I live in McLean. There is widespread disaffection not just here, but all over Fairfax County, with issues concerning infill development. Inappropriate density, development in floodplain and RPA areas, inadequate mature tree protection, poor traffic safety planning--the list goes on.

A few County Supervisors are good at compromise, and seem to take the long term view (rare among politicians). Others are way too quick to pave the way for developer gains. There has been a tendency of the Board to vote in "unanimous" blocks, in support of the position of a given District Supervisor, which can lead to odd (and sometimes bad)development outcomes.

The reason our region is booming is because it offers jobs, great public education, and good quality of life. But there's a point at which more development means diminshing returns--i.e. horrible traffic, overcrowded schools and parks, and degraded air and water quality. Sadly I fear our County has hit that point.

Until our highly educated, workaholic citizenry bands together and votes on these issues in an organized way, their quality of life will continue to erode. It may be time to move to Oregon.

I strongly disagree with the sentiment that there has been too much development in Fairfax County. As a young professional just getting started in my career, the LIMITED development in this are has caused huge shortages in real estate which is a big reason why housing prices have sky rocketed. It's nearly impossible for a single person making less than 50K a year with student loans to be able to afford a mortgage payment and so we have to just flush our money down the rent-hole.

I think there is a huge need for more well-planned higher density developments along the proposed Dulles Corridor metro route. This is happenning in Reston but there needs to be more lower income developments here, in McLean, and in Vienna.

Without knowing exactly what the citizens told you, I would have to say I agree with the view that the members of the board are out of touch. Connolly's campaign to markedly increase densities at Tysons may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Why hasn't the Post spotlighted his conflict, since he works for one of the landowners that will profit enormously from a rail station and increased densities? Providence has seen density without transportation solutions and environmental debacles. Connolly and Smyth share the blame for the mess. McLean and Great Falls residents are fighting, not always successfully, to maintain their suburban and rural neighborhoods. Why should citizens have to fight so hard to save valuable environmental resources? The people in the Hunter Mill corridor between Tysons and Reston are now being asked by Hudgins and DuBois to consider higher densities that will turn their nice part of the county into something more like Providence. In Falls Church, the City Council is on a condo campaign that will forever change the village character that attracted the people who live here.
Trees come down, streams are fouled, wildlife habitat is erased, infrastructure is strained, and we are told it's inevitable, that growth is a given. I sincerely doubt that all area growth must occur in Fairfax.
I'd say the anger is growing because the supervisors aren't listening.

You know, the meeting was not so much about venting frustration and expressing "wrath". We came to the Post as highly concerned citizens who see patterns emerging throughout the County that show extreme bias in favor of development and that impugn the public voice.

We would prefer to engage in a debate about the evolution of this County with our Supervisors, as we said, but have been relegated to talking among ourselves, and more recently with other community groups interested in development issues, through www.FairGrowthNetwork.org., and lately with the Post's readership through this blog.

We came as citizens serious about making sure that the public has input in development decisions so that we can plan responsibly for the future of our County.

I'd like to know if the public at large agrees with THAT!

I'm very troubled by the density of new projects in older neighborhoods. Huge mature trees are cut down to make way for huge houses that are completely out of character with their surroundings. The resulting runoff chokes our streams.

I am upset about the Wedderburn development case. Chairman Connolly was missing from his chair for about three hours on 9/26, during the public hearing. Either he doesn't value what the citizens had to say, or he'd already made up his mind. Either way, the residents lost.

Our neighbors are concerned about suburban lawn runoff polluting the Chesapeake Bay. The County should do more to educate the public about good environmental practices for suburban yards.

It sounds as though you are providing a forum for "the little people" to comment on their perception of how development decisions are made.

Citizens who get their "3 minutes at the microphone" at hearings firmly believe they are speaking to the wind. The decision to approve a development project has been made long before the hearing date.

Citizens would like to believe there is a level playing field. There is a field alright, but the players are not those citizens who devote their time, energy and money in hopes of preserving their neighborhood.

As land for development becomes scarce, there will be more infill development. Today it is Fairlee Metro West, Weddenburn, and Hunter Mill. Tomorrow it could be your neighborhood.

Do you have confidence in your Supervisor to include you in the dialogue at the same level as he/she includes the developer?

Dave, where is there recent development in Reston (or proposed development) that will be available for the person who makes $50K and is using part of their salary to pay off loans?

The WP has ads every week about the condos for sale in the Reston area. However, the cost is well over $400,000.

These new condos are way out of my price range.

I hate to dash the hopes of Dave, but there will be no "affordable" housing in McLean and Vienna. Very few units are created in return for bonus densities, and high rises are exempt from affordable housing requirements.

The land in McLean is too valuable, and the already-approved condos at Tysons II, for example, will be sold at $1M and up. A single person making less than $50,000 per year is going to have to go far from McLean to find a place to live.

It's arguable whether or not this inflation can be attributed to the supervisors. What we can attribute to them is the real estate tax, which is driving many citizens out of the homes they have lived in for decades. To that, they will reply that they just gave senior citizens a break. Not enough! After you have paid for multiple generations to go to school in Faifax, and decades of county services, no matter what you might have saved for retirement, you should get a break.

Are the senior citizens happy with the supervisors? No.

We live less than a mile from the vienna metro and we support the planned development. I'd like to be able to move out of this rental and into my own condo where I can take the metro to work. we don't want to move to the hinterlands to live. you folks writing from mclean and great falls and oakton should tell us how big your lots and houses are - many of you are greedy - you got yours and now you don't want the rest of us to have a part of the dream. what would you have? 2 million dollar homes at vienna metro?
Fred Vienna

Instead of worrying about the trees, think about the children. We are a county and a region that needs workers. Fred is right, you took up all the land with your mega houses and now there's litle left for the rest of us - your emplyees and coworkers. You don't need to look far from home to find greed. I want to see my kids at night. I don't want to have to kiss them in the beds morning and night. Why aren't you people figuring out how to help us instead of how to drive us to West Virginia.
Gem from Falls Church

Fred: Hey now, name-calling never accomplishes anything in these matters.

For myself I do think that a careful plan involving increased density around the Vienna Metro is a good idea, but the current MetroWest plan is just one more attempt to "stuff the site" without adequate attention to infrastructure needs or traffic. A citizen opposing that particular development for any of a host of legitimate reasons certainly should not be painted as wanting to deprive others of "the dream" or of wanting only "estate homes" built there.

I understand that the BOS got 2500+ emails from citizens opposing MetroWest as proposed. We just want that sort of input to be publicly acknowledged and responded to on the merits, not just stuffed into a dusty "record" in the Gov't Center basement.

We are the citizenry (including you Fred); we ALL deserve to be heard!

I think the Board of Supervisors is trying to do what is best for the County and in doing so they become an easy target for civic groups who have tunnel vision. The County has needs that need to be addressed and the Board of Supervisors has a responsibility to address those needs and they do a good job at it. It may mean that some citizens don't get exactly what they want so they choose to attack the Board instead of trying to be constructive and be part of the solution. Until these Civic Groups learn that they can have more success trying to be part of the solution, there will always be hard feelings between them and the Board. It's truly unfortunate.

The proposed variation to the comprehensive plan on Hunter Mill Road is disraceful. What are they thinking? Clearly there is good reason to distrust the supervisors and their cronies.

I grew up in Arlington, VA and moved to Vienna in 1977 My commute to Reston used to take 15 minutes, including driving on unpaved Lawyers Road. With increasing traffic, the same commuting time has doubled.

Traffic is so heavy on Park Street in Vienna that it is next to impossible to get out of my driveway during rush hours. It is like trying to cross the Beltway during rush hours. I plan my day according to the possiblity of getting out of my driveway.

Taxes are far too high for most people. I hate to think what the taxes are on the "McMansions."

It is very sad to see older homes being torn down and replaced by huge, expensive homes.

Vienna was voted the 4th top place to live in the USA. Please follow the comprehensive plan, not what the developers want to do. Think of the citizens, not the money.

Dave: I will tell you that I was there at this meeting, and the purpose of the meeting was NOT to "attack the Board" but in fact to be "part of the solution" by helping to educate the public at large about the regional issues implicated by many isolated developments, and the pattern that we too typically see of decisions essentially being made a certain way no matter what the public says.

