If the City really wanted to ensure only teachers and other civil servants were benefiting from the subsidy, shouldn't they just simply tie it to the conditions of employment for jobs funded by the City using the same economic thresholds (if desired) that they use now for the general public?

Well written! This actually has me for the first time seriously reconsidering my support of the current support offered by the City to low income residents.

Amen.

Lack of affordable housing has these consequences:
(1) More regional traffic due to the fact lower income professions can't live in the city.
(2) Less diversity since it's well known that higher paying occupations tend to be, um, whiter.
(3) Less job growth, less productivity (read "The Rent is Too Damn High" by Matt Yglesias)
(4) Rest are listed here:
http://www.nvaha.org/pdfs/WhyInvestinAffordableHousing2011NVAHA.pdf

Then there are the less tangible, but very real, consequences:
(1) The "gating" of Alexandria so certain perspectives and viewpoints aren't ever encountered. Not everyone is born into life with a silver spoon in their mouth... some are disabled, can't work by no fault of their own... the reaction to that shouldn't be "well, sorry, you just can't be here"
(2) If City staff can't live in this city, then the smaller decisions they make every day might not be as informed. I know I care the consequences more if I live in it.
(3) Lots of citizens of Alexandria and their families have lived here for decades and so by just giving into the whims of the market, Alexandria would effectively be saying "thanks for your time and contribution to making this a more desirable city. Good bye."

So, if those are consequences you can live with then, yes, by all means, don't support aff housing. Also, I think it's well known that you can subsidize and support aff housing w/out it coming out of the taxpayers pocket... you can also negotiate with developers.

Affordable housing should be affordable housing. The City if outbuilding affordable housing, and as we witness they are moving so many low income residents out of the city because of the new construction. Who can afford $700,000-$900,000 housing? Certainly not middle to low income families, and especially not families with more than one child. The City should be building smaller houses, more "affordable" housing. They have good programs for 1st time home buyers, but even with the incentives, one is not guaranteed their home will not be foreclosed if they can not afford the mortgage after the incentives. Yes, we all need to live within our means, but the reality is we can not all make the sacrifices, there are things that are actually needed to survive, housing is one of these things. I appreciate the fact that my daughter qualified for housing as the house I live in is small and when 6 people lived in it it was really small. If this city is for the people and about diversity, we have to accommodate all that come. I am one woman, one mother, one grandmother, one salary. I am clearly blessed I can afford to live where I do.

Well written letter to the editor - I concur. I"ve had to do a lot of sacrificing to own a town house in the City. The City uses the 'affordable' housing lingo very loosely - at residential meetings I've asked for the City’s definition and it does not include police officers, city employees, teachers, and other civil servants,- essentially, it's public housing and section 8 homes. If the subsidized residents had to take care of their surroundings as do home owners (mow the lawn, shovel snow, pick up surrounding trash, etc) then maybe their perspective would change. I support diversity but not for 40 years and I wasn’t born with a silver spoon. It's becoming extremely expensive to live in Alexandria City and I don't see anyone coming to my aid (if and when I may need it) to subsidize my fixed income.

I completely agree with the author of this piece.

"Affordable housing," in my view, is a political tool used to concentrate votes for certain political groups in the city at the expense of other programs (including education, public space, etc.) and at the expense of the growth of the tax base (and resulting growth in revenues).

This paternalistic approach must stop. It does nothing to reduce traffic. It does nothing to increase diversity. It does nothing other than make certain of our citizens dependent on government assistance, and therefore, render them reliable single-issue voters.

I'm an immigrant and a minority. As a child, my parents moved almost every year as our rent was increased and we couldn't afford to stay put. My parents never felt entitled, never demanded that society provide for them, and instilled in my siblings and me the drive to succeed so we could climb the social ladder. As a direct result of these values, my siblings and I worked hard, worked our way through school, and are now homeowners in Alexandria.

I have repeatedly asked people to define what THEY mean by "affordable housing" and "diversity." It means different things to different people. There is no birthright to live anywhere. Diversity is such a diffuse concept now as to have no practical meaning. Having "diverse" people living in Alexandria doesn't mean anything - people hang out with their friends from school, work, the neighborhood, etc. If you want real diversity you'd have to put poor minorities in mansions along Quaker Lane, and that isn't going to happen.

The previous comment about the benefits provided by affordable housing is interesting but misses the philosophy underpinning the criticisms of affordable housing. I don't want to speak for the author of the letter, but in my mind at least, the criticisms do not relate to whether or not affordable housing provides a public good to the people subsidizing it, but whether it is necessary for the people benefiting from it.

