COMMUNITY COMMENT: Taken Aback by FCHC Request

By RICHARD SOMMERFELD

July 29, 2010

This comment is my personal view as a taxpayer and a voter, not as Chairman of the Long-Range Financial Planning Working Group.

I was more than taken aback by the request from the Falls Church Housing Corporation (FCHC) for the City of Falls Church to bail it out of its current financial predicament.  In no way is this a “minor modification” of the terms set forth by the City Council for the Wilden Project.  It is a major change to the terms and to the project risks.  Anybody who understands real estate development would understand that fact and Mr. Young confirmed it in his interview with the FCT.  What we now have here is an admission by the FCHC that it is financially insolvent because it cannot make payment of its $2.7 million note due on August 7.  To be clear, the definition of financial insolvency is when a borrower cannot meet its financial obligations as and when they come due.  It also admitted that it may have to sell assets at a loss to make good on the note.

The FCHC also admits that it is attempting to help the Sawner estate settle its debt to the City.  It goes on to admit that whoever the other “partners” are who invested $750,000 in pre-development work will lose their funds.  The FCHC, for reasons that defy logic, spent $1.2 million on pre-development work when it had neither complied with the very soft terms set forth by the City Council nor had it lined up all of its equity and bank financing.  By way of clarification, a loan from the City does not qualify as equity by normal accounting principles, even for a non-profit.  Now, the FCHC has the audacity to ask the taxpayers of Falls Church for a bailout caused by financial mismanagement and overly optimistic forecasting for the entire Project.  The City would not just be bailing out the FCHC, but all of the parties associated with this project, according to the FCHC memo.

Any assertion that this project ever made financial sense for the City is distinctly contrary to a thorough and well-reasoned analysis prepared by Mr. Mike Novotny of the EDA and comments made by Mr. John Lawrence, Chairman of the Planning Commission, who voted against the project.  It would cost the City at least $100,000 in lost tax revenue–when every penny counts.  If this project made that much sense, perhaps Mr. Young should advance the FCHC $1 million, inasmuch as he would be a benefactor of the total project.

To put the $1 million request into the context of the Schools’ budget, that would be the equivalent of 12 teaching positions plus 2 or 3 support staff.  Down the road, the subsidized cost of at least $100,000 per annum would be the annual equivalent of 1.5 teaching positions.  If we go through the math of the project, it is expected by the FCHC that in 15 or 16 years the City would essentially forgive the $2 million loan.  How many teachers or policemen or firemen does that equate to?

In terms of the financial gimmickry of the FCHC request, if I understand Mr. Rogers’ memo to the City Manager, taxpayer funds will flow from the City to the FCHC and then back and forth between the FCHC and the Sawner estate, with a some portion of the funding maybe returning to the City in some guise to make it appear this is nothing more than a usual and customary fiscal arrangement.  It would also allow Mr. Young to proceed with his development and then recoup $25,000 per parking space from the City.

I think that the City Council would be making a huge mistake taking taxpayer funds that were meant to restore the depleted fund balance and finance operations such as public safety and the schools and redirect funds for 66 subsidized housing units.  The City Manager even stripped the CIP of all but $385,000 of capital expenditure to fund the operating budget.  We just heard from the City Manager that he had approached Davenport & Co., the City’s investment bankers, about going to the debt markets to fund the depleted CIP.  The Assistant Director of Finance has confirmed that tax collections are running $3.5 million behind last year.

After we listened to City employees pleading for their jobs in the Council Chambers (and on the City’s TV station) just 3 months ago, this is a major insult to them and their families.  At the end of the day, the real issue is not whether the City Council would be voting on 66 subsidized housing units in the middle of the commercial district to be funded by depleting the fund balance again, but whether this Council wants to bail out the financial mismanagement of the FCHC and place further strain on the City’s operating budget.

Even if the City borrows the money from a bank, it would be sending the wrong signal to every household in the City that had to accept a 16% hike in real estate taxes to support the City’s operating budget, not bail out an entity that is admitting insolvency.  It is an audacious argument on the part of Ms. Jackson and Mr. Rogers to say that the Virginia Development Housing Authority would turn its back on Falls Church for not funding this $1 million request for an admittedly insolvent FCHC.  The Council needs to call in an independent auditor to examine the finances of the FCHA and its financial controls and not bail out the FCHC.  The City should not the “bailout banker” of last resort for a non-profit that speculates in land development.