In fact I emailed the Post to express my concern that this Blog entry really misses the tenor of our meeting. In part I said:

"We welcome the opportunity for more debate on the blog, but I do wonder that you came away from our thoughtful, two-hour meeting with the impression that our primary purpose was to convey "wrath" and to paint the BOS as "vulnerable."

As I recall, the "vulnerability" question was posed almost at the close of the meeting by [a Post reporter], and our response was largely to shrug and say "probably" if they don't take these issues seriously between now and the time of the next elections. But we made it very, very plain that we were not there to talk politics and elections -- we were there to talk about growth policies, and taking a comprehensive look at growth county-wide rather than just project-by-project, and insuring good governance, and real attentiveness to public input, etc."

We emphasized over and over that the point is to foster REAL debate, where citizens can truly be heard and their views given real credence. We're starting that now through www.FairGrowthNetwork.org and welcome everyone to join the discussion.

Fred & Gem:

If you think the Board Of Supervisors approval of $1M houses near Vienna (Wetterborn) is going to solve our problem, we may be delusional.
If you think the Supervisor's approval last year of Hyper density condos in Tyson's designed to sell at amounts approaching $1M is going to solve our problem, we are still smoking crack.
We need to recognize the politicians are bi-lingual, speaking from both sides of their mouths. On the one hand they talk about affordable houses in Tyson's but they are not there. Just high density and high prices. I may be commuting from Ohio with the backhoe. I hope I can get a fuel subsidy or maybe a safe place to park the equipment in Tyson's. Of course it is good to be working. Too long a drive, though.
Maybe we can get the county government to do their job and take just some of the larger properties from the people who do not need it and give it to people like us who are doing the labor.

Just a passing thought. How many of you at this meeting have jobs that mean your have to be somehwere somewhere. Must be nice to have such an understanding employers. I can just see my boss saying that its ok to leave work to meet with the Washinton Post. You say your are the little guys but I don't thinks so. I think you fool. Carmen

Contrary to David's opinion, to be a "part" of the Board's constructive solution means that YOU need to fall lock step behind them. The only solution is their solution. The most recent example is the Wedderburn rezoning where Smyth trotted over 12 staff people, inlcuding 2 county attorneys, in front of the "working group" to counter the arguments of why the development was flawed. She looked for cover to advance her agenda. There was NO intent to compromise with the citizens - just a year of stalling to where us down.

Carmen from Fairfax, I don't know who was at the WP meeting. However, I do know many citizens who have used used their vacation time to attend the Board of Supervisor and Board of Zoning Appeal meetings that are held during the work hours. The Board hearings say they will begin at 3:30. However, because the Board is in closed session, they begin much later.

Citizens wait, wait and wait for their 3 minutes at the microphone. And guess what, when they get to the mic it is very dishearting to see Supervisors on the phone, laughing with each other and many are not even at their seats.

If you have Channel 16, watch some of the Board, Planning Commission, and Board of Zoning meetings.

Hopefully you never have to appear and use your vacation time to speak up about saving your neighborhood from development impacts.

It ain't pretty! And I don't wish this experience on anyone. Someone said that he would rather have a root canal than go through this exercise.

It would be interesting research to see how many cases citizens have won in the past 2 years.

It is time to direct the discussion back to the core issue and away from impugning residents of Great Falls or McLean.

As a board member of my home owners assocication, I can tell you that the vast majority of my neighbors feel that our current Supervisor Linda Smyth as well as our former Supervisor (and now Board Chairman) Gerry Connolly are more concerned with representing the developers than the citizens.

The stated purpose of this blog posting is "to determine how widespread this feeling is." The perception that I have related is the prevalent one in my neck of the woods.

Anyone who wants can watch the video of the Wedderburn hearing at.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/cable/channel16/vod.htm

Fast forward about an hour and watch the divergent treatment that speakers get depending upon their views. Especially watch the tongue-lashing by Supervisor Smyth at the end.

For those who are unfamiliar with this area the land in question is zoned for on the order of 200 or so homes. The developers would like to build out over 1800 - 2400 units plus commercial space. Think about that for a moment. 200 households stretched to 2000+. The difference is mind boggling. Assume a conservative average of 5 car trips per household per day and the added traffic jumps from 1000 new trips to 10,000 new trips. The people who would have lived at the lower density numbering in the hundreds will quickly jump to a higher number in the thousands. The already overcrowded grade school will be pushed to its limits most likely causing a re-districting, the community will be hit due to the increase in cost of community services and the low density / country like setting current residents so treasure will be forever destroyed.

So who really profits here? Do the math. The land is owned by developers and they stand to make HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS more if they build at the higher density levels. Don't be fooled. This is not about "affordable housing" or work force housing or providing a service to the community. This is about maximizing return on investment.

As this process plays out it is beginning to appear that the Supervisors are operating with some sort of agenda. A growing number of residents feel that instead of responding to citizen's concerns, the supervisors have little interest in the desires of their constituents but are more interested in working to facilitate the plans of the developers.

Residents in this area moved here because the comprehensive plan that guides development in the area purposely set up a "green belt" between Reston and Tysons. This area is low density, filled with green and open spaces, and acts as a buffer between the two city centers. Take a look at a map or an aerial photo and you will see the elegance of this thoughtful planning.

What the developers are seeking is not a way to "better the area" but something that goes against the very planning principals that have been in place for decades. Developers see a continuous block of a few hundred acres and see the opportunity to increase their revenues by orders of magnitude.

Before you judge the residents of this area as "anti-development" or the "not in my back yard" crowd, drive down Hunter Mill Road. Look at the area and imagine 2000+ units in an area that is zoned for 200. The developer's plans and weak justifications are insulting to one's intelligence and are the result of nothing more than greed.

I too saw the Wedderburn public hearing. Providence Supervisor Linda Smyth appeared to be an agent for the developer.

She shamelessly supported the developers and those who testified in support of them. Even more distastefully, she subjected many of those who opposed the project to inquisition-style cross-examination.

I can only imagine what she did prior to this so-called public hearing. Ms. Smyth's mind was clearly made up when this hearing began. That's not the idea behind a public hearing.

I agree with "Cable Addict." Watch the public hearing and decide for yourself.

Mr. Fehr, why don't you tell us where YOU live? How come this doesn't concern you?
From Steve Fehr: This isn't about me. I just wanted to pose the question to readers. I have lived in north Reston since 1987. I voted in the 1987 election and remember vividly the backlash then about growth.

I get the impression that the developer's money determines the outcome of Board decisions. Is it campaign contributions? Is it direct or indirect benefits to the board, their friends or relatives? Is it a guaranteed high paying job with one of the developers when their term is over? The proposed Hunter Mill development is a good example. The developer buys property for a price above market value for its current zoning and immediately requests rezoning which will allow them to make a significant profit. A developer would not risk that kind of money unless the outcome was considered a "done deal". The master plan is thrown out and a panel is set up with an arbitrary 6 month deadline (every day that goes by without rezoning the developer is losing money! So hurry up!). The outcome seems pre-destined. Did anyone ever write a song where the lyrics said "Cut down those trees, widen the road, put up those condos and strip malls. I'm sick of the birds, and the deer, and the peace. I feel sorry for the out of town developers. They need to make some money." I don't think so.

The Post seems determined to generate more heat than light. Mission accomplished. Residents gain nothing from simply bashing supervisors, but that sells more papers than a reasoned discussion of the issues. Many of us ask for full (not selective) facts, and for compromise based upon those facts. Indeed, that's what we were promised at one point. Yet, it seems we're asking for too much.

Make no mistake: Nearly all are in FAVOR of "smart growth," also known as Transit Oriented Development (TOD). We FAVOR reasonable higher density near transit with a mix of uses to reduce the need to drive. But let's look just a tiny bit below the surface.

According to the Council of Governments, the Urban Land Institute, and EPA, "smart growth" or TOD is a "consensus-driven process" that MUST have meaningful community involvement. The Urban Land Institute specifically says density is NOT dictated from the top down.

However, the density WAS dictated from the top down in this case. The "consensus driven process" consisted of a handpicked workgroup trying for 8 months to get facts, but only got highly selective data, especially regarding traffic impacts. When a minority wanted to discuss the density, they were told "it's too late."

