$4 Million in Federal Funds Withdrawn From Affordable Housing Project
By FALLS CHURCH TIMES STAFF
August 3, 2010
Last Friday, July 31, the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) informed Falls Church city manager Wyatt Shields that $4 million in Treasury Credit Assistance Program (TCAP) funds were being taken away from The Wilden affordable housing project at 350 S. Washington and assigned to a different development. The reallocation was consistent with the VHDA’s prior advice to the City. The VHDA notified Mr. Shields that they would defer re-assignment of any of the low income tax credits for the moment and would continue to work with The Wilden Partnership to determine if any other tax credits could be assigned to the project to replace the TCAP funds.
The TCAP funds were an integral part of the development’s financing. On Thursday, July 29, the City Council met in special session to consider a request from The Wilden Partners to change the terms of a $2 million City loan for the project. The Partners, the Falls Church Housing Corporation (FCHC) and The Community Builders, asked for the immediate release of half of these funds in order to finance construction of a garage at an adjacent office building intended for 360 S. Washington, which would provide the required parking for The Wilden. Approval of the revised loan was necessary by the end of July to assure retention of the TCAP funds. However, the Council could not reach a decision on the matter and deferred action until Monday, August 9, its final session prior to a recess until after Labor Day.
TCAP funds were authorized to states in 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Originally enacted under the 1987 Tax Reform Act, the program provides a means to leverage private capital into construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing. The 2009 Act provided for $2.25 billion in TCAP assistance, $44.25 million of which was allocated to VHDA.
TCAP funds must be used for capital investment. State agencies (e.g., VHDA) may sub-grant the funds, but the agencies remain primarily liable for compliance with the TCAP requirements. The funds cannot be disbursed until after there is a written agreement with the project owner and cannot be placed in escrow.
By Falls Church Times Staff
August 3, 2010
Well, looks like with TCAP funds out the door…time to stick a fork in Wilden unless the partnership can make up the funding shortfall privately.
Thanks FCT for getting this vital info.
Well done city Council……Maybe you wanted it, maybe you didn’t…But your inability to make a decision either way, even after calling a special meeting specifically to do so (and cajoling for over 4 hours)….is laughable. And the audacity to think that you can “call the VDHA and ask for a bit more time” is laughable. The rules were clear, the timeline was clear, you even met about it, AND DID NOTHING!!!
Maybe its for the best, but your inaction in the face of a deadline, you inability to go on the record (because you might lose) wreaks of ineptitude. People in our city always ask for more autonomy from State Government, we constantly say it is up to us to decide our future, and then this. The State must be looking at the City of Falls Church as a completely ineffective “think tank”, spending countless hours debating and theorizing, but not actually standing up to be counted as a real government.
You had your chance….and you blew it!!! Not because you didn’t vote to approve it and get the money (I actually wanted you to deny the request). But your inaction altogether shows a complete lack of ability. With all the meetings, emails, blogs, letters, demands and discussion, you actually did NOTHING!!!!
Government is supposed to be about some degree of compromise. Everyone behind that bench has been so entrenched that the debate is meaningless. The members who say they maintained an open mind and wanted to be convinced….couldn’t make a decision either way. Everyone balked because they might lose something, and in the end, the decision was made for us.
What a complete waste!
I also found the City Council’s deferral of the issue somewhat odd considering the amount of time spent on it. I still don’t really understand what deferring the decision on the FCHC’s proposal accomplished – it seemed to be equivalent to voting it down. So, in that sense they did make a decision – to not accept the FCHC’s requested change.
What will happen on August 9th? Will the FCHC still be seeking a change to the agreement? Without the VHDA credits it really wouldn’t make sense to move up the $1M payment (or make the $2M loan at all).
Good riddance to the Wilden.
The poster above critisizes the entire Council’s inaction, but three stepped up and voted to deny the funds. The others did not have the votes to issue the funds because Mr. Webb said he would neither vote for or against. So they went along with his resolution to delay. I guess this mean Falls Church won’t be making it onto the “Worst Stimulus Projects” list:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=e1e0624e-d02a-42d4-9dbb-f5b9f21b3572
It is interesting that so many are writing that the Wilden is dead, but is it? FCHC is silent. Benton is criticizing Council by tattle-tailing to Moran. No-one pro-Wilden is saying a thing. I suspect there will be more to come. Hold your victory dances.