Mr. Sommerfeld is a businessman who lives in Falls Church City

Editors’ Note:  The Falls Church Times has invited the Falls Church Housing Corporation to submit a Community Comment making the case for its request in this matter, and we invite others to share their views on this topic or others of importance to the City.  Our comment policy appears in our “About” section.  Please send your submissions to contact@fallschurchtimes.com.

COMMUNITY COMMENT:
‘Magic Office Building Syndrome’ Strikes City Again

By DAVID CHAVERN

July 17, 2010

I recently read the “Blueprint for Action” that was proposed by four of our Council members, and followed some of the rhetoric on local blogs on what we need to do to address the City’s fiscal challenges.  While there are a number of good ideas floating around, I am struck by how we seem to have reverted (once again) to what I have called the “magic office building syndrome”.  This is the mistaken belief that the City should be able to easily attract 100% commercial development that will shower us with revenue without imposing any costs.  Further, the only reason that we haven’t gotten this type of development in the past is that we haven’t “wanted” it hard enough.  All we need is a pair of ruby slippers and some more money to “promote” the City and, viola, the magic building will appear from the sky and pay for our schools.

Rather than blame a lack of desire, I would suggest that folks dig a little deeper and try to diagnose the underlying dynamics.   After all, Northern Virginia has had several office and retail booms (and busts) over the last couple of decades, but they always seem to pass the City by.  Aside from the Flower Building, there hasn’t been any 100% commercial office buildings built in the City in many years.  I doubt that reflects a lack of desire.

Here are some facts to be dealt with:

• Land in Falls Church is expensive compared to more suburban areas  – and that means commercial rents have to be high;

• Our commercial zones are not walkable from a Metro station;

• Parcels of property in our commercial zones are small, and most border on residential properties.  (The City was, in fact, strip zoned within an inch of its life in the 1950s.)

• We generate almost no foot traffic in our commercial core.

I will add my opinion (albeit well-informed, I think) that the general public in the City has high anxiety when it comes to density of any kind.  When people start to say that 6 stories is “too high” then you know you have some challenges.

As to retail specifically, I would love more retail and, from the Council bench, I often bemoaned the fact that I couldn’t buy a shirt in the City even if I wanted to.  I also commented, though, on the density needed to support national retail and issued a public challenge that no one ever took up — namely “name a development with national retail that has been built in the DC metro area in the last 10 years that would physically fit in any commercial zoned area of the City.” Can you name one?

So, understanding those challenges, I would encourage anyone in the City who wants commercial development to go forth and build it.  There are no major legal or regulatory impediments that I am aware of (the Flower Building was built “by right” with no Council approval required.)  In fact, by my motion, the entire north side of the City Center area was reserved solely for 100% commercial development.  Express your desire through cash and build, baby, build!

On the other hand, if the fundamentals don’t make sense for such development then be open to other alternatives.  Mixed-use is one, but not the only one.  How about allowing 10 (or more) story buildings in the City Center?  Special tax districts?  Condemnation?  In other words, if you want to get serious about development then get real, real serious and don’t wish on a star.

COMMUNITY COMMENT: Positive Parking

By BOB BURNETT

July 16, 2010

I took this photo earlier this month in the parking lot behind the Giant on Wisconsin Ave. near the National Cathedral in Washington, DC. In addition to a busy grocery store, there were many restaurants in full operation taking advantage of the option of outdoor dining.

Not one restaurant or business had a stand-alone parking lot. There was a blending of on-street parallel parking used by the neighborhood’s close-in-proximity homes, apartments, restaurants and businesses. More importantly, as this sign dictates, a parking lot shared by all businesses with the specified intent of supporting the neighborhood businesses. Granted, it was a beautiful evening to be out but I also think the steps taken by this area of the District made it easy to be out in. Instead of saying “NO” (like the attached photo from Falls Church) they are saying “please come in, share the space, welcome”.

And it’s working.

In the spirit of our community trying to build economic development opportunities I might as well touch on parking a bit further.