The "consensus driven process" continued at meetings where the developer said "there will be no compromise on density." That's an interesting take on "consensus." If one accepts the definitions offered by the Council of Governments, the Metro West proposal is clearly not "smart growth" or "transit oriented development." The result of NOT granting the community real input has been opposition from federal, state and local officials, as well as a growing number of community and neighborhood groups. Metro West has become a textbook case of how NOT to promote Transit Oriented Development.

It also defies the definition because it is anti-pedestrian in that it adds another lane to a dangerous intersection, and restricts walkability by gating off some of the adjacent residences - all contrary to "smart growth" principles.

Citizens asked for oversight of the Traffic Demand Management program. Instead, five of the twelve committee members were developers or their consultants. Others were county staff. Two others were supporters of the project, leaving one person with concerns to represent the rest of us. The result was a clumsy attempt to apply measures designed for offices to residents, among many other faults, that has never been tried before and has no provision for putting on the brakes if things go wrong. So much for citizen/community input.

Then there's schools - no answers to questions on how libraries, gyms, etc. will handle all the new students. The only answer was about cafeterias: "We'll start serving lunch earlier" - when lunch already starts before 10:30 a.m.

Sewage: The county executive had warned that the county wastewater facilities could not handle much growth beyond what was already planned - just the opposite of what citizens were told. See the memo at http://www.fairgrowthnetwork.org/Portals/3/Ches_Bay_Regs_limits_memo_BOS_9-17-0412.pdf

Let's also consider Metro capacity - we're told the Metro Matters program will alleviate our concerns about Metro impacts. But Metro Matters does nothing to address the already-overstrained capacity of Metro stations - the passenger platforms, the escalators, the fare gates. YEARS of asking about this results in no answer besides "there's no money" for those things. Impacts of higher density on Metro stations have simply not been addressed.

Parks: The Fairfax County Parks Authority has twice stated that parks and ballfields near Vienna Metro are already overcrowded, and the Metro West proposal requires more parkland and a redesign. This has also not been addressed. If people must drive to find recreation, that is again contrary to smart growth principles.

Instead of being proud that no side is pleased with the coverage, the Post could really dig into these questions, and how the "smart growth" or TOD label, while seeming to fit on the surface, is actually being mis-applied. Many citizens have tried to get answers, but have had no luck. Maybe the Post could be more successful.

Having read some of the comments here, I'm disappointed with some people's thinking. Such NIMBY's. I grew up in an economically flat area of the country where if a new hotel was built, that was news for three months. Development is good and healthy and I'm proud to live in Fairfax County (of course, it's not without its problems, but no area ever is...call me part of the glass-half-full crowd versus the opposite)...and I'm happy to be in this region because it's regional, too, not just this county. I want to live in this economically vibrant area. I want more people here because that's the sign of success. The anti-development crowd that visited the Post and has started this new Web site doesn't seem to want anymore success and that's sad. We are blessed to live in a economically stable area and we should continue our growth.

But to make this such a simple issue...that the developers are sleeping with the board...is ridiculous. That's inane rhetoric. You talk about campaign contributions. Goodness, we're talking Fairfax County here, not a U.S. Senate election, so don't extrapolate the contribution issue into something that's more convenient to cite than it is relevant. Why wouldn't a politician be interested in what citizens, who are a majority of the voters, have to say? And I like how holy some of you are, too, citing the Board's inattention to your statements at the meeting. OK, I watched parts of the meeting the other day and the entire meeting was a very long one. I'm toast after one hour sitting at a meeting and I'm sure many of you are, too. Plus, they knew they had a very long Verizon hearing to go through after the Wedderburn hearing. Be reasonable and cite reasonable things. Some of the statements in this entry and others sound so, like, 11th grade. Johnny didn't look at me today...oh no!

Back to reality...while I'm happy many of you have banded together because activism is better than nothing, I, along with many of my neighbors and friends, will not be joining your cause. You're trying to commit a series of causes into a pattern by joining forces. Each of the cases has its own aspects, but again, you're trying to link them together as some sort of grand conspiracy. It wouldn't hold up in a court of law and I doubt it will beyond your circle of activists.

One final note: the biggest complaint associated with development that I hear is about roads. Well, don't ya think there are others who need your tongue lashing, too, namley, the people in Richmond? Where's the money? Where's the support? VDOT is a major player in this effort and we're in an election year. Spend some of your time focused on the state level, as I will be, with candidates who are serious about this issue because they hold the key to improving the roads, thus improving the impact of development. Again, I'm all for growth because growth is a sign of economic activity. I don't want Fairfax, Arlington or D.C. to build one hotel and that's the only noteworthy accomplishment. This area should not stop growing and it needs to be dealt with. Say the Hunter Mill people win their battle. OK, so you win, and what's next? The West Ox Road Coaltion? The Lee Highway Liberators? It's just a continuous cycle of NIMBY's and that is not a recipe for economic growth. I'm a proud Republican who supports the free enterprise system, so it's kind of funny to watch Democrats get criticized for supporting the same values I hold.

It's easy to say no growth, but like one of the first posters here said, he wants to buy a home. There aren't enough homes here and we need to build more so more people can realize the American Dream in Fairfax County. I don't like all decisions that politicians have to make, but I'm all for supporting growth and looking at the positive, glass-half-full view.

Paul W., Chantilly

Oh Paul, what a quick way out: people with questions are NIMBYs. Build without facts, it's all always good.
Is this the best you got? Thanks for playing!

Sounds like the Post needs to go beyond the blog and so some investigative reporting. Or does this take too much time, too much work? Or, do you, too, think that there is no story out there.

I'm glad our local weekly papers are tuned in.

Hey Paul: You know, I was disappointed that the Post started this blog saying that we all came in to vent frustration about development in "our neighborhoods", because that is so -- so very -- far off. Our whole focus was on regional implications, the need to honestly address infrastructure, the responsibility to responsibly ENGAGE citizens. You don't respond to any of that -- you just call us "NIMBYs." And you completely ignore all the statements (by those of us who were THERE) that no one involved in this -- dare I say "movement" -- is anti-development. All the folks I have spoken to are pro-development, so long as it is reasonable development -- FAIRGROWTH is a good term for a very good reason!

We want to be HEARD -- not just the lip service given to public input as a "safety valve" to placate the requirement for public notice and comment, but real ENGAGEMENT!

Deborah: Then please describe to me your vision of reasonable development in the following areas:

-- Chantilly

-- Bailey's Crossroads

-- Hunter Mill/Reston

I guess I know what you don't want, but I don't know what you want. I haven't heard that articulated other than "reasonable." Your reasonable and my reasonable are probably different. Engagement is another tricky phrase, too. I may abide by the law and say a public notice is all that's required and that's fine by me. You may say hold three additional meetings on a topic, but your neighbor may say let's hold 10. That's his defintion of engagement and he won't be happy with three. It all depends on your perspective.

Joe G.,

I'm not saying build without facts, but upon looking at the county Web site, there's a fairly extensive process for development...the Planning Commission and the Department of Planning play a major role in gathering all of the facts. I think you're oversimplifying the case by implying that a developer submits a proposal and that's it.

i liked the comments from paul of chantilly

so - the residents of HunterMill shouldn't win because it might encourage others?

the single most bizarre statement I've yet heard on this issue

they should win because in this case, they're right - the developers proposal to go from 150 units to upwards of 2000 units (which given the metro west experience could easily go to 4000 - 5000) is inappropriate, arrogant and destructive

the comprehensive plan has an agreed strategy for substantial growth within clearly designated areas, including the neighboring metro-oriented herndon-reston corridor - it also has a strategy for protecting neaby existing stable neighborhoods and this property is explicity part of that strategy.

This proposal blows a hole through the comprehensive plan that sprawl will flood through.

oh - and the answer isn't just to whine to richmond for more money to spend on more roads so we can put in more tower blocks

Dave must not have been paying attention to the expected sales prices of the homes proposed around the Vienna-Fairfax Metro. I have a hard time seeing how someone living on $50K per annum with student loans or whatever kinds of loans would actually be able to afford the housing in such a prime location. Folks in this situation will still be renting, I am sure. And, as we become more "urban" and trendy, odds are they will soon be driven to rent farther away. Enjoy that one mile walk to the Metro now, while you still can.

