Fairfax County Residents Paying for Luxury Items for Low-Income Residents (fit in, section 8)

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by Yankeesfan

Subsidized luxury in Fairfax County:

http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/f...x%20County.pdf

Again, the only subsidy the identify is the foregone property taxes. Which assumes that the same density would have been built, but at market rates, which isnt entirely clear.

Second, while at least they provide alternatives - offsite affordable housing, including funding for habitat for humanity - its not clear that there arent issues with them - historically offsite subsidized housing has created issues with such housing being too concentrated in certain areas - if we want to avoid the issues with such concentration, having a small number of units in the exact same location as the new, market rate housing might be ideal - and worth letting those miserable subsidized 50k income people have access to luxury amenities.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

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.

1. By less densely zoned, do you mean the torn down property, or the new market rate property as it would be built absent a development bonus? If the former, I think its unrealistic to think these developments would not go ahead absent the density bonus. If the latter, I am dubious that there are distinct markets for new market rate condos at moderatelty (what 20%?) differences in total density

2. AFAICT the motivation is to make it easier for the county to attract moderate income workers, for county jobs, etc. Its not redistributionist. To me socialism, by definition. has to involve some element of advocating for the class interests of the less well off/working class/whatever, not any deviation from laissez faire that happens to benefit a few people with less than average incomes.

[JD984]

Originally Posted by saganista

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.

Staff/contributors:

Staff and Scholars :: Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

Board:

Board of Directors :: Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

I'm not sure why it matters whether someone puts together a study of county expenditures (whether tax expenditures or direct spending) from an apartment in Rosslyn, a townhouse in Springfield, or a marble building in downtown Washington, or whether it reflects the work of one individual or a group of self-appointed "experts" who more or less share the same views. The study ought to be judged on its own merits - or lack thereof.

[brooklynborndad]

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.

I hear you. Two responses

1. Are we talking about this as a matter of kindness/justice to the would be county employees, or as an aid in recruitment - to make the lives of county hiring managers easier. If the former, well, yeah "We got all these decaying ramblers that need fixin up, suck it up" is a reasonable response. If the latter, to the hiring manager whose job goes unfilled cause someone she wanted takes a job somewhere else where they don't have to take a look at what they perceive as slum, its not much consolation. This probably matters litte now, with current employment conditions. In more normal conditions, it might well matter.

2. Given that much of the new market rate high density housing is in walkable nabes and/or near metros, or, in the case of the Govt Center project mentioned above, within walking distance of a major center for moderate income govt employment, and given that moderate income folks are, ceteris paribus, more likely to commute by foot/transit, and more likely to forego a second/third/whatever motor vehicle, and given that one of the public benefits of high density development IS reducing vehicle miles traveled, gasoline burned, emissions, etc - it SEEMS that it MIGHT make sense to focus the moderate income folks in the denser, less auto oriented areas - let the rich folks go tear down the foreclosed homes and build their McMansions (energy intensive, to be sure, but better in Springfield or Annandale thanin exurbia) - and the inadequate quantity/quality of older housing near metros, and the (natural) high rents/prices for new market rate housing, this may be one of the few ways to achieve that.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by JEB77

I'm not sure why it matters whether someone puts together a study of county expenditures (whether tax expenditures or direct spending) from an apartment in Rosslyn, a townhouse in Springfield, or a marble building in downtown Washington. It ought to be judged on its own merits - or lack thereof.

the ancient question - when is ad hominem not a fallacy. The answer of course - when the argument is from authority.

If one has time to read and dissect the study, than its irrelevant who wrote it. If one has only time to glance at it, and see that someone with a serious sounding name and formal letterhead wrote it, it may be worthwhile pointing out its provenance.

It may not be the case in analysis of county govt expenditure - but for sure, in the climate debate, and some other national policy debates, the sheer magnitude of refutable claims and arguments, (and even refuted, but still repeated - hence "zombie lies") put forth by serious sounding institutions, all heavily subisidized by certain people, tends to overwhelm the ability of the other side to respond in ways that actually impact public perceptions, and have left the broad mass of the public in the USA with a very distorted view of the actual balance of scientific opinion.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

AFAICT the motivation is to make it easier for the county to attract moderate income workers, for county jobs, etc.

You buy that old canard about low income housing being used by police, teachers, and firefighters? I'll bet you won't find a single county employee living there. The county pays well enough that most workers can afford market rate housing. Let's be honest, this is basically a program to keep the chronically unemployed and minimum wage off the streets, not a program for the county to attract employees.

[brooklynborndad]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

. Let's be honest, this is basically a program to keep the chronically unemployed and minimum wage off the streets, not a program for the county to attract employees.

we are actually talking about a few different programs with IIUC different income requirements and rents - without analyzing each one, Im not sure its possible to generalize about who will live there.

As for assuming that the proclaimed motives are a canard, I'm not prepared to deny the advocates the benefit of the doubt. And certainly not to charecterize the program as "socialism" on that basis - historically socialism and social democracy and non socialist progressivism were proud to proclaim their commitment to seeking social justice - and I think even our pols in Fairfax are willing to do so in other contexts.

It has become the fashion of late to overuse "socialism" to mean "any deviation from laissez faire I dont like" I think its worthwhile to be wary of its use.

[chariega]

Originally Posted by CAVA1990

You buy that old canard about low income housing being used by police, teachers, and firefighters? I'll bet you won't find a single county employee living there. The county pays well enough that most workers can afford market rate housing. Let's be honest, this is basically a program to keep the chronically unemployed and minimum wage off the streets, not a program for the county to attract employees.

I don't know how many county employees you know, but when I worked for Fairfax (2005-2007), most of my co-workers lived in Prince William County Not to mention, the starting salary for a teacher or police officer now is only like 49k. Definitely not much when a 1 BDR apartment near the Gov't Center will cost at least 1300/mo. on the low end.

[saganista]

Originally Posted by brooklynborndad

It may not be the case in analysis of county govt expenditure - but for sure, in the climate debate, and some other national policy debates, the sheer magnitude of refutable claims and arguments, (and even refuted, but still repeated - hence "zombie lies") put forth by serious sounding institutions, all heavily subisidized by certain people, tends to overwhelm the ability of the other side to respond in ways that actually impact public perceptions, and have left the broad mass of the public in the USA with a very distorted view of the actual balance of scientific opinion.

Very well said, but it's actually the case pretty much everywhere now. "Zombie lies" (wonderful terminology) permeate what passes for public discourse these days, the culmination of efforts begun in the 1970's as a Republican Party reeling on the heels of Watergate and Vietnam joined forces with Christian extemists to begin construction of a disinformation media industry that could ultimately control both debate and the perception of truth. At first, these efforts were laughed off. Who would ever believe such nonsense? Time has proven only too well that a lot of people will.

[CAVA1990]

Originally Posted by chariega

I don't know how many county employees you know, but when I worked for Fairfax (2005-2007), most of my co-workers lived in Prince William County Not to mention, the starting salary for a teacher or police officer now is only like 49k. Definitely not much when a 1 BDR apartment near the Gov't Center will cost at least 1300/mo. on the low end.

I'm sure most could have afforded a smaller place at market rents within the county (say along Route 1) even at 49k but chose to get something a little bigger and nicer for their dollars in PWC versus opting for low income housing in FFC.