My take – we seem to miss the mark on the value of diverse, shared parking. I recently found an excellent post on the Planetizen webpage by Michael Lewyn (a faculty member at Florida Coastal School of Law where he teaches a seminar about sprawl) on the specific subject of the shared parking concept called spillover parking. He states the theory behind minimum parking requirements at the planning stage in most places force each individual business to create large parking lots so that spillover parking from one store or business won’t affect the parking of a smaller adjacent store.

Professor Lewyn says it best so I’ll let him continue:

Spillover parking may be as likely to create positive externalities [that is, benefits to persons not party to a transaction] as negative externalities. For example, yesterday I needed to go to both the library and a bank. The library is a five minute walk from the bank, yet both have their own parking spaces. As a result, I had to drive to the library, then drive separately to the bank, thus creating an extra car trip and creating a tiny bit of pollution and congestion on the street between the two buildings.

By contrast, if I had just parked at the library and then walked to and from the bank, I would have been committing the sin of spillover parking: parking at building A while doing errands at building B. Yet I would have actually created positive externalities: by walking from the library to the bank, I would have reduced the amount of vehicle trips in the neighborhood, thus making life slightly easier for other drivers, and making the neighborhood air a tiny bit cleaner. On the other hand, I would have created negative externalities only if my car had been the last car to park at the library or bank, thus inconveniencing customers of one of those businesses.

Conversely, the parking requirements designed to prevent spillover parking have negative externalities as well as positive ones. Such regulations prevent the inconveniences that may result from spillover parking- but they also subsidize driving by forcing every business to build parking lots, thus creating an artificial glut of parking, thus driving the market price of parking down to zero, thus creating additional driving, thus creating additional pollution and congestion. And because these regulations encourage businesses to set their buildings back behind a wall of parking, they create an atmosphere that is not tremendously welcoming for pedestrians. Where shops are far from the street, pedestrians have longer commutes to their destinations, and those commutes are more dangerous as well because they must dodge vehicles on the way to shops and apartments.

I know we are capable of positive spillover parking because it’s already happening at times. Every Saturday I’m told 3000+ people visit the Farmer’s Market via a combination of parking in the Community Center lot, on-street parking, give and take with local office building lots and people using bikes and their feet. The Farmer’s Market is an inviting and treasured part of the Falls Church Experience.

We’re all looking to develop other unique, profitable advantages to build our economic base. Positive parking strategies can better work to bring people into the City and must be part of the discussion. I’m hoping our future includes moving in the direction of what I found on Wisconsin Avenue in DC instead of the current single location parking strategy in place for much of the commercial areas of the City.

COMMUNITY COMMENT: The Case for Retaining GEORGE

By BARRY BUSCHOW

June 23, 2010

I support, as do many of us who ride the GEORGE  bus, raising the fares as the City Council has proposed.  What most riders are concerned about is which of  three service options now under consideration will take effect after September.  To begin this discussion I offer the following facts as determined by our consultant and the GEORGE Task Force, of which I was a member:

• Ridership percentages:  Route 26E has 59% of the riders – Route 26W has 41% of the total riders.

• Highest Ridership Activity:  

26E (from table 4-3 of the final report)
• West Broad & Virginia Ave. (63 riders)
• East Broad & Cherry St. (16 riders)
• Park Ave. & Little Falls (15 riders)

26W (from table 4-4 of the final report)
• Virginia Ave. & West Broad (14 riders)
• Poplar Dr & Spring St. (11 riders)
• Sherrow Ave. & Virginia Ave. (11 riders)
• N. West St. & Grove Ave. (10 riders)

• Highest Ridership Times:
26E:  7am to 8:30 am and 5 pm to 7 pm
26W: 7am to 8:30 am and 5p m to 7 pm

• Stops Not on Existing MetroBus Routes:

26E:   7 stops with 2 stops outside ¼ mile distance
26W:  15 stops with 7 stops outside ¼ mile distance

• In its February 1, 2010 presentation to City Council the task force recommended keeping GEORGE service with reduced operations and the FY11 cost projection = $117,000.

• Capital necessary to fix the buses is identified as Section 5309 Federal Funds, in particular the West Falls Church Shuttle funds of $728K available for bus repairs.

• Section 5309 Federal Funds can be transferred to Arlington County to operate GEORGE if we choose.

