Some in Fairfax Public Housing Make Six Figures
Ed. (Banescu) It turns out some are more equal than others.
Washington Post | Amy Gardner | September 30, 2007
Hundreds of families living in housing subsidized by Fairfax County taxpayers exceed income caps designed to ensure that only the neediest receive assistance, a review of county records shows.
In the most extreme cases, Fairfax is underwriting rents for families making well into six figures: One household getting help makes more than $216,000 a year; another, $184,000. Dozens of others — making $60,000, $70,000, $90,000 — exceed eligibility caps. And they do so with the tacit approval of county housing administrators, who do little to encourage occupants to move on when their fortunes improve.
These tenants live in housing intended for families at the bottom of the county’s economic spectrum. They are in the federally subsidized public housing program, the Fairfax rental program and the county’s senior housing program. The county’s Department of Housing and Community Development will spend about $4.5 million this year running these programs.
The fact that higher-income families choose to remain in subsidized housing illustrates the critical lack of affordable housing in Fairfax, named the nation’s most affluent county last month by the Census Bureau. The median new-home price in the region’s largest jurisdiction is $960,000, and the average monthly rent for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,306, according to county data.
The incomes also reflect, critics say, a disconnect between county practices and its housing policies, which aim in most cases to help families making less than half of Fairfax’s median annual household income of $94,500 for a family of four. Fairfax leaders have long put affordable housing at the tops of their priority lists: Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D) helped establish an initiative in 2005 to funnel more than $20 million a year toward the preservation of lower-cost housing.
But that mission should not include subsidizing the rents of families making more than $100,000 a year, Connolly said.
“Clearly this housing was not designed for that,” he said. “It’s good that these folks have reached a point where they are now successful in their income level. But they need to move into market-rate housing and allow these units to be used for the people they are intended to benefit.”
. . . more
5 comments | 
| 
|
Editor | Politics |
“The median new-home price in the region’s largest jurisdiction is $960,000″??
Absurd. I’m sorry to say that this correction in the housing market has been long overdue. These prices would explain why a family making $100,000 can’t afford a roof over their heads in that particular area and why they might qualify as “needy”, however.
Following that reasoning to its logical and ethical conclusion then would mean that the gov’t should subsidize all housing costs for anyone who “can’t afford it” in markets where freedom and economics have driven values “unreasonably high.” Equal protection and treatment under the laws should mean equal protection and treatment of all regardless of where one happens to live and, according to these latest exceptions to the rules, income levels. After all if it’s ok to have subsidized housing with $100,000/year incomes then why is the gov’t discriminating against the rest of us who make less. That’s unfair and unethical. Where is the outrage? Where are the lawsuits from the ACLU and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights? This is clearly a violation of our rights. I demand affordable housing!
Chris, how do you suggest we determine the cutoff for eligibility for financial assistance? Let’s say we set the cutoff at $25,000 for a family of four.
Well, what if that family of four lives in a city where the median home price is $110,000, the average rent for a 3-bedroom apt is $600 and the price of food is, on average, lower than in other cities? Do they deserve aid or not? I’d suggest not.
The cost of living for a geographic area is not irrelevant in making these decisions. You can buy a lovely home in my part of the country for $250-300,000. You couldn’t buy a cardboard box for that price in San Francisco. You literally would be on the street if that were all you could afford.
The cost of living is one factor in determining eligibility for aid. Of course, we could just tell people they have to move to Nebraska.
So James, according to your logic, if I should happen to live in Beverly Hills in order for me to be able to own a “lovely home” in the range of $2.5 million (average small house price in that neighborhood) then it’s my right to ask the gov’t to subsidize my living arrangements even if my family of 4 made $250,000/year. After all who can possibly get a loan for $2.4 million (assuming $100K down) on that measly income.
What, you say, I should move to Nevada! Are you mad! Have you seen the heat index out there, it’s way too dry for my skin. Nebraska, get out of here, too far away from the coast (I love the ocean)! Also, to borrow your own argument, how dare you tell me where I should live! It’s my right to live in Beverly Hills. You can’t just tell me to move anywhere. This is a civil rights issue!
Note 4: Of course, that’s a stretch. I’m simply asking what constitutes “need” based on the cost of living not using one uber-wealthy zip code but on the median for a wide area. Go to Remax.com and do a residential search for Compton, California. I’m sure you’re aware of the city’s reputation. I found a run-down 2 bedroom shack with an asking price of $475,000. Really, it looked like something from some impoverished third-world country. A mortgage for a $475,000 home will run around $3,700/month.
The recommended maximum of a monthly mortgage payment is around 28% of someone’s monthly gross. So, to afford this shack, a family would need to bring in around $13,000 a month (gross) or $150,000/year.
Depressing isn’t it?
What’s your solution? Of course, I do not condone the greed that has escalated the housing prices to what they are today, but I’m not sure how it can be stopped other than through some form of government regulation, and I’m sure you don’t like that idea, right?