George,

I will grant that the term "upper-income housing" is highly relative. "Upper" compared to what? To many middle-class folks, and perhaps to most of us who have the luxury to debate such matters on your web site, a $150,000 or $200,000 price tag is considered downright reasonable. And we certainly don't think of OURSELVES as "upper-income."

But let's look at the numbers again. The median household income in the City of Charlottesville is a little over $35,000. However, in order to qualify for a $150,000 mortgage -- assuming you have good credit, little debt and enough cash for a 10% downpayment -- you need to earn around $47,500. In other words, a SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY of Charlottesville residents cannot afford to buy that home. Add to that majority the folks who do earn over $47,500 but do NOT have good credit, little debt or enough cash for a 10% downpayment, and suddenly the pool of qualified buyers gets that much...er, upper?

Now let's take one of the $200,000 homes on Elliott Ave. that our tax dollars are subsidizing. To qualify for a $200,000 mortgage, you need to earn around $63,000/year. George, I know it may be hard for some people to fathom, but the VAST MAJORITY of households in this City do not make that kind of money. In fact, this is precisely why the City is supporting this project -- because it will bring more higher-income families into the City, and thus expand our tax base (not in itself a bad goal). But do we as Democrats really believe that people earning $63,000/year need or deserve a taxpayer subsidy on the purchase of their $200,000 home? And can we really afford to let the few pieces of undeveloped land we've got left go entirely for higher-end housing when there's such an enormous need for more affordable housing in the City?

I am nowhere near as eloquent as John McCutcheon, but I empathize with the frustration that John expressed about the reluctance of many local Democrats to embrace traditional, core Democratic issues and constituencies. It used to be that the Democratic Party stood for the working person, the underprivileged, the dispossessed, the "little guy," the "yeoman farmer," etc., etc. I shudder to think of what will happen to our Party if we continue to turn our back on our roots. Too many more wine and cheese parties and suddenly we'll all be...gasp! Republicans! [I'm kidding. Well, mostly. :-) ]

Dave Norris (electronic mail, February 7, 2002)