A recent interview with The Economist’sonline Economics Editor, Ryan Avent, found  in the Falls Church News-Press, referenced development and growth issues facing the City of Falls Church.  I recommend the article to everyone interested in the future of our city.  In particular there was discussion on transportation issues. 

I offer the following excerpts:  “I think that by developing centers of mixed-use, walkable development, and by connecting those centers with nearby Metro stations on the Orange Line through things like Circulator buses, you can accommodate a healthy mix of growth.”  “If you offer reliable connections….to Tysons, then you make it still more attractive to be a Falls Church resident.  Good connections to Tysons will allow Falls Church Residents to take advantage of Tysons’ greater density while maintaining a small town feel.” 

On development, “…make it easy for developers to build the right kind of buildings and plan pro-actively – let investors know that you’re thinking progressively about building a better central place.  It means committing to local transit.”  “A commitment to the bus system is one of the factors that will convince developers and residents that interest in a new style of main street growth is real…good access to Metro is going to be key in attracting residents to walkable development along Broad St. and Washington St.”

Option 3, to terminate GEORGE service, is not in our best interest now or in the future as it takes us backwards in our efforts to serve our citizens and promote economic development.  Option 2, to discontinue  26W, makes no sense since most of 26E already runs on Broad Street and is already served by Metro.  As mentioned above there are 7 stops on the 26E not serviced by Metro routes with 2 stops outside the ¼ mile walking distance.  The 26W has 15 stops not serviced by Metro and 7 outside the ¼ mile walking distance.  If the Council is seriously considering this alternative it might consider the old 26A route during rush hours.  That way the whole city is served by an on-time reliable bus system with ARTs.  Metrobus is a long haul route and is often delayed in rush hour traffic.

Option 1, keep service, is the preferred option and, coupled with reduced service, is the option recommended by the GEORGE task force.  As mentioned above, the hours from 7 am to 8:30 am and 5 pm to 7 pm for both routes captures close to 70% of all riders.  I am not sure where the $190,000 cost figure came from as referenced in the resolution before the Council, since the consultant’s report as presented on February 1, 2010 indicates the FY 11 cost is:

                                 $140,000 Total Operating (after fare recovery)
                                  -$53,000 State Subsidy
                                 +$30,000 Bus repairs (which can be paid from the Section 5309 funds)
                              = $117,000 (or perhaps $87,000 if repairs are paid by Section 5309 funds)

I know there is concern about the amount of DRPT funds and Gas Tax Revenue that will be available.   Incrementally funding at 3 months at a time will limit the City’s risk and allow better understanding of the level of funding available from all sources.  Also remember, the economy is showing good signs of recovering.  Starting a bus service will cost Falls Church a lot more in the future if we dissolve it now.  All indications are that we will have to have it in the future so why not benefit from it now?

COMMUNITY COMMENT:
Part 1: Creating a Commercial Market in Falls Church

By MIKE NOVOTNY

April 23, 2010

Without more detailed planning of our commercial areas and an expansion of our economic base, service cuts and residential tax hikes will become the norm, schools will suffer.

Our City desperately needs to create a vibrant commercial office and retail market within its borders, one that’s an appropriate size that befits our little City and has the right character and charm to call it our own. This commercial market must be large enough to generate significant new tax revenues to help pay for our schools and services, encourage great architecture and high-quality developments that will attract new tenants, create new public and open spaces for residents, and provide additional retail amenities in the City.

Commercial office and retail uses would bring new real estate and business taxes to Falls Church without burdening the school system with additional students. Mixed-use office and retail development can create lively areas in the City with new restaurants and storefronts, expand the tax base, and even help solve our parking shortages.

Such a market currently does not exist today and will not simply develop on its own. It will not be created by approving one development project at a time, which seems to be our current method. We cannot ask nor rely on developers to plan our City for us, we need to do that ourselves and invite developers to build it.

Creating a commercial market in Falls Church begins with detailed planning of our non-residential areas, often referred to as Sector Planning, and is an effort that goes well beyond a typical update to our City’s Comprehensive Plan.

What is Sector Planning?