Carmen, I was not a person who met with the Post. I do not know who actually met with the Post. I must take some offense at your comments about people who can take time off from work to do civic things. Many employers actually do permit or even encourage this and I would bet that many of the people attending the meeting are not so highly affluent as to be out of touch with the regular work day. I have met many of the activists involved and they are regular, hardworking people. (And most of them are Democrats, too, so it is hard for me to see this being about politics, since the Board is mostly Democrats, too.) These people also tend to be highly educated and in touch with the issues they are concerned about and they tend to be people who spend their free time doing useful, community oriented things. Remember, too, that people who have worked to the point of having the leisure of taking a day off have generally gotten their through years of hard work and education that readied them for the types of positions where they could take larger interest in the community. Is that so bad? I would hardly call them "fool[s] [sic]." They are quite the opposite.

Paul W., I too am a Republican and an unapologetic capitalist. Developers are business people who work hard and I bear them no ill will whatsover. They are trying to get the best deal they can for their companies and their shareholders. It is all part of the game of capitalism. I do believe, from having observed one too many Board hearings, that the Board has grown unreceptive to citizens' concerns and has grown too solicitous of developers' interests. I would prefer to see some balance restored. The speeches from the Board's high table at the end of the Wedderburn hearing truly were outrageous. Watch the tape and see your government in action.

One can hardly drive down Lee Highway, Gallows Road, Nutley, or any street in the Vienna area and suggest development in any way has been curtailed! Meetings with Supervisors fall on deaf ears and have for decades. High rise Heaven looms in every direction you look! Supervisors have very willingly gone along with developers in this urban nightmare. From their offices straight to Tyson's corner you will see condo signs "for sale @$1.5 million."

Curtailing growth had Nothing to do with this! Campaign contributions and less obvious favors did...and do. It's a fact, Supervisors are never ever available to take average citizen calls, and no staff member answers the phone twice. Their priorities are facilitating development. To that end, they are more than willing to lay out $350,000 for a shelter for Hispanic construction workers -- because developers want cheap labor -- never mind what else comes with it.

I am all for giving young professionals a career break -- and someone is out there trying: Rep. Frank Wolf is sponsoring a telecommuting conference this weekend (10/01/) -- to give young professionals a shot at a lifestyle worth having.

As for transferring jobs out of Arlington to Quantico and Belvoir -- RUN, don't walk to an area where you can see something besides a sea of cars, where your kids can play and attend school safely, where its safe to shop without being stabbed, murdered, raped, or chased with a machete! Give yourselves and your family a break! Cost of living here eats up any salary benefit -- as even Members of Congress have discovered. If you can't afford housing in this area -- you just lucked out! Sign me Inside the Beltway Fairfax Co. and overwhelmed!

Paul,

You are right that developers don't get to do quite what they want; it's what the County wants. But the differences are getting thinner. Cynical as it sounds, as a practical matter, too often I've seen the County collect what facts will further its case, and ignore facts that fail to fit in with its predeterminations. If the County or develooper had provided anything but highly selective facts on MetroWest, these groups would not have formed, federal, state and local officials and neighborhood groups would not be up in arms, and we would not be having this discussion.

There is nothing comprehensive about the county's "Comprehensive" Planning process. It is piecemeal. There is no attempt made at coordinating the development on a larger basis. With so many incremental increases in demands on infrastructure, roads, schools, sewer and Metro capacity can't keep up.

What's our alternative proposal? Just REAL citizen involvement, negotiation, and consensus. The County gives us time at the mike, sometimes creates workgroups stacked with their contributors, but the decisions are made before the votes are cast. We're banding together not because we're NIMBYs, but because we realize that COUNTY-WIDE, we are being shut out of the process systemically. Even a few months ago, I would have said that the County ignores requests for compromise. After the past few weeks, I can now say that the County is downright hostile to compromise. A very sad state.

Paul,

I AGREE with you that we're not talking the Senate when it comes to campaign contributions. But we're not talking County races anymore, either. Gerry Connolly has made no secret of his desire to run for the House, and he has raised the cash to do it. Mostly from developers. He worked for the West Group, which is his, Linda Smyth's, and Del. Jim Scott's big contributor. West Group stands to benefit the most from Tysons rail. He now works for SAIC, which also owns property along the proposed rail route.
An interesting read is at http://www.baconsrebellion.com/Issues03/11-03/Bad_company.htm

Development issues just aren't here, but in many other places, too, such as the Virginia coast:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/30/AR2005093001554.html

There are two sides, there, too.

hagenius: i'm not saying hunter mill people shouldn't win, but what i'm saying is that it's a non-ending cycle. Another area will be eyed for development and people will oppose that area, too, because once it gets too close, then people take notice. It's classic NIMBY...and I don't mean NIMBY as a negative term, it's just a natural response. you see that everywhere, too, including the link above or the homes in the area of the new baseball stadium downtown.

Up top, the Post says, "It is hard to determine how widespread this feeling is."

It sure wasn't hard this spring when I went to a meeting with over 600 other people at Oakton High from all over the county who were all upset about overdevelopment. While some of it was about Vienna Metro, most of it was about projects all over the place, and the pattern of irregularities and ordinary people being ignored.

Oddly, only the Post didn't quite seem to grasp how widespread the problem is, and tried to portray it as some kind of partisan fight over a limited project. That struck many residents as surprisingly myopic.
Fairfax to Wash. Post: This problem is widespread, ingrained, and has all the hallmarks of Audrey Moore's landslide victory due to growth issues. (And Connolly once accused Jack Herrity of having a tin ear - now that's the the pot calling the kettle black!)

I did not participate in the Post meeting so I cannot comment on the content of the meeting.

One observation I can make is that people seem to want to classify the two groups voicing opinions as either "pro-development" or "anti-development". I don't believe that is correct. As one who is in favor of "smart-growth", I am not against ANY development, just the type of development which only serves to benefit the big developer and dramatically impacts the quality of life for existing and future residents.

Taking an area currently zoned for 200 residences to over 2000 is so clearly detrimental for an already over-crowded over-stressed transportation system that only those who benefit financially in the short-term could possibly support such a cause. It makes one wonder why our representatives would favor such a thing unless there was financial gain in it for them. For those in favor of such development because it would increase affordable housing in the area, please ask how many "affordable" homes would be created by this development and by the way, you might also ask, "What is the definition of affordable". While we are at it, let's ask the developers and our representatives how many homes would be built that could be purchased by one who makes $50K/yr?

As one who makes decisions about what time of day I should go somewhere because of the traffic surrounding my home (within two miles of the Hunter Mill/Sunset Hills intersection), the thought of seeing 10,000 more trips in the Hunter Mill area is truly daunting.

Maybe some of our supervisors/representatives should try driving down Sunset Hills Rd towards Hunter Mill or towards Wielhe during the evening rush hour (which begins around 3:45 and ends around 7). They certainly would have plenty of time to ponder the results created by permitting such insane growth.

Regarding Paul's comment about campaign contributions: "we're talking Fairfax County here, not a U.S. Senate election" I agree completely.

A U.S. Senate election has much more stringent laws controlling campaign contributions than does one in Virginia, as well as considerably more oversight. Virginia law allows unlimited contributions to a candidate. Not so with the Senate.

Read the Vienna Connection article of 2/9/05 (http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/article.asp?archive=true&article=43336&paper=73&cat=104)

A Maryland non-profit organization gave Providence Supervisor Linda Smyth a $10,000 campaign contribution that was "intended to help the project receive a favorable rezoning decision as it moves forward" according to the group's director of marketing.

Clearly the word is out on the street: If you want your rezoning to be approved, you'd better donate some serious money to one or more members of the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors.

And $10,000 is serious money even for a U.S. Senatorial campaign.

I am not sure our local elected officials ever placed much value in citizen input although much lip service has been given to having an "open" process for citizens to influence the way development occurs in our neighborhoods. Local residents are given a variety of mechanisms to provide input into the process, but that input is not taken seriously. Even the serious concerns and opposition from other public agencies in the County, such as the Parks Department and Transportation Department, are consistently ignored by the Board of Supervisors.

In theory, I personally am not opposed to higher density development adjacent to Metro stations, but when a young woman is raped in my own neighborhood as she walked home from the Dunn Loring Metro Station last week, it is obvious that public safety and police presence have not kept pace with the urbanization of these areas. To me this public safety issue alone eclipses the obvious traffic, congestion, and degradation of the quality of life we all must face as the population density increases in Fairfax County.

