Early in 2024 I laid out my thoughts on a common-sense approach to addressing the affordability of housing in a Herrity Report. In September and December, of last year I further detailed how the Board was missing the mark on attainable housing for all of our residents. Our population has remained relatively steady over the last decade – according to county data, between 2015 and 2025 we have added 26,500 housing units, while adding 24,500 households. Despite adding more housing units than residents, our young residents and graduates cannot afford to live here, and we are taxing our older residents out of their homes. Over the summer I have uncovered some additional issues with the Board’s approach to government subsidized housing, including some that may actually be hurting the people we are trying to help. These include:

• issues with the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) competitive process that makes the units significantly more expensive to build than market rate units,

• the narrow band of residents that can qualify to live in these units, and the requirements associated with obtaining the units, leading to vacancies and offers of free rent,

• that many of the residents use housing vouchers to pay their rent, meaning taxpayers are subsidizing the units in multiple ways

• limited oversight with the treatment the residents receive in subsidized units, leading to a higher level of evictions.

This Tuesday (August 25th) the Board will vote on a $12M investment in government subsidized housing to a provider that has had a high eviction rate on the last two projects they delivered in Fairfax County. Also on Tuesday, the Board will authorize a public hearing to give the housing authority the Centreville Library property for another project to be developed by private company. This comes all while the Board continues to cut or underfund critical services like high school crossing guards and critical maintenance needs.

Problems with the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) competitive process. The process that developers go through to “earn” the tax credits makes the units significantly more expensive to build than market rate housing units. In the application process they earn significant points for high end construction and adding bells and whistles to the housing project. As a result, instead of a $350K cost per unit to build they end up around $550K per unit. That means fewer units for the taxpayer dollar than market rate units and those in government subsidized units are living in better quality units than many of the taxpayers funding them. On top of that, once the Housing Authority commits to the vendor to build the units and they get the LIHTC tax credits, they typically come back to the County looking to receive additional funding because the County has committed to the project adding additional costs per unit.

Government Subsidized Housing Serves a Very Narrow Band of the Need. In a meeting this summer with the County’s Housing Director and a very senior executive of one of our affordable housing developers, the executive said that finding residents that could meet the income threshold and still have enough income to pay the rent was like “finding a needle in a haystack”. This explains the vacancy rates, the up to three months of free rent being offered to new tenants, and the steps that they will take to find residents to meet the occupancy thresholds so they retain the LIHTC tax credits. Our firefighters, police officers and most nurses and teachers make too much to qualify for the units and the rental costs are too high for most residents that meet the income qualifications. Many tenants in these units are also receiving rental vouchers, county rental assistance or other subsidies - meaning taxpayers are paying not only to build the units but also paying the rent for those in the units. Earlier this summer, I asked for information on how many units have rental subsidies but have not heard back from staff yet.

Subsidized Housing Discourages Development of Market Affordable Units. The two largest costs for developers are land and financing. Fairfax County subsidizes both for affordable developments and then requires the developer to spend around $550K per unit to meet regulatory requirements. Private developers cannot build units to rent at a comparable price because the land and financing costs are not subsidized. This forces developers into a choice – build nothing and limit supply or build luxury units that do not address affordable housing needs. In a county of more than one million people, we will not bring down the cost of housing by building only a few hundred subsidized units each year at an annual cost of tens of millions of dollars.

Above Market Eviction Rates and the Scarlet E. Developments that need to legally maintain a certain level of affordability to stay in compliance with the tax credits, and a lack of residents that can qualify or will go through the certification process, means that some residents will inevitably end up in units they cannot afford whether in market rate or subsidized units. If developments do not get to the occupancy loads, the developers lose the tax credits and face big losses on the project. On Tuesday, the Board will consider a $12M investment in a government subsidized housing project for 120 units at the old Franconia Government Center through a partnership that includes developer SCG. According to County staff at the Ovation at Arrowbrook, another government subsidized housing unit by SCG, 181 of the 274 units faced legal filings and 111 writs of eviction were granted by Fairfax County Courts. The same developer owns the One University project that has an eviction rate well above the county average. Eviction filings and notices result in extreme hurdles for those looking for housing and are often termed the Scarlet E because they lock you out of the rental market for decades. According to County staff, the County does not take leasing or tenant treatment practices into account when evaluating partners for new government subsidized housing unit projects.

