Facts, Not Fears

One of the more fascinating things about sitting through a Falls Church City Council budget work session, such as the one held this Monday night, is that there is a prevailing tendency for the weight of facts to gain preponderance over the kind of grandstanding, sloganeering or sweeping generalities that play on unfounded fears and too often characterize electoral campaigns.

For example, when the Council takes the fine tooth and comb to each line item on Falls Church's $56 million budget, as it is now doing, it turns out there is a well thought out rationale and justification for almost every penny, give or take, in there. There appears to be a consistent pattern of tough questions from Council members that are resolved to the apparent satisfaction of almost if not all by careful explanation from City Manager Dan McKeever, City Financial Chief Shirley Hughes, or one or another head of a City department.

This is a far cry from an environment in a neighborhood of the City where a candidate can come to a citizen's door and glibly contend that "at least $1 million could be cut from the budget" to save a few pennies on the tax rate. Perhaps the citizen doesn't feel he or she can grasp the complicated details of a budget, and therefore doesn't ask exactly how the money can be saved, but likes the idea of a candidate who's willing to lower taxes, and so nods favorably.

Well, what's wrong with this picture? First of all, the current City Council is determined that it will lower the tax rate probably by more than in any other single year in more than a decade. The fact that real estate tax assessments are due to rise sharply this spring (the assessments are being mailed to residents this week) is no fault of any political body, but of the red-hot real estate market in the region.

Beyond that, however, anyone who makes a sweeping statement about slashing $1 million from the budget hasn't been spending much, if any, time at the aforementioned City Council work sessions. Such a statement should face the scrutiny of and tough examination by the City's budget experts, and any prospective voter should demand no less.

We hope that the Falls Church City Council campaign over the next month will be based on statements that can be backed up by facts and stand the test of careful evaluation. When a candidate criticizes a new mixed use development project, for example, prospective voters should demand he or she demonstrate how an alternative plan is both workable and better for the community. Is there a realistic market for an alternative? Will it bring in more revenue or less? Tough scrutiny of alternative programs needs to supplant a tendency of citizens to jump on shallow slogans or unfounded fears, especially in Falls Church.