The other public safety concern associated with urbanization of our neighborhoods has to do with the steady, documented decline of forest cover and stream water quality. Loss of forest cover and mature trees causes far-reaching and irreversible environmental and economic damage; this has been documented for decades. In the U.S. a majority states and urbanizing localities have recognized this and have adopted state-of-the-art urban planning techniques to the development process. This is virtually absent in Virginia. The current Board of Supervisors did not even defer recent critical environmental issues to its own Environmental Quality Advisory Council to which previous boards have deferred virtually the same issues.

Fairfax County, while it may be way ahead of Virginia in its efforts to protect the environment, spent 6 million dollars dredging Lake Accotink this summer. This is a direct result of loss of forest cover and mature trees on the lands whose streams drain to the Upper Accotink Watershed. The dredging of Lake Accotink occurs on a regular basis and will occur more frequently as the watershed is urbanized. It is the tax payer that pays for this lack of professional urban planning and adequate environmental protection.

The public safety aspect of this issue is that documented within our own county is the serious contamination of the majority of its streams. This contamination is bacterial contamination and many of these streams have been identified as seriously impaired with fecal coliform and e.coli since 1998. Virginia was sued for violating federal water quality protection laws and is under a consent order to clean up these bacterially-contaminated waters. The extent of contamination is currently being determined by county personnel, but for the protection of public health, one must assume all streams are contaminated. As an environmental scientist I know what the risks are. For me to think of how many of our children play in our backyard streams, my own son included, makes me sick and it sad to think our public officials ignore the health of our children.

If one goes to the Fairfax County's Public Health Website you will find this statement:

"The following is an excerpt from the Fairfax County Annual Stream Water Quality Report:
In summary, any open, unprotected body of water is subject to pollution from indiscriminate dumping of litter and waste products, sewer line breaks and contamination from runoff pesticides, herbicides, and waste from domestic and wildlife animals. Therefore, the use of streams for contact recreational purposes, such as swimming, wading, etc., which could cause ingestion of stream water or possible contamination of an open wound by stream water, should be avoided."
HOW IS IT THAT MOST CITIZENS DO NOT KNOW THIS?

More statements from Fairfax County and Virginia's public health department describing these public health risks can be found at this website: http://www.co.fairfax.va.us/hd/recnot.htm

Virginia Water Quality Standards mandate that all its streams, rivers, and lakes are designated safe for contact recreational uses. Because so many rivers and streams in the state obviously do not meet these standards and, in urbanizing areas, WILL NEVER meet these standards, Virginia is undergoing the legal process to downgrade the water quality standards for many of its streams and lakes. This legal process requires a significant public involvement component. Lets hope this public involvement process is not just the lip service we have observed with our Board of Supervisors or we very well may be seeing signs "DO NOT WADE IN THE STREAM RUNNING THROUGH YOUR BACKYARD. THE WATER IS UNSAFE." The ensuing public outrage will, by then, be too late.

The Fairfax county supervisors have lost touch with their residents for years. Greed for property taxes has overtaken them in development issues and the county set low proffers for developers to meet and rely on the rest of fairfax county residents to pick up the tab for the schools, road, and additonal ultities infrastructure improvement requirements. Remember the water shortages, gosh add more people need more water where is it going to come from?

The Bd of Supervisors with the devleopers sucessfully dismantled the oldest Homeowners Association in Fairfax (Fairlee)where the Metro West Development is planned. Your Homeowners Assocaition could be next.

The supervisor board should be focused and rising the standard of living in Faifax not lowering it with increasing density and traffic congestion.

The Board of Supervisors should focus on water quality, The Bd Chairman allowed the petroleum Tank farm on Pickett Road to polute the ground water in Providence District with no cleanup!

The supervisors have not required that all new building development have radon removal systems (fairfax county has this everywhere) this is a long time killer to citizens.

Putting up tall buildings in an earthquake zone with no protection standards against it.

Lack of roof standards to protect from high winds from what ever source you want to have it come from.

Lack of evaluation plans for quick removal of residents on road to outside the county (not including individual from Arlington or the District).

Look at the lack of cross walks every major intersection should have four! Look most have only have one.

Street lighting is years behind. All major streets should have ligts. The Metro does not even serve the fairfax courts or the government center!

The board of supervisors purposely under funds is zoning and planning offices with un qualified under trained staff whom bend to developers and political pressures.

Fairfax county spends its time with its staff submitting itself for awards rather than focusing on its community to improve it for the future.

It seems to me the question really is who does the Board of Supervisors answer to? There is a lot in the preceding comments about what they should do or should not do and why, and who they have under or over the table connections with; but ultimately they must answer to the voters, regardless of how much money the developers wave at them. The battle we are facing in the Hunter Mill Corridor has residents trying to fight off out-of-town developers and money. The residents are the voters and as such are the only "community" that has the power to teach the Supervisors who they report to. I think all the meetings, all the letters to the editors, all the name calling, all the hand wringing is for naught, it is the vote that is what counts. If every community meeting, every "visioning session" every Board meeting was packed, truly packed, with angry voters, the Supervisors would have a clear vision about what the community wants and what it means to be a public servant.Because the community they answer to is the one that lives and VOTES in Fairfax County. Until we can make them understand they will no longer be Supervisors if they do not heed the will of the citizens this is all just a bunch of idle chatter. Citizens need to turn out in HUGE numbers at all times to solve this problem.
And Carmen, I understand what you mean about the ability to get to midday meetings, but one does what one can for civic duty. Just as I am greatful for whatever help you can provide, you can be greatful for whatever help others can provide.

As a Hunter Mill Road resident I am horrified to consider such a large expansion of homes in the area.

What will happen is Hunter Mill Road will have to be widened to 4 lanes making it not a road but a super highway taking away all of the charm that brought us here originally.

Our choice will be to move and we have already begun looking assuming that we as residents can not win. Shame on those that we have been counting on to support and protect our homes.

I have to agree that planning and decision making in Fairfax County appears somewhat reckless. Although I do not live or work near the "hot spot" issues I am also concerned that local politicians have lost sight of the long term public good. Consideration for quality of life issues and environmental protection seem to have given way to a focus on building more, building faster, "cashing in", and possibly personal gain.

The size and crowding of our public schools is one area of concern that hit home to myself, and many other West Springfield residents this year. Land slated for a new school was sold by the School Board to become single family housing. It was said it was no longer needed because the new South County Secondary School was being built near-by.

The new high school has opened over capacity. The School Boards decisions on the new boundary came under fire for favoring wealthier communitys who supplied them with gifts, and it became apparent there are few conflict of interest rules, or disclosure requirements in effect.

As a result, some neighborhoods were redistricted to WestSpringfield H.S. in the 12th hour. This pushed WSHS over capacity. Now the School Board is insisting that a new boundary study be conducted for West Springfield HS because there are other neighborhoods that want into this H.S. too. That of course would mean existing neighborhoods would have to go elsewhere.

A major renovation and expansion was completed at Orange Hunt Elem. School 3 years ago. Already, this year a trailer is being added. Lunch time begins at 10:30 so that there will be enough time and space to feed 900 kids.

Our schools are overcrowded! The School Board makes hasty and unfair re-districting decisions with huge impact to communities and peoples lives. As a result, personal real estate values are altered overnight, and some School Board officials launch their political careers. In the meantime the Board of Supervisors continues to support uncontrolled growth.

I would love to see the Post do some investigative reporting into the practises of the Fairfax County School Board. It may be time that the County implement a Code of Ethics, and disclosure practise for them.

The Post's coverage is sooooo ridiculous sometimes. Much like Loki, the editor and moderator of this blog has sought to create more dissension among parties who sorely could stand to be brought closer together through understanding and respect. My dear sir, you have not written a good story if you have gotten both sides angry at you, as you apparently have done. All you have done is contribute to misunderstanding and division. Although, ironically, disliking this piece seems to be the one thing the activists and their Supervisors' have agreed upon in sometime! :-) lol

Paul W. had asked what the activists' vision is for various locations - he knows what they are against, but not what they are for. I think that is a fair question for him to ask. Let the input begin!