Other Issues with Government Subsidized Housing. In the Herrity Reports referenced in the first paragraph, I have detailed many of the other problems with the Board’s approach to government subsidized housing. They include:

• market rate units available for similar rents that provide tenants with more flexible options and the opportunity to grow their income,

• no residency requirement for renters of the units, paid for by Fairfax County taxpayers, to currently live or work in Fairfax County,

• government subsidized units are costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars but helping very few people,

• developers are not being held accountable for unit costs,

• the units do not help policemen, firemen, most teachers or nurses, and

• unfair competition with private sector housing and market rate units

Need Attainable Housing at All Levels. It is clear we have an affordability issue in Fairfax County – from the cost of taxes, cost of housing, and the cost of energy. There is clear agreement that more units will help address the affordability issue. Tariffs (which I do not support), inflation and other hard costs have had a significant impact on housing costs. We cannot control the ways that tariffs impact the cost of building materials, but what we can do is address the soft costs associated with developing and operating a new development. Last year the County adopted a Comprehensive Plan update that included over 80 pages of new requirements including one that alone increased the cost of a multi-family unit by 10 to 15 percent. I have asked that County staff provide the Board with the number of housing units that have gone through the entitlement process (typically a several hundred-thousand-dollar process) and are approved but have not started. We are not expected to get the number of units until the fall but there are over 10,000 in Reston and likely over 40,000 in Tysons alone. The Board needs to take bold action to address the soft costs and make these approved housing units buildable if we are to have attainable housing at all levels. More to follow here.

While there has been continued talk of home ownership programs, as I laid out in the 2024 Herrity Report, County staff have indicated that they are following Board majority direction to put County the resources into the failing 10,000-unit Government Subsidized Housing program goal. Home ownership programs can help many more residents for fewer dollars than the government subsidized housing program can while providing generational wealth, long term residents and a host of other benefits.

I remain very concerned with the Board of Supervisors’ April decision to eliminate high school crossing guards. I was not the only Supervisor to be very vocal on the adverse impact of the decision and opposed the reduction. To give you some background, in 2025, I also opposed the proposed budget elimination of crossing guards at all FCPS high schools. The Board restored funding to continue high school crossing guards in fiscal year 2026 and asked staff to provide additional information on how to handle bus and carpool traffic and the safety impact of the elimination but no response addressing these concerns was received. For the current year's budget, the Police Department proposed the elimination of crossing guards at high schools and a shift to contracted crossing guards at other crossings as part of the budget cutting exercise requested by the County Executive and the reduction was included in the approved budget. The budget estimate for the savings was severely flawed and my requests for clarification of the calculation have still not been addressed.

I opposed the reduction on several grounds - the savings amount was computed incorrectly, the impact to student safety at some of our high schools, and the failure to address carpool and bus release impacts. I also expressed concerns with the lack of info on the contracted crossing guards. Unfortunately, the Board majority supported the budget cut and funds for high school crossings were not included in the budget. While I hope that things go smoothly at high school crossings, I believe the County needs to be prepared to step back in and provide support if things do not go well. We will have the opportunity to do that at our September meeting during the public hearing on the 2026 Carryover Review.

Unfortunately, this is another example of where the Board has reduced services residents rely on in favor of increased spending on political agenda items. Please feel free to share any impacts you see next week as school starts. You can also sign up to testify for restoration of the funding at the public hearing on the 2026 Carryover Review on September 15, 2026 at 10:30AM, using this link.

With respect to the West Springfield High School crossing at Rolling and Grigsby where the high school crossing guard has been, last year we were successful in getting VDOT to approve a traffic light at that location and we have obtained the necessary funding. We are working to accelerate the timing of the signal which is unfortunately still several years off.

Supervisor Pat Herrity

6140 Rolling Road,

Springfield, VA 22152

(703) 451-8873