The Fauquier Times Democrat had an editorial this week that was right on the mark. This is a great opportunity for local governments to address affordable housing.

The editorial talks about what's being done in Prince William and Fairfax counties. The Prince William model may work better here. But maybe there's a third way.

I'd like to see a public/private partnership between Fauquier County and Habitat for Humanity. The two groups together could certainly do more than either group could on its own. And, while I mention Fauquier County here, because that's what the editorial addressed, this solution could just as easily be applied to Culpeper.

There's a growing inventory of vacant homes in the area. These vacancies hurt all existing homeowners. And, there's a huge pool of potential home owners that have been driven out of the market because of lack of affordability.

Seems to me there are potential solutions here for everybody!

One of the things I enjoy most about blogging is the interaction with readers. Whether it's your comments or your questions, I enjoy hearing what's on your mind. I thought I'd take a little time today to respond to some of what you've been saying.

Someone used the Meebo functionality on the right side of the page to chat with me about Fauquier County tax assessments. The question was has the county delayed the assessments so as not to take a revenue from the reduced values of area homes.

According to the County Commissioner of Revenue's office, the assessments have been done every four years, for at least the last 20 years. Prior to that assessments were done every six years. So it appears there's no change in policy at this time. The next assessments would be done in 2009 with the new rates to go into effect in 2010. The problem with that, of course, is that current values are no where near current assessments. There's a case to be made for appealing your current assessment.

"Sarah" recently reminded me that while the decline in home prices is bad for sellers, it's a great thing for buyers. That's very true. In every market there are winners and losers.

To be honest, I probably feel the sellers pain now more than I felt the buyers pain when they were desperately trying to buy a house and were one of 20 offers (or more)! The truth is I wasn't worried about them being thrown out on the street. I did worry that some of them were taking out mortgages that weren't in their best interest, but I was usually told that they knew what they were doing. These days, some of the sellers I work with are in very serious difficulty and I do worry about them!

So, if as a potential buyer you don't feel I'm sufficiently celebrating your ability to buy a house at a more affordable price, never fear! Prices actually still need to come down more. I'll do a post next week on affordability in our area. But I rejoice for every buyer who gets a great deal on the home they want!

And for my fellow agents who read this and keep me honest, thanks!

Keep those comments coming!

In Commonwealth Magazine, the publication of the Virginia Association of REALTORS, there is an article this month that discusses the effect of impact fees on home affordability.

It quotes a study from the NAHB of saying that each $1,000 increase in the costs of home ownership reduces the number of prospective buyers by 217,000.

The implication of the article is that fees such as higher construction permit fees, tap fees, proffers required frombuilders and such things as the new taxes contemplated by some northern VA counties to pay for infrastructure are a bad thing.

Here's the problem with that implication. All of these fees, taxes, etc. are, in their own way, a way to offset the increased infrastructure required as new homes are built and new residents are added to an area. Increased population requires additional roads, schools, hospitals, sewers, etc.

Since all of these things have costs associated with them, the money has to come from somewhere. If you're not going to get that money from the builders making money off selling those homes, or from the new homeowners who, after all, will be the people utilizing those new services, who should pay?

The only people left, it would seem, are the existing homeowners. They would see an increase in their own taxes to help fund new infrastructure for the benefit of other people. It's hard to see anyone jumping on that bandwagon!

No one likes fees or taxes, regardless of their political persuasion, regardless of whether they use the services that those fees fund. But you can not simply continue to add population without infrastructure. And you can't expect existing home owners to absorb the entire burden. You're asking for an anti-growth backlash!

"Even modest impact fees can have a dramatic effect on housing affordability," says Jerry Howard, the CEO of NAHB.

I'm still waiting for his suggestion on who, then, should pay for the infrastructure!

I think we've all seen what happens when no one pays and construction continues and the services aren't there for the newcomers. Is everyone enjoying their commute from this area into northern VA and DC?

So, what do you think? How do we pay for infrastructure?