In general, I am an adovocate of transit-oriented development, which is a delicate balance of housing density, retail, work opportunities, open space, and public amenities - with the goal of creating workable communities and reducing the number of cars added to the mess we all live with. You have to take honest account of all your infrastructure, your predicted infrastructure for the next 20 or so years, and where you can squeeze improvements out of the public pot and out of the developers in order to get there honestly. I believe in comprehensive planning and I do believe it has fallen by the wayside in recent years in Fairfax County for various reasons. Unlike some of the people who have posted here, I do have a background in planning and I do believe that we need improvement to the planning process in Fairfax County. If anyone is really interested, I'll post my own little "manifesto" of what is wrong with the process and we can discuss that. (Your call, Paul W., I think you were the one who brought it up first!)

I have lived in Fairfax County for 20 consecutive years and participated in more than my share of civic and volunteer organizations that improve opportunities for residents of all income levels. I have also tried to cultivate good relations with our local government officials even when I have been on the opposite side of an issue. That said, I think it is increasingly difficult for average citizens to get involved in hearings, meetings, and so-called "visioning" exercises like the one taking place October 1 on the future of historic Hunter Mill Road. Citizens are at a decisive, strategic disadvantage. We can't afford lobbyists and lawyers to argue our case before the myriad bureaucratic and policymaking committiees that make the critical decisions to advance or impede a particular development project. I have argued before in a recent public forum that citizens need to create and fund its own "ombudsman" and legal fund to follow these issues, take a position on them, and advocate full-time the way developers do. Average citizens are no match for the Goliath represented by development interests in Fairfax County. That day has long passed.

I live in McLean, Tysons actually,and have been here 21+years. The quality of life has degraded consistently year after year. I protested to Supervisor Connelly several times years ago and finally gave up in disgust. His replies boiled down to "I can't do anything about it".On one occasion several years ago I wanted to speak against a proposed zoning variance being proposed. When I tried to get data on which to base my statement I got shuffled from Connelly's office, to the zoning board, to another part of the burocracy each wihout getting any information. They finally told me to contact Ms. XXX (I don't remember the name). When I made contact with her I learned she was the developers representative. The zoning board couldn't provide me answers but they referred me to the developers.I consider that very revealing!
Take a look at International Drive near Springhill Road any evening around 6PM. If the community benefits from the new jobs and the increased tax base, as Mr. Connelly keeps telling us, why do we not see commensurate infrastructure improvement?

Frustrated in Tysons. tomp

I was one of the dozen or so fairfax citizens present at the session with the assistant editor and two reporters from the Washington Post. I made the trip from the Mount Vernon District in the SE section of Fairfax. I live within an officially designated revitalization district that is along US Route 1 or Richmond Highway which goes from the beltway all the way to Fort Belvoir. Citizens living along the corridor have long embraced the idea that development and growth is in the best interest of revitalizing this corridor which straddles both the Mount Vernon and Lee Districts. We are anything but NIMBY as some contributors to this blog continue to assert. The best hope for revitalization in our area has been to encourage more not less development, that would eliminate or rebuild older rundown strip malls, abandoned businesses and cheap motels that have become havens for criminal activity like prostitution and drug trafficing. Citizens in both districts embraced the plans for revitalization and spent years participating through the APR process to develop a comprehensive plan for the revitalization district.

As one citizen among many involved in this process, we weighed in very heavily with respect to safeguarding the preservation of the character of existing neighborhoods emphasizing the need for walkable communities, environmental protections with respect to watersheds, greenspace and clean air standards, better transportation networks and the increasing competition for county services with respect to schools, libraries, law enforcement and county government. One essential understanding reflected in the comp plan was the need to expand and develop more commercial/retail and office space developments along the corridor. By its own admission, the county has been losing ground in their quest to have a 25% commercial retail base to bring down the demand for county services that come with an increasing residential base. Such demands are one of the driving forces behind the cost of running the county and the never ending increase of property taxes.
This process was slow and tedious but in the end, communities and citizens felt as though they truly had a voice in dictating the future of their neighborhoods and a vision of optimisim and hope for the corridor.
So what has our vision brought forth? Progress has been incrementally slow, however, some succeses are acknowledged with cosmetic face lifts to some of the older strip malls and shopping centers and according to county officials we have made great strides by bringing such notable retail businesses as Wal Mart, Target, Home Depot, Lowes, Bed Bath and Beyond etc. We also have some new restaurant venues and we were told that we even passed an upscale economic threshold when a Star Bucks opened on the corridor. Most citizens are accepting of these changes although if we want more shopping or dining options we still need to get into our cars and head north into Old Town Alexandria or west into other Fairfax neighborhoods beyond I-95.
We acknowledge that some progress has been achieved, however the housing development boom of the past decade has become an unanticipated factor in our revitalization as outlined in the comprehensive plan and here is where our disconnect with actions by county staff and the BOS has led many otherwise trusting and complacent citizens to look beyond what we are being told by our elected leaders is good for the revitalization of the corridor.
The problems have arisen as developers have decided that they need to change the comp plans for our community revitalization in order for them to carpet bomb the corridor with condominium and town home developments which are far more profitable than retail business and office. To our surprise, they have proven to be very adept at getting the comp plan changes fast tracked through county staff and approved by the BOS. Several new developments that were in the plan to be mixed use developments with most of the development being retail commercial and office have now been approved with the majority of the development being residential and with very little of the latter.
The Mount Vernon Council representing dozens of community associations passed a resolution in opposition to one such plan change that originally involved a land swap for county property with a developer and a promise for Class A office development. The developer reneged and the change took place. The site is on the west side of Richmond Highway which is in Lee Districts back door but is on the front door of the Mount Vernon District. The planning commission and ultimately the BOS approved the project.
My own Spring Bank community has been embroiled for over a year in a development proposal called Kings Crossing that is potentially the biggest mixed use project proposed for the corridor. To learn more visit this url. http://www.sfdc.org/main_kingscrossing.html We absolutely want this project to go forward as outlined by the existing comprehensive plan which calls for a mixed use project with retail commercial and office not to exceed 66% of the project with the remaining 44% being residential. We recognize that the language allows for some negotiation of the commercial/residential ratio, but the language is explicit in the mixed use nature emphasizing a majority of the project as commercial. There is language specific to the plan affording environmental protections for a headwater stream that flows to Hunting Creek and the Potomac River as well as protections for the adjoining Spring Bank neighborhood. We waited for years for the county to find a developer interested in this property. We were ecstatic when the county announced that a developer did in fact purchase the property and was going to move forward with a plan.
Our first encounter with the developer was anything but formal. To get a sense of how the developer greeted the community read the news story at this link from the Mount Vernon Gazette. http://www.sfdc.org/press_gz080504.html
Imagine having someone come through your back yard in a bulldozer knocking down mature trees, tearing up your yard and also knocking down trees in a Resource Protection Area. Is this how you start a constructive engagement with the local community or is this reflective of a sense of I can do what I want to from an emboldened developer that knows there will be few consequences from Fairfax County because they want so much to develop this property? In spite of the outright slap in the face from this developer and what I felt was a foot dragging response from Fairfax County to deal with all of the violations, our community association looked beyond the outrageous behavior of this company and set about trying to engage them in a constructive and affirmative manner to plan the vision for Kings Crossing. The year long negotiations and events up to now are chronicled at the following urls.
http://www.sfdc.org/press_vo081204a.html
http://www.sfdc.org/press_gz082604a.html
http://www.sfdc.org/press_gz091604.html
http://www.sfdc.org/press_gz102804.html
http://www.sfdc.org/press_gz102804b.html
http://www.sfdc.org/press_gz012705.html

