed workforce housing.
I think Andy Rankin makes a valid and valuable point — isn’t the need for affordable housing for seniors and workers a regional problem that we can and should share with close-by neighboring jurisdictions? I would bet that our lower-income workers, who are forced by housing costs to commute from the hinterlands, are less concerned with what political subdivision they live in, and more concerned with the affordability and adequacy of the housing and its proximity to their jobs. This is not NIMBY-ism; it is a creative, “we’re all in this together” approach to achieve a goal that is common to the close-in Northern Virginia area. And it strikes me as a realistic and achievable way to fulfill the moral obligation we feel to provide affordable housing for those at the lower end of the income scale.
Andy, the immediate problem with your hypothetical example is that there is no equivalent project next door that we could just shift our 2 million over to… We would just lose our chance to use that substantial federal/state money if we drop the project. Plus, it does seem like you want it anywhere but here– trying to preserve a “highest and best use” of the land to maximize our future commercial tax dollars?
I see the city council preliminary approval to this project 6 to 1 last night — D. Snyder commented that we would leverage our money “six times the City’s investment”
Ms. Barry doesn’t support spending this money but it does seem like we are unlikely to get a chance to create 66 apartments with a 2 million dollar loan ever again.
Linda, how could we “share” the burden of affordable housing with the larger region without forking over some serious money?
Annette’s article is definitely helpful in understanding things – although some things have changed. For example, back then the proposal was a 4 story building and now it is slated to be a 6 story building.
That article mentions $8M in federal money but doesn’t mention additional state money (although the VHDA is mentioned, which is a state agency, so that’s why I assumed the $8M would go elsewhere in the state if we can’t use it). Actually, there is mention of FCHC monies ($2.25M) – but I don’t think the source of that is the state (and maybe includes money generated by mortgaging the Winter Hill properties).
Suzanne, I agree that my examples were hypothetical. My point about losing the money is that the money would go to build affordable housing for someone, somewhere – which is good, right? And I disagree with your assessment that I have an “anywhere but here” approach to this. In fact, the previous plan that was tied to the City Center actually sounded pretty good (from what I knew of it). It had the affordable housing tied into a more comprehensive redevelopment effort – which makes a lot more sense to me. That said, I do think the reality of the situation is that we’re a 2.2 square mile chunk of land and it might be possible that building a 66 unit affordable housing project within our borders isn’t a good idea. Not because I don’t want it here, but because our geographic resources are much more limited than our neighbors.
I don’t know, maybe the FCHC tried to team up with neighboring jurisdictions on a project and it never worked out. However, it seems like the goal from the start has been to build inside the City. As I said, there might be ways to do it that make sense (like as part of a more comprehensive effort), and I’ve even said that the current approach (getting Bob’s building in there) might be as good as we can do – but I think it’s fair to consider other ways to solve the problem.
Suzanne, we are already talking serious money. For me, as for many, the proposed Wilden project must be viewed in terms of the economics and financials of it, as well as the moral and social issues. There are moral issues that run to the taxpayers who are asked to subsidize this project pretty heavily.
I picked up on Andy’s suggestion as one sensible and creative way to approach the issue of affordable housing, both the benefits and burdens. The data that is being used to support building the Wilden appears to be regional in scope, rather than city-centric. If building senior or affordable housing at this time is a top priority, and in light of the regional need for affordable housing, in particular workforce housing, it strikes me that we could maximize the expenditure of taxpayer funds toward that end, and with a regional view of the targeted population, by working in a cooperative and contributive way with Arlington and Fairfax counties in a form like, e.g., the Regional Transportation Authority. Andy’s is a new idea and, in my opinion, worthy of consideration as a long-range approach to consolidating scarce affordable housing funds and making them stretch farther.
But in the meantime, let’s not lose focus on the more immediate issues: can the taxpayers of Falls Church afford to build the Wilden now, and as proposed? Is there broad support among city taxpayers for this project as a top spending priority now? The sense I get when talking to folks around the city is that many would answer these questions “no.”
It’s not that people don’t agree in principle that diversity within our population is valuable and that providing for a continuum of housing within and in proximity to the city is a way to achieve diversity; it’s the timing and impact of the Wilden, as proposed, that causes concern. Even those of us who would like to see a broad variety of housing available in the city feel unease with the balance the Wilden project strikes between social engineering and the operation of market forces in the housing market, generally.
And as for the other governmental funding sources, I understand the bird-in-hand temptation to take the money now and run. I have faith, however, that these additional funding sources will still be around in coming years, when the economy improves enough to re-engage on the issue of stand-alone affordable housing.
Regional planning — for housing or otherwise — is not a new idea, Linda……. Here is a link to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments:
http://www.mwcog.org/planning/housing
I had in mind more the idea of a regional action program to pool available affordable housing funds and build affordable housing to benefit the region. I am aware of the COG and its efforts in the housing (and other) field; but their role has been as a regional information and planning resource and coordinator of data collection and analysis, not so much as an action-oriented building and funding organization .
But thanks for the reminder to look at the COG website for current news. There I see that COG is exploring the feasibility of establishing an affordable housing trust fund that would provide gap financing to regional affordable housing efforts. I hope they succeed. Properly designed, such a trust fund program could substantially ease the financial strain on each local jurisdictions’ taxpayers by pooling funds to meet regional needs and addressing funding scarcities/shortfalls that inhibit more parochially-oriented affordable housing construction.
It could also go a long way to ensure that affordable housing priorities are identified, planned, and built to address those specific priorities (i.e., for workforce housing) rather than than as evolutionary remainders of failed local development plans. I don’t know whether or not Falls Church and FCHC is represented in this effort — are we — I can’t tell from the COG website. I would hope for our participation and support of an equitable and well-designed, affordable housing trust fund program.
I picked up on the idea of regional planning from another commenter on this site as a creative, new way to approach the issue of affordable housing. If nothing else is apparent from the process that is likely to produce the Wilden, it is apparent that we as a city should be aiming not to do business in the same parochial way, to the disservice of city finances and programs.
The COG trust fund idea may be too late to help with the Wilden project, given the Planning Commission’s (less than unanimous) intent to move the project forward and the Council majority’s intent to approve it, however taxing the financial impact is on city taxpayers and governmental services. There still is the opportunity to rethink the project, but I doubt it will happen. Thus, we are left only with the option to endorse or reject the city’s handling of this project by our votes in the next local election.