Editorial

The real scandal in last week's editorial in this space was not the use of a strong word to describe a potential failure of nerve by the Falls Church City Council, protested loudly by at least four members of the Council at Monday's meeting. The outrage should have focused on the editorial's would-be-preposterous allegation that the Council would require a further reduction in the scale of the Falls Church Housing Corporation's proposed senior housing project even if it meant having to subsidize the down-sizing with $1 million in taxpayer funds. That was the really controversial content of the editorial. Whether the prospect of such an action was declared something less than courageous or not was really quite secondary, even superfluous.

But the Council made it very clear Monday that it was stubbornly resolved to do just exactly what the editorial predicted, even to the point of ignoring the request of the Housing Corporation to delay approval of its project until the funding issues could be resolved first. The editorial was also exactly correct in predicting the Council would congratulate itself on its resolve to split the undeveloped property in question right down the middle, thus forcing the Housing Corporation to downsize from a project originally crafted for 70 affordable senior living units to 48. Patting themselves on their backs for their “win-win compromise” between the Housing Corporation's mandate to provide affordable housing and the neighbors' desire for open space, following its unanimous vote the Council couldn't have overlooked the fact that only one side in this alleged “win-win” outcome was smiling.

The entourage of the property's neighbors, present in force as usual, greeted the vote with loud applause. The Housing Corporation representatives were sullen and steaming. Some “win-win,” indeed!

Still, the true import of the Council action has yet to be determined. If the Council embraces the burden it's put on itself by requiring the Housing Corporation plan to scale back still further, and antes up the $1 million now needed to make up the difference, then its good faith in seeking a workable balance between both sides on the disputed property use will be affirmed. On the other hand, if the funding is not now provided, as at least some on the Council intimated would be the case, then it must be surmised that Council intent, all along, was aimed at slowly squeezing this project to its death by a classic, tortured exercise of what psychologists call “passive aggression.” We cannot yet predict which way this one will go, but the process will begin right away with the City Council's work session on the subject next Tuesday.

We concede that in politics, as in life, more important than matters of strength of nerve are matters of integrity and good will, which are not negated by an impatience that may occasionally engender an intemperate response. Recognizing that, we have not yet abandoned our confidence in the Council's ability to do the right thing. No, not yet.