There are other accounts that chronicle the effort by our community to encourage development. We are now 9 months beyond the last article cited in the last news report url. We are no closer with this company on coming to a consensus than during our first formal meeting with them. They have dug in their heels to keep the project primarily residential and will not budge. Thus far, we have had the support of the local Supervisor, but we are skeptical as to how long that will hold true considering the final outcome of numerous other projects here in the Mount Vernon District and elsewhere in the county. The developer has a track record in other areas of Northern Virginia to wait things out and eventually get approval from public and elected officials.
I was initially drawn to Fairgrowth having read different letters to the editor in the Virginia Weekly Fairfax section of the Washington Post. Their voices of frustration in dealing with developers and county staff and elected officials mirrored my own feelings as experienced during our year of defending our community while trying to promote responsible growth.
The Washington Post meeting this past Thursday was not about Fairgrowth making political stands or personal attacks. It was about a perceived lack of due process and transparancy and a growing disconnect between elected officials and the role that communities and citizens play in land use decisions affecting their neighborhoods and quality of life. My sense of the role of the Board of Supervisors is to achieve a balance between the competing interests in these land use decisions and to initiate processes that lead to compromise and eventually consensus on growth and land use decisions. I think that many of the actions and decisions by the BOS of late are blatent examples of arrogance on their part that reflect that they are no longer impartial judges seeking truth and evidence to support their final decisions. I am deeply saddened by the BOS and their shills trying to label Fairgrowth as NIMBY's. The name chosen by pro-development and pro-growth citizens says it all. The Fairgrowth network is a forum for citizens that recognize the need for Fairfax to grow through support of development. It is the lack of fairness by the BOS to respect the views of citizens and communities to be allowed a respected place at the table and to have a true role in deciding the future of their neighborhoods. There is no person behind the curtain at the Fairgrowth network that will filter your views on growth and development. It is a public forum for all of you to express those views and to dialogue on those issues to which the BOS provides limited discussion, suppresses information or outright ignores. Go there and state your views as you should. Tell others what is happening in your neighborhood and on your street. Your input and contribution will only add to a growing wealth of information that may well resolve your specific community or personal concerns or those of another community or citizen for sustainable,responsible and smart growth in Fairfax County.

I am an environmentalist and a tree hugger. I also have lived in McLean for the past 12 years. Traffic and air quality have gotten worse in the time I have been here.

However, I don't disparage development. Growth cannot be stopped unless we limit our population and the economy. Since neither of those options are desireable, we need to encourage smart growth. That means building a mass transit system that is in harmony with housing and business growth.

I thought the Metro West development near the Vienna Metro was a half-decent idea. At least the residents living there would have the option to use Metro. Where I live, my options are limited to a car. (I walk and bike when I can, but the roads here are not meant for either and the drivers seem to have personal vendettas against pedestrians and cyclists.)

We need an entirely new way of thinking in Fairfax County and the state. VDOT has proven itself to be incompetent road builders -- they make a crappy product, do not link roads in logical systems, and do not consider any transportation methods but cars. VDOT needs to be scrapped because the "T" in VDOT does not stand for transportation -- they are purely road builders. We need a brand new department of Transportation with a capital T. An agency that will incorporate multiple transporation alternatives.

We also need land use and transportation planning to be linked. It is ludricrous that developers are allowed to build what the do, where they do. I don't fault the developers for that -- they are working within a terribly broken system.

Growth will continue to come. The only choice for Fairfax is to increase density, which will have to be done in logical, practical, and aesthetic ways. The problem is that our state and county systems are not set up for logic, practicality, nor aesthetics.

In the end, I think economics will play a huge part in what Fairfax ultimately looks like. During the housing boom, just like the Internet boom, all the predictions were straight up. Now the economy is cooling off, housing has become unaffordably high, many of those defense contracts are ending, and people are moving on.

On my street, directly across from the Vienna Metro there are now at least four houses for sale -- nothing has moved in the past two months -- six months ago there would have been 15 contracts in 5 minutes. Prices are being reduced daily. The Marquis condos,with almost 500 1 and 2 bedrooms, also directly across from the Metro are still not sold out after a good year on the market.

I think what Metro West ultimately ends up looking like is anyone's guess, but given the history of the area, I doubt there will ever be any commercial interest, young singles will choose Arlington over Vienna/Fairfax, families will choose to have more space in Loudoun and retires will want there million dollar condos to be somewhere else.

I just came from the Hunter Mill "visioning" workshop (more about that later), and have spent some time catching up on comments here.

I am so very glad to see here the thoughtful debate that citizens so desperately need to have. I hope that the Post after reading all these comments goes back through their notes about what those of us at the meeting really said, and focuses furture reporting on the merits of the debate -- both subtantively about how growth should proceed, and procedurally, in terms of how citizen input should be affirmatively gathered and RESPECTED!

We're looking for guest column contributors at www.FairGrowthNetwork.org. Some of the essays here would be wonderful pieces. Come to the site and email us if you want to submit an article!

I just returned from the Visioning Workshop related to the Hunter Mill Road Special Study now underway. This "public meeting" was not advertized with a public notice in any local papers read by the citizens. The only "official" notice was by e-mail to any citizen who may have attended a previous task force meeting and via a letter by Supervisor Hudgins to anyone who may have corresponded with her about the issue. Ms. Hudgins letter was postmarked 9/29 for a meeting to be held on Saturday, 10/1. I don't know if DuBois provided anything - she doesn't even mention the study on her website, although it's partially within her district. Less than adequate public notice of a public meeting.

However, in her introductory comments Ms. Hudgins "lectured" those of us citizens in the audience who did spend time getting word out to our neighbors - through signs and flyers. She indicated our flyers included misleading information and facts. I defy her to point out anything that wasn't stated at a task force meeting or provided via task force handouts. At the same time she lectured her constituents, she conveniently didn't mention a recently conducted and very biased telephone survey, presumably conducted by the developer although it was presented as a political survey. Ms. Hudgins real role however, should have been to get factual information out to her constituents so that we didn't have to take the effort upon ourselves. So far, she is failing miserably.

It does appear that the county has turned the planning process completely over to developers. As homeowners and citizens, we're left on the outside fighting an uphill battle against big money and a Board of Supervisors that has been seduced by their campaign contributions and proffers.

What happens on Hunter Mill Road will not end there. If they succeed, they will look to other parcels in the low density area bordered by Great Falls, McLean, Reston and Vienna eventually completing the infill. They are succeeding right now because they have us divided, fighting specific issues. I look at this board and people are weighing in from all over the county.

This will stop only as we join together and begin to demand change. We have state elections underway right now. Ask the candidates whether they will sponsor legislation to permit the recall of local officials. As communities and action groups, begin now to identify alternative candidates to run and support in 2007 - the next supervisor election. The only way to beat big money is with a grass roots effort.

As sad as it is, until we can replace it, we have a local government right now that we have to back-check on just about everything they do.

I'm amazed at the NIMBYism displayed by my neighbors. Yes, things change. Neighborhoods evolve. Heck, if my neighborhood hadn't evolved, I would have to check for cow patties each time I stepped off our front porch.

What most of my neighbors call "growth run out of control" I call the inevitable march of progress. We've got Metro out here -- yay for us -- but that also means we are going to have to have denser neighborhoods, otherwise there's no point in having light rail (what, so everyone has to DRIVE to light rail? How does that help??).

I'm tired of the whining and crying each time a vacant piece of land is cleared for new housing. Yes, I'd prefer to look at the pretty trees, too. I feel a little sad when they are replaced by $1.5-M houses. But hey, I've got MY 4-br house on 1/3 acre within a mile of Tysons Corner... who am I to say no one else can have one?

I understand that a few people will be paid millions and millions of dollars if the proposed development of the Bachman and Thoburn properties go to a density higher than the current plan. I would like to know if our elected officials will do anything obout that.Thank you.

To Dunn Loring Resident, how close are you to the Metro? You do have a great location and must enjoy living on 1/3 acre. Because you are located so close to Tysons Corner, does your home/land fall in the higher density circle? If the Tysons Corner Task Force expands the high density circle, maybe yours and your neighbor home and land will be eligible for higher density. No one neighborhood is safe....not even your 1/3 acre.

If the area one street over went for high density with towers, retail/commercial...but your place remained
at the same density, would you be whining and crying?

Lagersfield Resident makes a good point about the likely success of commercial space at Metro West. If it ends up being all dense residential, then we do not have "smart growth." We have a good chance in my estimation of eventually ending up with a dense island of residential units where people are stuck driving to necessary services. That is all that is there now and office space has not done swimmingly well there.

Most of the citizens who have expressed concerns about Metro West are not NIMBY types at all. I know many of them quite well. In fact, I am one of them, because I have many concerns about Metro West. Everyone I know well who is at all associated with Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth actually wants a good, successful development built at the Metro station - as is always the case, however, the devil is in the details of the plan and some of those bedevilling details have grown to be rather large. How the County handles the rezoning remains to be seen.

Thank you, Martin Tillet, for enlightening us as to the meeting this blog started over. You perception sounds different from the Post's and a heck of a lot more reasonable.