I support welfare programs and subsidies when they are necessary for the beneficiaries, such as food and shelter. I support these programs precisely because I recognize that not everyone is born with a silver spoon and that some people need help in order to obtain or maintain a certain quality of life. But I disagree with the comment saying that affordable housing subsidies are "needed to survive" because, as the letter to the editor points out, there is naturally affordable housing outside of rural areas. Affordable housing programs are therefore subsidizing a luxury as oppposed to a necessity.

Let's call it what it is, then: A vote-buying scheme fueled by idealism and white liberal guilt.

Have to agree with the author, I've struggled and sacrifice to live where I want to live. Kudos on a very well written piece on a subject that is sometimes sensitive and people (read politicians) rarely tackle. Agreed with the previous poster as well...vote buying scheme it is. Now if a developer wants fork over money to subsidize or there is some private money out there for this, I'm ok with it. But using taxpayer money should be looked at, sadly I don't think this or next city council will do that.

I absolutely agree. In order to live in Alexandria, my girlfriend and I live in a little shoebox of an apartment. Both of us have good jobs, but are in our early twenties and have tremendous college debts to deal with. So, we did the responsible thing and found a very small, affordable place to live within our means. We have never asked for any subsidies, even when we know that others are living in the very nice Carlyle buildings with affordable housing programs.

Oh, AmyA, there are disability programs for the disabled.

David - It sounds like your college education was subsidised? Why didn't you just pay cash, you know, what you could afford?

Benny - Did you pay for college in cash? Do you have a credit card, mortgage or auto loan? If so, why didn't you just pay cash, you know, what you could afford?

Gail asked -

Did you pay for college in cash?
Answer: Yes.

Do you have a credit card?
Answer: Yes, with a zero balance. I charge about twenty dollar to it monthly to keep it active and my credit rating perfect.

Do you have amortgage?
Answer: No.

Do you have an auto loan?
Answer: No. I own thrre vehicles outright. I payed cash for them.

Gail asked -
If so, why didn't you just pay cash, you know, what you could afford?

Nice try Gail, and thanks for playing!

Oh to all,
My apologies for forgetting a space between "a" and "mortgage" in the third response.
Also, the fourth response should have stated "three" not "thrre".
Thank you!

Markets are great for many things. Housing is not one of them. The value of Alexandria property is largely a socially derived value --- we have amenities, infrastructure, a quality education system and location close to a large quantity of public or federal jobs. We have residents with a wide range of skills and interests that come together at places and in ways which make us a community. A good community at that. Is it worth public investment or governmental activity to offer a range of housing choices? Should teachers, bus drivers, janitors and sales clerks be able to live in Alexandria? I would say yes to both questions. Some of the debate in this year's City Council race centers around the role of government. We have seen what pro-development policies produce - over the last decade we have lost 12,000 affordable homes (housing that people earning 30 to 60% of the median income can afford to rent). We spend more time in traffic.

This election there are some clear choices - a number of candidates will continue with business as usual. Others promise to hold development corporations accountable and to spend more public money on affordable housing, education, and green space. Interestingly there are some candidates who want it both ways. They claim to be new but in reality represent the same old mega-development politics. I urge those who want a new direction to support Sammie Moshenberg and Victoria Menjivar for Council.

Benny, you're lucky you have no debt and are obviously rich enough to not need student, home or auto loans. What do you do for a living?

Jon - You can't ignore the issue of "by right' development. Landowners can build and the city cannot make them set aside ANY units for ANYONE. The city can only negotiate density/units and hope to get something out of the deal.

DelRay Resident:
If you think the housing market is purely "market driven" then you're very mistaken. The housing market is one of the most government regulated sectors of society. To achieve a free market, zoning laws would have to be eliminated, mortgage tax breaks would have to be removed, loan backed guarantees deleted, etc. So if government can interfere on this *vast scale* then government can certainly step in and ensure that Alexandria remains an open and inclusive community.

Gail:
Benny's point is simply that government plays a role in everyone's lives... even those who supposedly claim they succeeded it completely on their own (never mind their fortunate circumstances that they could). Benny just didn't ask for the same sort of government backed student loans that David Rogers received.

Rent subsities should be paid by the landlords, often absent. I would suggest that all landlords be requied to have a business license and pay business tax on the gross receipts of their rent. Currently, a absentee home owner that rents out their house does not need to get a business license.

Well said R. Williams

"I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution, and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit."
-- President Grover Cleveland vetoing a bill for charity relief (18 Congressional Record 1875 [1877]

Perhaps it would be best if either
--all those living in Alexandria were required to earn, at minimum, the median $100,000;
--retirees, students, teachers, police, under the medians,and their ilk were forced to move and we used eminent domain to seize and redevelop new non-affordable housing;
--all those in the above category who fervently desire to return -- and I'm sure there will be an ample supply-- to teach our larva, or guard our belongings or persons, experience the joyless banter of a monochromatic inward focused populace, feed us, heal us, clothe and entertain us can walk to their fulfilling destinies in our exclusive city ( why should we pay for their air pollution!)