Sector planning is a holistic and detailed approach to planning, essentially creating a master plan for an area and asking developers/owners to build specific pieces of it over time. We begin by designating a commercial area in the City and, in very simple terms, plan the heck out of it. The goal is to come up with a detailed planning document that outlines precisely what we want to see in the future, and adopt that document into our Comprehensive Plan

An overall process is established to study all aspects of potential redevelopment, including urban design, transportation, public infrastructure, recreational needs, zoning requirements, etc. Detailed design work is produced that examines alternative layouts, building heights, road and sidewalk sections, street renderings, etc., and an open and ongoing dialogue is held among City staff, council, boards and commissions, neighborhood groups, business and property owners and the development community.

Some of the details that would be studied and adopted in a final plan include:

• Building heights and massing block-by-block
• Building density based on FAR (Floor to Area Ratio)
• Lot coverage and potential lot consolidation
• “Build-to” lines showing how far buildings should be setback from the road
• Designated use types, e.g., office, residential, hotel, retail
• Future public parks and open spaces
• Future new roads that create more walkability
• Future transit hub location
• Future public parking garage location(s) if desired
• Detailed street and sidewalk sections showing the required right-of-way for bike lanes, on-street parking and potential rapid transit including buses and streetcars
• Standard sidewalk widths and other requirements that encourage walkability and leave room for sidewalk seating, street furniture, bike racks, lights, etc.
• Building design standards, including requirements for retail storefronts at the street level

Sector planning requires a mandate from City Council; a committment from Boards, Commissions and City Staff; participation from citizen groups and the public; and the help of consultants with expertise in planning, architecture and engineering.

At the end of the process, the final plan becomes the City’s calling card to tell the private markets what we are looking for in terms of redevelopment. It provides developers assurance that their projects will be approved if they build what we are asking for. And it provides communities confidence with what will be built in the future, rather than wrestling over each individual project.

Fortunately we have some great examples of successful sector plans created by other jurisdictions very close to Falls Church. Most redeveloped areas of Arlington started with sector plans including Ballston, Clarendon, Courthouse and Rosslyn. Columbia Pike and Shirlington offer additional examples in Arlington of successful detailed planning in areas “without” metro. Another example close to Falls Church is the White Flint sector plan, approved last month, which promises to pave the way for future redevelopment in that portion of Maryland.

Falls Church would likely end up with a different type of sector plan than some of these areas in terms of lower building heights, density, etc., but the planning principles are the same. In each of the examples, the jurisdiction and community started with lofty goals and a larger vision but did not stop there. They continued to draw-up a more specific master plan showing how the vision would be achieved, and as a result are able to market to builders and attract the kind of redevelopment desired rather than wait and hope for the best.

The closest we seem to have come to sector planning is the Streetworks Plan completed in 2002, which was a detailed concept plan for the four blocks in our downtown area. While it was a very thorough study, it omitted some of the critical details that would be determined in a sector plan, and only the high-level concepts were ultimately adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The plan was also narrowly focused and did not address the adjacent commercial areas along South Washington. Despite this, the plan did succeed in sparking resident and developer interest in our downtown before the market slow-down. Perhaps we can begin with this earlier work and continue to build upon it.

Mike Novotny is a member of Falls Church City’s Economic Development Authority

Monday – Part 2: Why do we need to expand our economic base? How do we move forward?

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.

COMMUNITY COMMENT:
Wilden Senior Housing Costs More Than You Think

By LINDA S. NEIGHBORGALL

April 16, 2010

Falls Church City Council recently approved a $2 million loan to the Falls Church Housing Corporation (FCHC) to develop the Wilden, a publicly assisted senior housing project.  I’ve sifted through dense and often confusing and contradictory City documents, and it looks to this layman like the Wilden is far costlier than its proponents let on.

Consider:

• The City’s “loan” to the FCHC is structured more like an outright grant and appears unlikely to be repaid – and in fact is referred to in some City documents as a “permanent loan.” The City will issue a $2 million bond with a 15-year term requiring $1,080,000 interest. Further, the City will pay an estimated $25,000 legal and other costs.

• The City’s right to be repaid by FCHC is limited by the Wilden’s operating expenses and is subordinate to six other creditors with a higher legal priority to any available cash flow. The financing agreement provides that during the15-year term of the loan, if FCHC does not have enough available cash flow to make scheduled debt service payments to the City, the debt service will be paid from the City’s general operating fund.

