Affordable Housing in Falls Church
I moved into the City about 6 months ago but before that I lived just outside the City for about 8 years. I’ve been reading the Falls Church News Press for quite a while so I have a sense for what has been going on in the City. However, I have to admit that until recently I didn’t pay much attention to the various attempts made to bring more affordable housing to the City.
The issue is a hot topic of discussion right now due to the most recent Planning Commission meeting. Over at Blueweeds a recent post on the topic garnered quite a few comments. There are a couple of “Community Comments” on the issue over at the Falls Church Times. Of course Nick Benton is covering this in the Falls Church News Press with a long article and an editorial.
I’ve actually been trying to form an opinion on the topic myself but I still feel like I don’t have enough information. I suspect over the years plenty of information has been provided but getting into the issues at the stage it’s hard to find some of the facts that I guess most people who are following the story already know about.
In a general sense I support the idea that the City should do what it can to provide some affordable housing. Lately I’ve seen it referred to as “affordable workforce housing” which implies the goal is to provide housing specifically for a local workforce who might not otherwise be able afford to live in the community (teachers, city employees, etc.) - which sounds great to me. I know there is already some existing affordable housing in the City - is that occupied by people who work in the community? I assume there’s no mechanism for requiring folks to actually work in the City in order to live in the affordable housing.
That brings me to another question - who gets to live in this affordable housing and how are they selected? Do they own the property and build up equity? How does that work if/when they move?
Obviously, I have a lot to learn about affordable housing! From what I’ve heard, the City Center South Apartments would require a good chunk of money from the City and there are some challenges with the location and design. If affordable housing like this “works” - giving places for local workers to live in the community - then I think it’s probably a worthwhile investment, and risk, for the City. On the other hand, if projects like this don’t actually end up providing housing for people who work in the community then maybe it’s not a great idea.
It’s unclear to me at this point if the issue is moot as a result of the Planning Commision’s vote on Monday - I suspect it will become more clear in the coming weeks. One complaint I’ve heard from CCSA supporters in that this plan was approved by the popularly elected City Council but then shot down by a Planning Commission who is merely appointed. But aren’t they appointed by the elected City Council? With four spots on the Planning Commission up for appointment before the end of the year I’m guessing the Council is looking for some new faces.
Good post with good questions.
The topic is big, but here are a few things that are driving the discussion which may not be very clear to casual observers:
The city’s afforable housing stock is centered mostly in the Winter Hill community. Winter Hill is going to be sold by the FCHC, and, as a result, the affordable housing stock in the city (which has been slowly declining) will plumment in a few years.
The city has tried to sprinkle AH requirements into the new mixed use projects … but this strategy to preserve AH icannot keep up with the slow leak much less the gusher on its way.
The city center project is seen as the best solution to AH the city has ever seen. The city center needs shoppers / residents to be a functioning place. That is why there has been so much mixed use … to increase local residential and pedestrian traffic in the area of the planned city center so teh city can shift its tax base off of residents and rebalance with commercial taxes. This startegy is working, but slowly.
The AH initiative in the city center is for “workforce hosuing.” It is not general section 8 welfare housing … the folks who qualify for the housing are make about 60% of the median area income. Government workers, teachers, seniors, etc. This pool of workers is expected to benefit local businesses who have trouble recruiting people with long commutes who cannot afford to live in FCC and benefit our school and city worker retention rates. Plus add economic diversity to a city which is struggling with gentrification.
The council does appoint the PC … and has not done a great job recruiting, working with, or helping the PC get trained properly. The relationship appears to be broken, and while some of the reason why is due to the PC, they have also not been supported correctly.
The issue this week with the site plan is fairly simple. Site plans are almost never rejected. Site plan review only happens after the city council has finally approved a project and after there is a contract with the developer. The task of the PC at site plan is to work in good faith with the city and developer to approve the site plan so teh project can move forward as the policy and contracts mandate. When the PC cannot approve a site plan … it is expected to state why, provide advice to he parties on how to improve the plan, and postpone a final decision so it does not kill contracts.
The PC has good points about weaknesses in the affordable housing site plan … but it should not have voted and killed the project as a message about policy. In doing so, it overstepped its authority and sought to make policy rather than administer a site plan.
and someday I will learn to proofread amd spellcheck my comments before posting …
Thanks for the info, Mike. Typos forgiven …
I gather there is no way to “enforce” that the affordable housing residents actually work in the City. It sounds like the idea is that we get a couple hundred lower-income workers living here and they’ll naturally tend to work at the local businesses. Is there an estimate of the % of AH residents currently do?
Would a scenario be viable where AH rentals are formally set aside for local business employees? I could see that type of system work in both ways:
1. It would encourage residents to move to FC and take jobs in the City because they could drastically reduce their commute (e.g., a prospective hire could take job A in FC and live in FC, or take job B in Arlington and live in Manassas).
2. It would encourage businesses to move (and stay) in the City because they know they’d have a hiring advantage over other businesses.
Both businesses benefit from an employee retention standpoint (assuming residents couldn’t renew their leases if they no longer worked in the City).
I know for our FC-based business, we specifically opened an office in Durham, NC a couple years ago (i.e., moved jobs out of the area) in part due to a lack of affordable housing near our main office.
This concept has other benefits (reducing regional traffic, reducing environmental impact, etc.).
Is it just unrealistic? Unenforceable? Unmanageable? Illegal? It’s certainly not very well thought-out. I’m am quite uninformed on this topic and (probably foolishly) sharing my lack of knowledge here for all to ridicule …
My understanding is eligibility for the affordable housing units will be adminsitered directly by the Falls Church Housing Corporation. The FCHC is responsible for promoting the units and ensuring residents meet income requirements and “ranking” applicants acccording to how they meet the housing preferences. 60% median income teachers, city workers and seniors getting top preference.