Who is subsidizing who or who should be subsidizing who? If the City told landlords how much they had to subsidize rental units that is just rent control in disguise. I don’t expect many developers would rush to build units in Alexandria to only get 80 or 90% of the rent they could get somewhere else unless they built sub-standard units.

If businesses like hotels, restaurants, retirement homes, service businesses, hospitals and similar don’t pay their people enough so they can live in Alexandria why should developers, much less other residents, be expected to subsidize the wages of that staff and save the businesses the expense? For example the Hilton just sold for more than $120 million but people are seriously suggesting we now ought to chip in to ensure their employees can afford to live locally, saving the owners of the Hilton having to pay the necessary wages?

Developers and large business owners are negotiating with a city government accountable to voters for use of public infrastructure so they can make big money. A small business owner doesn't have the same kind of influence or money. I'm with Amy B. The government is already elbow deep in the commercial and residential real estate markets. I'd rather my taxes be used to foster an economically diverse and sustainable community than to price people out of the local housing market.

I don't agree with everything you say, but what I strongly do agree with is that everyone who is eligible to vote in Alexandria, do so in the 12 June Primary. And I mean everyone regardless of your party affiliation! I am encouraging Republicans and Independents to look at and vote for the best Democrats that day.

Why? Very simple answer. The Democrats will only run 6 candidates in the fall elections for 6 Alexandria City Council seats (the vote for mayor is a separate stand-a- alone vote). There are 14 Democrats running with each having their own agendas. So now is the time for all voters to pick the best candidates they believe will do the best for the city even if they are not affiliated with your party. Now is the time to cull out the Democrats who are not in line with your beliefs. It's an open primary and you can vote for a Democrat, even if you are not a Democrat. In my opinion, now is the time to throw out the incumbents if you believe as I do, the current city council has let us down in so many ways!

http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/elections/June%2012%202012%20Fact%20Sheet%20Final.pdf

I'm sure I'm going to torque someone off with these comments.

Gail, one woman's ghetto is another woman's home. In this case, my home. I just moved here because I saw an opportunity to live within my means without the crippling commute I enjoyed in suburban Maryland. My Beauregard apartment complex isn't upscale but it's not a ghetto and - so far - it's not a slum. A ghetto is what you get when people are forced to live someplace by discrimination. (A slum may be what it becomes once the landlord decides it's a tear-down anyway, but that hasn't happened so far.)

Fair point, Kate, but I don't know which building you live in. I can say from personal observation that there are indeed "ghettoes" and "slums" in Alexandria.

Did not read all the comments, but in the case of Arlandria & the Beareguard Corridor, the existing housing/apartments are lower priced rents simply because of the age and condition of the buildings/lack of improvements. RENTS ARE THERE FORE LOWER AND NOT NECESSARILY SUBSIDIZED. In my case, I at one poi t lived in an efficiency in North East Old Town, a dump, but rent was cheap and in a fabulous neighborhood. I eventually moved across the street to a finished/separate basement in a row house. Night and day, a mere $700 a month. With 3 dogs in tow, a few years later having to move again, I am now paying market rate rent, in a nice building and with my pooches. Don't confuse affordable housing with subsudized housing. The projects are subsudized housing, Not all, but most of the soon to be demolished apartmets aren't necessarily subsidized housing. Yes some of the building might accept housing vouchers, but many of the people living in said units are there because the rent is lower than the city market rate average. Ironically, when these building go away, the market rate average will probably increase 20-30% and drive even more "non-immigrant" folks out. Afterall, the city says welcome with one hand, and get the hell out with the other. Just think how much higher the city median income would grow, all those property taxes that will roll in for more pet projects and not infrastructure needs.

If you choose to vote in the Democratic primary, then you cannot vote in the Republican primary, and vice versa. They are both on Tuesday, June 12. It's one or the other. So, Republicans who cross to vote for city council should be aware that they will not be able to also vote in their own primary for US Senate.

Well worth the the sacrifice!

George Allen will win anyway and the alternatives are just as bad.

Great letter, R. Williams! Agree on all counts. Never ceases to amaze me how some lack the intellectual curiosity to wonder why the offspring of the coddled so often fail to flourish despite innate potential. Help the truly needy? No doubt. Create a market for neediness? Not if you want to do the right thing by the next generation.

Very cleaver! Unfortunately, I do not believe the die-hards to the left will have a clues as to what you just said. But I do like the way you think!