• The City, not the FCHC, is legally required to pay down the loan annually.  Even if the FCHC actually makes the annual payments stipulated in the financing agreement, the City is required to pay debt service in far greater amounts than the money it will receive from FCHC.  By 2026, the City will have paid out $ 2,913,000 on the principle and interest of the loan; FCHC will have paid $868,749 to the City.

• In order to cover the first 2 ½ years of debt service, the City will borrow $532,000 from a pre-existing, City-managed housing fund. After 15-16 years, the City will return the money to the housing fund. In the interim, it will not be available for other housing-related uses – and will lose about $340,000 in purchasing power.

• The City will allow FCHC to defer payment of utility connection fees until a certificate of occupancy is issued for the completed building.

• The commercial office building at 350 S. Washington that will be demolished to make way for the Wilden generates real estate taxes of about $35,000 per year.  The demolition of 350 S. Washington and the projected lost tax revenue from the tax-exempt Wilden adds up to at least $167,000 thereafter.

• City services to the Wilden, including police, fire, general government, refuse collection, and recreation and parks, are estimated at $40,000 per year annually.

• City cost projections assume that a new commercial building will be paired with the tax-exempt Wilden and that tax receipts from the new building will partially offset the Wilden’s revenue drain.  This is a fiction.  Costs associated with the Wilden are unique and determinable.  The fact that a new building might be erected does not change that. The Wilden will cost what it costs; and any new revenue from any other source, however welcome, does not reduce the Wilden’s costs.

• Locating this residential, tax-exempt building in the middle of a targeted business district permanently eliminates any possibility of consolidating this property with the surrounding land into a comprehensively planned, tax-producing commercial city center.

It is left to City voters to decide whether the Wilden is the right project, at the right time, in the right place, at a reasonable cost, and whether in approving the project the Council majority was acting in the best interests of the City and its taxpayers.

EDITORS’ NOTE: The above Community Comment was condensed from an analysis prepared by Ms. Neighborgall. The complete analysis may be read here.

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.

COMMUNITY COMMENT: Bend Over Backwards to Preserve Schools

By DAVID RUSSELL

April 8, 2010

Like so many of us in Falls Church, my wife and I moved our family here to be a part of the best public school system in the DC metro area, and one of the best in the country.  We have since come to appreciate the great diversity of interests in our community and believe that diversity makes Falls Church an even better place to live.  However, we have not forgotten what brought us here and, in my opinion, what defines Falls Church – our exceptional public schools.  We are willing to pay a higher tax rate on an inflated property value because Falls Church schools are better than Arlington and Fairfax schools, and our children’s education is one of our highest priorities in life.  I am proud that our schools’ reputation proceeds us – when I tell people from Arlington, Fairfax, DC or Maryland where I live, the one thing they know about Falls Church is our great schools.

Unfortunately, like many of us, I am wondering whether we are about to throw all that away.  If we respond to the Great Recession by cutting our education budget to the point where our schools become just pretty good, like Arlington and Fairfax, there is no longer any reason to pay the Falls Church property tax premium.  And if there is no reason to pay that premium, I am confident most people will not pay it.  A few families may move away but most will choose not to move in.  The demand for Falls Church homes will erode and our property values will decline, further reducing tax revenue and local services.

I am not the first to express concerns over excessive cuts to education –- many have made these and similar points to the School Board and the City Council.  Yet just this year I have seen the City Council 1) ask the citizens for our budget priorities (education, especially core curriculum, by a landslide); 2) cut the school budget by $2 million; 3) loan $2 million for development; and 4) ask the School Board for more budget cuts.   The Council may yet decide to fund other things that are “nice to have” but do not enhance the residential property values on which Falls Church heavily relies.

These are very difficult times for local budgets around the country.  Many tough decisions lie ahead in Falls Church and elsewhere.  It is my hope that our leaders will bend over backwards to preserve the one thing I believe Falls Church cannot exist without –- exceptional public schools.

I will be watching what is said and done at City Hall and in the campaign over the coming weeks.  In the May election I will vote for the candidates who put our schools first.  I urge everyone who cares about the future of Falls Church to do the same.

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.

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.

Next Page »