Comments on: Fairfax County – a Case Study on Government Excess Spending

By: Alexander

Alexander — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:30:40 +0000

Thank you for the information. I am attending the budget meeting tonight in Reston to let my supervisor know they have failed miserably in managing the budget and expenditures.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:56:23 +0000

Well done, Mike. The lack of transparency in Fairfax County government shields the irresponsible from accountability. Those who choose to quibble over whether the county is the largest landlord or merely one of the largest seek to distract from the larger point that the county should not be a landlord.

The shibboleth “affordable housing” is used to spur our emotions when all housing is by definition affordable to those who can afford it. If I cannot pay for the place I am living, I move to one that I can afford and hence live in “affordable housing.”

Not that I recommend it, but if the county government wants to make sure teachers, policemen etc. can afford to live in the county, it would be a much more efficient use of tax funds to simply subsidize a portion of the employee’s mortgage or rent. Of course, housing would be more affordable if less land was taken from the market by government action. Land, being a finite commodity, becomes more expensive as it becomes more scarce.

The bottom line, so to speak, is that Fairfax County’s leaders made bad decisions about getting into the housing business and now the taxpayers will pay the price. Interestingly enough, the politicians who made the bad decisions are unlikely to pay any price. Sadly too many county voters seem to be of the mindset that intentions rather than results are what count and we all have to pay for that.

By: Frank

Frank — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:52:02 +0000

Thanks for the article, it was informative.

Why is the government in the business of providing affordable housing? Nobody has a right to a home, just the right to work towards one. We are in this mess because people bought homes they couldn’t afford, and now the fiscally conservative are being punished. Our nation is now dependent on consumer spending and a paycheck to paycheck lifestyle. Not very productive, what an upside down world.

PS – Looking forward to Fairfax County increasing assessments again, must be nice to vote yourself a raise…

By: John

John — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:27:12 +0000

To me the” important stuff” ARE the facts. Its hard to believe it took this much energy and time to concede this minor point, albeit out of convenience rather than in the interest of being correct.

By: Fred Costello

Fred Costello — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:34:05 +0000

If the budget is re-set to CY2000, then increased by inflation and population, there is no shortfall (see http://www.fcta.org). The shortfall is a direct result of the excess in spending. Besides, where is the economy of scale as the population increases?

By: Mike Thompson

Mike Thompson — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:32:22 +0000

Whether first or third, the basic facts are the same: more than 3200 rental units owned by Fairfax County. This is an example of spending beyond the core functions of government. You are focusing on a grain of sand rather than the beach. In the scheme of things whether first or third, the problem is the same. I concede the point to you if that makes you focus on the important stuff.

By: John

John — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:16:36 +0000

“… the government in Fairfax has purchased over 3,200 rental units, becoming the largest landlord in the county.”
but then you write:
“(whether Fairfax County is the largest or third largest or one of the largest makes no difference…”

Then why mention it at all? All I am saying is that its a great disservice to your argument when you don’t do the requisite background research.

You are allowed your own opinion, but not your own facts.

By: Olthia McBride

Olthia McBride — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 02:44:04 +0000

Fairfax County continues to spend monies that it appears they dont have. Just last week, the Community Services Board hired 2 supervisors in positions that was not necessary to fill..

By: Mike Thompson

Mike Thompson — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 18:18:12 +0000

Bond payments are not part of the annual budget analysis of Fairfax County. So the overspending numbers in my article and in the annual analysis by the Jefferson Institute deal with General Fund dollars and not the monies used to pay off bonds. By using bond monies to build a huge housing bureaucracy (whether Fairfax County is the largest or third largest or one of the largest makes no difference in the simple fact that government should not be in this business in the first place) takes bonding capacity away from what could be available for schools. Fairfax County has a self-imposed bond ceiling for all bonds. Clearly spending hundreds of millions to becomie a huge land lord for rental properties takes away from school projects which are the role of government. And the taxpayers subsidize rents in these properties for occupants to make up to $99,000 a year. This is not the proper role of government.

By: John

John — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 16:56:12 +0000

“So bonds were issued to pay for these rental units which consumed monies that could have gone to up-dating schools that are in terrible shape.”

Your argument makes no sense; you can’t say that the County overspent its budget AND then say the money could have been spent on something else (schools). You can’t have it both ways, you either disagree with how the money was spent or you think that the money shouldn’t have been raised at all, contributing to the budget overspending.

I also think that some of the other landlords would take issue with crowning the county as the largest landlord, Van Metre and Oakwood to name a few.. Pat Herrity called the county ONE of the largest landlords in the county after initially saying they were THE largest when he kicked off his campaign for Chairman of the Board of Supervisors. Its really hard to correct mistruths once they have made headlines. Check the web and you will see how this mistruth made a number of blogs, letters to the editor and conservative web sites.

Not a very well-researched article.