*Unless another Republican governor besmirches his/her office and brings embarrassment to his/her state, this week’s posts will be devoted to local issues.*
Last week, The Washington Post reported that Fairfax County executive Anthony Griffin has suggested that it could be tactically beneficial to change our orientation. He recommends that we transform ourselves Fairfax City or, simply, Fairfax—a chartered city of 1.1 million residents that is the largest jurisdiction in the Washington metropolitan region and where one in seven Virginians lives. It is proximate in population size to the cities of San Diego and Dallas.
The move is mostly political: Virginia treats chartered cities differently from counties. Most notably, cities benefit by having control over their own road funding and road maintenance; all county roads are owned and maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation, with which local governments sometimes have a love-hate relationship. Ostensibly, Griffin is implying that Fairfax would be able to implement new taxes to pay for new and existing road capacity. What is not clear is whether a new Fairfax City would be able to retain a larger percentage of the tax dollars currently sent to Richmond for dispersal throughout the state.
That last point is a huge contention among Northern Virginians, who note that the wealth and vibrancy of the D.C. suburbs (largely defense contracting, communications, and IT firms) is disproportionately meted out to the rural parts of the state—with the result being that Route 29, which runs through some of the least populated counties of central Virginia, is in pristine condition. Meanwhile, there are too few lanes and too many potholes on the feeder roads into the District, as well as unreliable funding for Metro and the Virginia Railway Express.
Northern Virginians feel that even though we are home to one-third of the state population, hillbilly legislators who have no sympathy for the plight of the suburbs refuse to raise statewide taxes or provide adequate funding for roads and rails in the North—even though it truly is a statewide problem. Many people who work in D.C. who either choose to live beyond Northern Virginia or who cannot afford to buy a house there commute for hours each day of the week from as far away as Richmond, making it more than just our responsibility to pay for our infrastructure.
The Chairman of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, Democrat Sharon Bulova, said she is open to the idea of cityhood. But her predecessor, now-Rep. Gerry Connolly, says that with a multimillion-dollar budget hole, “This is not the time to be talking about taking on new responsibilities.” This is coming from the man who, when he first ran for chairman, said that the way the Dillon Rule inextricably links the local governments to partisan infighting in Richmond is a “terrible impediment” to innovation.
Basically, I think this a good idea, provided some basic conditions are met. First, I would have to wonder if cityhood would allow Fairfax to retain a larger percentage of the tax dollars sent to Richmond, which will increase revenues without triggering a rise in taxes—even if they are of the non-real estate variety (like cigarette or hotel-occupancy taxes). Counties have limited weapons in their arsenal to combat rising expenditures, and the common remedy (done, to my knowledge, in all Washington metropolitan counties this year to balance the budget) is to raise the real estate tax. Second, I do not want the Democratic majority on the Board of Supervisors to use this as an excuse to raise taxes whenever a new project needs funding. I don’t doubt that Fairfax residents are used to having excellent social services and public safety programs and would willingly pay to keep these. But the Board proved this year that millions of dollars can be cut from the budget relatively painlessly with only a slight increase in taxes.
There are also questions for which I don’t have answers but will surely need to be considered before cityhood is made a reality. First, we already have chartered cities and towns within the county—Vienna, Clifton, and a 23,000-person Fairfax City. I have read that although Virginia does not currently have any townships, this label would be conferred upon such independent entities within the city. If that is the case, will each of these municipalities readily accept their new status or will they lobby against cityhood?
Second, cityhood would not only expand the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors when all of the existing town and city councils are eliminated, but it would revise our governmental organization. Currently, we have the Board, which is the chief policymaking body—with the chairman wielding the most power. We also have the two other branches, in the form of the District and Circuit courts and a county executive. The executive, who is appointed by the Board and serves at its pleasure, is purely an administrator—working with the budget and ensuring that laws are carried out. (In Maryland, the county executive—who is elected, not selected—also has policymaking powers and is the head of government.)
But cityhood would require a city council and a mayor, along with his/her appointed administrators. Would current supervisors be willing to yield some of their influence and exposure to a single individual in charge of 1.1 million people, and be prepared to butt heads when eventual turf wars and episodes of egotism arise?
Third, where would the new Fairfax City’s “downtown” be? The existing Fairfax City would be the obvious location, but it is not readily accessible by transit. Tyson’s Corner would become more viable once the Metrorail extension and redevelopment is complete. But the relatively new government center is on a semi-secluded campus that is not within walking distance of any major urban center.
Fourth, if Fairfax declares itself a city, will the other jurisdictions in Northern Virginia (or elsewhere) follow suit? Granted, it is far from certain that the legislature or the voters will approve of cityhood, but will the General Assembly be offended that the more populous counties are using this mechanism as a means of retaining revenue that would otherwise be diverted to rural districts without the larger, wealthier tax base? Or will they say good riddance to the snobs in the North, acknowledging that regional tensions are beyond repair?
Lastly, will cityhood change the way in which County residents see the County’s mission? The County as it stands is diverse developmentally—there are rural enclaves (I live down the street from a horse pasture), cul-de-sac neighborhoods, historic “old town” stretches, and rows of condominiums and “new urbanist” development connected by bike lanes and bus stops. If we see ourselves as a single city, will we want to homogenize development by producing more smart growth opportunities (a dereliction of duty by the Board of Supervisors for many years)—extending Metrorail, possibly introducing light rail, demolishing strip malls and bedroom communities and installing tightly-packed, walkable residential-business enclaves? Or do we come to terms with the fact that diversity of development precludes us from taking such progressive actions in developing our region to be more efficient and less prone to creating endless traffic jams?
