When the Tysons Comprehensive plan was approved in 2010 one of the most polarizing components of the plan was the requirement for 20% workforce housing to be provided. This immediately was noted by conservatives as being a huge leap from the existing 5% affordable housing requirement placed on any new development seeking rezoning with more than 50 units in the county, and currently requires 1 in every 20 units or houses be priced for low income individuals.
“We need to do our part in keeping the cost of living down as well as the cost of doing business. We need to be careful of the cost of regulation” says Supervisor Pat Herrity who has been a vocal opponent of the 20% requirement for new developments for workforce housing in Tysons. “We require of the developers a whole host of things that I don’t believe is considered priorities, and instead taxed our businesses and residents to fund transportation.”
Here is the big problem with the debate. All “affordable housing” is not the same, but too many politicians and policy makers are using the term in a broad sense.
In reality there are three forms of market modified housing in Fairfax County;
- Section 8 – Housing that is purchased or directly subsidized by the government for the very low income, elderly, or disable residents. There is no Fairfax County specific policy for this form of housing as these residents are typically provided housing under HUDs Section 8 policy. “Eligibility for a housing voucher is determined by the PHA based on the total annual gross income and family size and is limited to US citizens and specified categories of non-citizens who have eligible immigration status.”(From HUD website). Participants pay 30% to 40% of the rental cost, with the remaining %60-70 being provided as a subsidy to the owner as either a voucher payment or tax-free credit. In other words, no Fairfax County funds go directly towards this program.
- ADUs (Affordable Dwelling Unit) – Housing that is provided for low income to mid-income residents without subsidization, but instead through concession with a developer of more than 50 housing units. This is more akin to rent-control than subsidized housing, in that the taxpayers don’t actually transfer funds to pay for rent. The ADU renter must still pay for the full amount of the controlled rent; for instance for a two bedroom it is $1,308 per month. Typically all applicable developments (greater than 50 units) must provide at a minimum 5% of the units at a modified rental or purchase price, and can offer upwards of 12% in return for higher density which often means additional revenue to mitigate the lost value of reduced housing. ADUs apply to residents making less than 50%-70% of the regional median income. For ADU renters this means if you make no more than $37,550 for individuals and varies if there is more than 1 resident. For instance for a household of two, it becomes a maximum income of $42,900, for three it becomes $48,300, etc. See the income eligibility table.
- WDUs (Workforce Dwelling Unit) – This housing is specific to Tysons Corner as defined by the limits of the Comprehensive Plan approved in 2010. It applies only to developers who will be far outbuilding the 50 unit minimum associated to ADUs, most of which are preparing to build upwards of 1000 total units or more. The requirement is again akin to rent-control, not subsidization in that the developer will reduce their rent price in order to receive density concessions to build taller buildings. All developments within this boundary which mean the minimum criteria must provide 20% of the new units as WDUs, but there are substantial differences between WDUs and ADUs.
It is important to note these differences because too often uninformed residents have the following opinions:
“If you can’t afford to live here, for whatever reason, I should not have to pay through my taxes for you to live as well as or better than me…move elsewhere, where you can afford to live…” – A comment on a Washington Post article which did not discuss the difference in the types of housing.
There is a lot of confusion over the discussion of WDUs even among our leaders. Often Conservative leaders overstate the luxurious accommodations and the amount the public actually assists in market modified housing, but equally detrimental is an inaccurate depiction of the purpose of WDUs by Progressive politicians; for instance when they note WDUs are for teachers and public servants.
As seen above the income ranges assisted by WDUs extend well beyond most public servant salaries (even for two salary households). The provision of WDUs therefore might not be the most efficient way to address a rising cost of housing for non-corporate professionals.
This is how the debate should be properly framed.
Now that you know the differences between each type of market modified housing we can discuss the politics and reasoning of both sides of the argument accurately. In part 2 later this week we will delve into the cost of ADUs and WDUs to the public.