Fairfax County Residents Paying for Luxury Items for Low-Income Residents (Alexandria: appointed, foreclose)

[Teebyrd86]

I am a little amazed at this and it makes me wonder who is living in these $450k town houses and $750k single family homes in my neighborhood? Or who is living my condo complex where I can barely pay nearly $1300 a month for? I look at the photos in the above link and cannot help but notice the BMW sitting in front of one of the "affordable living homes". Argh what is wrong with this picture??

[saganista]

Moderator Cut

Where is Herrity's plan for creating housing in the County that police, firemen, teachers, EMT's, and the like can actually afford to live in? Do I hear a proposal to raise their pay? The project in question is targeted to households with incomes between $50K and $100K. These are not intended as homeless shelters, yet Herrity seems to think that we are somehow not providing quite enough squalor for these people to live in. Moderator Cut

[marie5v]

Damn those poor people and their billiards tables! Can't they just live in squalor like they're supposed to?

[chariega]

Originally Posted by saganista

Where is Herrity's plan for creating housing in the County that police, firemen, teachers, EMT's, and the like can actually afford to live in? Do I hear a proposal to raise their pay? The project in question is targeted to households with incomes between $50K and $100K. These are not intended as homeless shelters, yet Herrity seems to think that we are somehow not providing quite enough squalor for these people to live in. Just another demagogue at work.

This times 1000! Some people want to label and assume that a ton of people leeching welfare are the residents in all of these places. The fact is Fairfax has relatively few safe and affordable areas for its workforce--many of which aren't even banking a 50k salary--to live in the county.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by chariega

This times 1000! Some people want to label and assume that a ton of people leeching welfare are the residents in all of these places. The fact is Fairfax has relatively few safe and affordable areas for its workforce--many of which aren't even banking a 50k salary--to live in the county.

Don't be hatin' on me for asking this, because I really don't know the answer, but what exactly do you mean by "safe and affordable"?

On the one hand, we sometimes read people on this sub-forum complaining about the aesthetics of neighborhoods in older suburbs that have a few abandoned, foreclosed-upon and/or poorly maintained homes, and yet others suggest there's a clear and obvious need for the county to strike deals with developers so county workers with comparatively modest salaries can live in a luxury apartment or townhouse development.

Don't know if the economics work, but overall I think it might be better for the county if we had county workers fixing up and/or living in a 1950s or 1960s house in Springfield, Falls Church, Annandale or Alexandria that needs a little TLC than ensconsed in a relatively new development like Stockwell Manor where the units presumably could have been sold to someone in a position to pay considerably more in RE taxes.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

IIUC the developer gets a density bonus for providing the affordable units. he is better off than under existing zoning without the option to do this. It is an option - if he builds as of right, I believe he is not required to provide affordable units.

Its pretty purely capitalist then, unless you think that having zoning with density limits is socialist (its the density limits that impose the cost on the developer/land owner). I bet there are land owners/developers in Virginia who think that. Personally I doubt even the most moderate, watered down, self proclaimed social democrat of the last century would really consider zoning density limits a victory for "socialism".

The socialism stems from certain individuals being able to pay below market rate rents at the expense of others who end up paying higher rents due to a reduced supply of less densely zoned units where they want to live. It's basically the same as an income transfer from more to less affluent renters.

[chariega]

Originally Posted by JEB77

Don't be hatin' on me for asking this, because I really don't know the answer, but what exactly do you mean by "safe and affordable"?

On the one hand, we sometimes read people on this sub-forum complaining about the aesthetics of neighborhoods in older suburbs that have a few abandoned, foreclosed-upon and/or poorly maintained homes, and yet others suggest there's a clear and obvious need for the county to strike deals with developers so county workers with comparatively modest salaries can live in a luxury apartment or townhouse development.

Don't know if the economics work, but overall I think it might be better for the county if we had county workers fixing up and/or living in a 1950s or 1960s house in Springfield, Falls Church, Annandale or Alexandria that needs a little TLC than ensconsed in a relatively new development like Stockwell Manor where the units presumably could have been sold to someone in a position to pay considerably more in RE taxes.

somewhere NOT off Route 1 or in Culmore off Route 7. I just remember looking for a place to live after college and I pretty much had to avoid Fairfax all together since prices in the safer areas (relatively speaking) were nonexistent.


There's nothing wrong with older neighborhoods as long as a person can park their car without having to worry about a break-in and can feel safe coming home at night if they're alone.

[novajs]

Affordable housing units need to be spread out in the entire county. Mclean, Vienna, and Great Falls shouldn't be exempted from low income housing units just because of their locations. I don't see anything wrong to have low income people live in an upper middle class neighborhood for short term and motivate them to own their home on their own. Most likely the percentage of these "luxury" units are so small, it is really not an issue that fox 5 made it to be. How many affordable housing units does the county have in Reston vs. Mclean?

However the county should still consider some kind of lottery system that these luxury subsidized units will be leased only as short term housings, so many more low income families have access to them short term rather than one family live there subsidized forever.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by Yankeesfan

Subsidized luxury in Fairfax County:
http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/f...x%20County.pdf

Not to put too fine a point on it, but the so-called Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy describes itself as "the only state and local government focused public policy foundation in Virginia based on a philosophy of limited government, free enterprise and individual responsibility". In other words, it's just another right-wing pulp mill. It consists of one Mike Thompson who runs the whole show from his end-unit townhouse at 9035 Golden Sunset Lane in Springfield. The only purpose of the TJIPP is to serve as yet another web-node along the disinformation media network, posting pre-fab "studies" that liberally omit pertinent fact in order to arrive at pre-determined conclusions. I suppose that we aren't to "politicize" threads in this forum, but I submit that references such as this combined with the OP's focus on what is nothing more than a one-sided FOX News soapbox for Pat Herrity have accomplished that from the get-go.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by novajs

Affordable housing units need to be spread out in the entire county. Mclean, Vienna, and Great Falls shouldn't be exempted from low income housing units just because of their locations.

Don't know about Great Falls, but there is low and moderate-income housing in and around both McLean and Vienna. Indeed, a project in McLean was profiled (i.e., slammed) in one of the articles previously cited.

Originally Posted by novajs

I don't see anything wrong to have low income people live in an upper middle class neighborhood for short term and motivate them to own their home on their own.

Why short-term? Are renters somehow inferior people? Are you not a "real person" until you own your own home? The County is seriously short of LMI housing of any sort and has been for years and years. One of the silver linings in the dark cloud of the Great Recession is that housing stock that was built by perhaps overly zealous private sector interests has turned for its owners into a herd of unoccupied white elephants. It is an opportune time for local governments to acquire or inspire properties that aren't meeting their original purposes, putting them to other much needed purposes instead. Owners cut their losses, governments cut their costs, LMI people can find a decent and affordable place to live. Everybody wins.

Originally Posted by novajs

Most likely the percentage of these "luxury" units are so small, it is really not an issue that fox 5 made it to be.

Such argument from the outliers is about all they do.

Originally Posted by novajs

However the county should still consider some kind of lottery system that these luxury subsidized units will be leased only as short term housings, so many more low income families have access to them short term rather than one family live there subsidized forever.

The traditional housing stock in the County leaves very little to be divided up among the 50% of those who work here that have a household income below the $100K+ median. Lottery schemes are not going to change that fact and amount to little more than rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. There are two ways to tip the balance: Provide more LMI-accessible and affordable housing, or increase the wages that are paid to those with LMI-level incomes. The County's award-winning RHA has been focusing on the former. It's successes are then being trashed by those who have no better plan or in many cases by those who have no plan at all beyond trying to discredit government.