To Richard Donnely…….GOOD FOR YOU!!! For telling it like it is, for pointing out that “the Emperor ain’t got no clothes”, for being righteously angry at the waste of time and effort (the Council’s and the public’s), and, please, Won’t you consider running for Council next time?
My response would be similar to Andy Rankin’s.
As for the criticism of City Council, sometimes it is merited, but we also have to remember we voted in the Council (those of us who voted that is). Sure we can agree and disagree with decision, but we also need to keep in mind our representatives have day jobs and running our city is complex. I don’t always agree with what they’re doing, but I also respect the time and effort taken by all the council members. They’re not in it for the money.
gee, I hope congressman Moran isn’t mad at us!
The Wilden is done. If you needed $1million last Friday and didn’t get it then how would you come up with four more million that has now gone to a better project? The city is not in need of affordable house for low income seniors, they already have that. Falls Church needs affordable housing for working people, of various incomes, who can’t afford to live here.
My big complaint on the affordable housing issue has always been the inconsistency between rhetoric and action. For years and years (if not decades) the Council has consistently said that it wants the development more affordable housing in the community. It has been a part of every long-term planning document that I am aware of.
Further, the Council actively encouraged the FCHC to develop such projects (even though the FCHC didn’t need much encouragement). However, when push comes to shove, the City always backs away and leaves these projects for dead. You can’t put such projects in residential areas because it creates too much density and hurts home values; you can’t put them in commercial areas because that wastes valuable commercial space; you can’t take away parking (the lot behind Argia’s); you can’t use up too much park space (the West End project); the City can’t take on any of the risk — and on and on. The FCHC has certainly been a player in their own drama, but I think that we also have to accept that the Council has set up a grinder that made it impossible for the FCHC to succeed.
If the community really doesn’t want any affordable housing projects then I wish the Council would just say so and drop the charade.
The next to the last paragraph of the original article above states “TCAP funds were authorized to states in 2009 as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Originally enacted under the 1987 Tax Reform Act, the program provides a means to leverage private capital into construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing.” I don’t consider any action by the City is truly contributing “private capital”. The funds they were asked to contribute were in fact “public capital”, i.e., tax payers’ money. I am certainly not a lawyer, but as a retired overtaxed resident I still have a sense of right and wrong – maybe that is idealist in light of the current political activities in all levels of government.
In any event, IMHO this event, no matter how messy the actions leading up to it were. is a favorable result for tax payers like myself since Falls Church already provides subsidized housing for our older needy population.
David, you may be right about past Councils sending FCHC down a path to failure – I haven’t been around long enough to know. I assume the debate I’d be interested in happened a long time ago (about whether or not it makes sense to go after affordable housing apartment buildings constructed with City limits as opposed to other approaches like distributing affordable housing throughout the community).
It’s easy in hindsight for me to say that the apartment building approach was flawed – but I guess that’s how I feel (even if we were willing to expand our geographic options and partner up with our neighbors to build an apartment building in a viable location I’m not sure I like that approach).
I agree with Charlie though – I’d bet the FCHC has at least a few more ideas for how to pull the project together.
I would like to see if the present residents of Winter Hill have been surveyed about their opinions.
Andy, you are right. The preferred and recommended approach is, as you put it, “distributing affordable housing throughout the community.” Why hasn’t the City followed that approach? Largely because the City Council majorities that approved the Broadway, Byron, Spectrum, and Pearson Square projects (not to mention City Center South), of which David was a member for four years, failed to condition their approvals on the inclusion in those projects of a sufficient number of affordable units. Those Council majorities were anxious to get projects built and feared developers would walk away if they weren’t allowed to build pretty much what they wanted, including only a minimal number of affordable units. In essence, developer return on investment took precedence over the public interest. If each of the projects mentioned above had been required to include a sufficient number of affordable units, it would have been very difficult to justify the Wilden and its 60+ units, assuming there was ever a need for that type of housing in the first place. Of course, such a policy also helped to promote the continued existence of the FCHC—– but that’s another story.
Lou,
Are you suggesting that previous city councils deliberately avoiding adding affordable units to otherwise market-rate projects in order to avoid stepping on FCHC’s toes or rendering it superfluous? Elaborate!
Further the deponent sayeth not at this time, and no inference of any kind whatsoever may be drawn from his silence.