I am, like John, a tree hugger. I truly believe in transit-oriented development and think it is not just a pipe dream. I honestly think we need to rethink our development models throughout Northern Virginia. We have gridlock when people go to the hinterlands looking for affordable housing and still have to crawl back in their cars to a limited number of centers for jobs and necessities. We cannot continue to add lane after lane, paving the planet over, to move people from the places they feel forced to live to the places where they are forced to spend their waking hours working.

One thing that troubles me is that "smart growth" does not mean that you eliminate lower density housing, as some people have misinterpreted it. Let us not forget that point. Thank you to the Dunn Loring resident who raised this indirectly. "Smart growth" is not supposed to be about destroying communities - done correctly, it should enhance the experience for the existing neighbors. Actually, you still need houses with yards - you need permeable surfaces and trees for environmental reasons. Those homes on their larger, treed lots often provide an environmental benefit to others. And the market generally demands different types of housing. To me, a community where all houses are almost the same is a sad place. I like communities that offer variety and interest in housing ...and trees and grass and open space. You can have that, and a variety of densities, if you are a good planner and a good visionary. You have to think comprehensively, though, and not piecemeal. Too often, we have not done this.

I want to see citizens and their officials coming together, not pulled apart. The situation we have in Fairfax right now is not good. People are pulled apart from each other. Citizens and Supervisors, start to think about what is truly wrong here. Let us start to behave with more mutual respect.

I mentioned earlier a bit about procedural issues. No one hates endless repeated hearings that go until the wee hours more than I do. I go to them because I care about the County's future and my own little part in it. I actually enjoy hearing other viewpoints there, too.

What I would like to see from the County government is a committment to procedural change - and soon. I would like them to produce all planning and zoning documentation that will be the subject of a Board hearing not less than two weeks before holding a hearing to permit full disclosure and discussion. Enable citizen interest and involvement. I would like to have the hearing be held and comment be taken, but no more same day votes. I would ask the procedure be changed to have the Supervisors take at least an additional two weeks to consider any follow up information submitted to the record including answers to questions they may have asked of staff or the applicant, and to consider written comments submitted at the hearing itself, etc. before voting. This type of process - often with 30 day cushions at either end rather than the two weeks I am suggesting - are used in many places and at many levels of government. Also, for any MAJOR issue raised by testimony or written comments, a response would be provided in the record when action is taken. This process should not be impossible for Fairfax County to follow, since Federal agencies seem to adhere to a similar notice and hearing (administrative procedures) scheme quite well.

I realized when I came to the Wedderburn hearing that, when a Supervisor has a prepared statement to read on the same night the vote is taken, the testimony was perhaps superfluous. Or if it was not superfluous, it would seem superfluous to the testifying citizens. Part of our problem in Fairfax County seems to be in the perception of fair play and we all need to work on that together.

Reading the original post (by the Post) on this blog again, I am compelled to point out that the question it asks is premature. I honestly do not care if the Board or any member of it is vulnerable right now. This isn't an election year and we all have work to do, anyway. What I care about is what fixes the real and perceived problems we have in our County, in its processes, and in its ability to understand that citizens are most certainly very important stakeholders.

The planning session held today only gave us a chance to (visualize} a concept for the next 20 years. The questions were slanted to the fact that more density was a give fact. A vast majority of the attendies want the current comprehensive plan to be developed, with the current densities. the supervisors must be held to the wishes of the owners of the land the affected land rather than the developers. Owners of the land under study knew what the comprehensive plan was wehn they purchased the property.

I, too, spent this morning and early afternoon particpating in a county-sponsored visioning process. The county should be applauded for the idea of a visioning session, but they are to be faulted for not better defining the starting point for discussion. The seven people in my small break-out group expressed their vision for the Hunter Mill Road area, and all but one finally came around to the realization that what they want is best realized under the current comprehensive plan. The one who did not was essentailly a ringer - a representative of the developers of the 306 acres in question. The county should have allowed for two visioning scenarios - one vision if the comprehensive plan remains essentially unchanged, and another if the comprehensive plan is changed to allow greater density at the Hunter Mill Road/Dulles Toll Road interchange. By not declaring either scenario as the basis of the visioning process, they have asked people to express their dreams for their neighborhood with no guarantee that the things they current value in their neighborhood - low density, open space, a rural sense of place - will be protected. The exercise today was a charade that simply collected a citizens' wish list of desired future amenties for developers to use in bargaining for greater density, thus busting the comprehensive plan. They will promise new amenities while destroying what now makes the area unique. The county, knowingly or not, is abusing the citizens of the county by conducting a visioning process that works to the developers' advantage.

Thank you, Steve Fehr, for allowing us " little people " to have a chance to air our views.
My question to the Board of Supervisors is this:
Why are almost all your hearings on land use decisions decided unanimously? Why is there no debate as to the merits of plans put before you? I understand that it is easier to leave each district to the purview of its own Supervisor, but as a result all the land planning is being done piecemeal. Do you ever look at the cumulative effect of your decisions?
Citizens are not your enemies; we are your constituents. I believe that occasionally we citizens might even have ideas that are good for the community as a whole!

Check out Sunday's Post for a story about the Hunter Mill workshop.

Can they at least keep the Golf Park at Hunter Mill?

We can also use a grocery store in the Hunter Mill area. I'm tired of driving for miles in all kinds of weather to buy groceries. Something around the corner would be very convenient for everyone in that area. Our cars won't be clogging other neighborhood roads.

What I call "the Winery" usually move or die off.

To the Toublemaker. You must live close to the Golf Park if you want a grocery store close enough to walk to. The problem with grocery stores in the mix use development is the stores are the last part of the mix use that is built. They are often too small, too expensive, and have to be subsidized by the remaining retail owners. One time a Harris Teeter was to built at the north end of Hunter Mill Road. The store lost interest.

"The Winery" that I know don't move and your are correct some do die off. But based on the turnout at the Visioning Workshop today, there are a lot of young replacements out there who support retaining the Comprehensive Plan.

So don't hold your breathe.....they are in for the long haul.

To Steve Fehr. Have you contacted the Supervisors to get their comments ".....if they see themselves vulnerable on the issues of development?"

If you have, will their comments be shared on this blog?

Keep up the good work.

I live in Fairfax County, just outside the Vienna Town Line.

I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when reading about the new Fairfax Tourism campaign -- it asks, who doesn't think Fairfax is a great place to live. More and more, I hear people being fed up and unhappy with the traffic and congestion and the way the developers always get what they want. Why does the county continue to spend money luring business to the country when we don't have the infrastructure to support it? Supervisor Smyth's treatment of citizens at the Wedderburn hearing was disgraceful -- discrediting those against the development, praising those who were for it. No wonder more people don't get involved.

The BOS is way out of touch and I hate to think of the damage they will do in two more years.

Regarding the vulnerability question, I voted for Catherine Hudgins but now have serious doubts about her intents. Here is a letter I sent to her last week.

Dear Supervisor Hudgins,

I am writing because I am opposed to changing the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan. I would like to think that you honestly believe that changing the Comprehensive Plan might be somehow better for the County even if it is not better for the neighborhoods. I can even believe that there are times when this might be the case.

However, it does "smell" really bad when you bring in a developer who will directly increase his profits if the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan is modified to increase the housing density of the Hunter Mill area he is planning to develop. If you thought the plan was not in the best interest of the County, why didn't you hire unbiased community planning experts to evaluate the plan and make suggestions that can improve it in ways that may benefit the County? Are there no "win/win" situations possible, plans that might be good for the neighborhoods and the County simultaneously?

Even the community meeting being held on Saturday morning is only discussing changes to the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan. It seems again like the decision to change the plan has already been made. Changing a County Comprehensive Plan is a giant step... it opens the precedent to make other changes and not in a "planned" or "comprehensive" manner. It is almost never done.

So again, please let me know why you have not hired independent experts to review the Fairfax County plan if you think it needs to be modified? Why are you only considering changes to the Comprehensive Plan and not looking at the proposals that have been submitted that work within the zoning guidelines specified in the Comprehensive Plan? Why can't we find common ground with a plan that is good for both the neighborhoods and also for the County?

Being a resident of Hunter Mill Rd, my stance is obvious. I would love to keep our "Virginia Byway" a nice two lane residential road. I don't think that will happen. However, it is not the place for the new Reston Towne Center either. There is plenty of ways to have responsible growth.

If they are going to put in rail, there should be a plan for that 300 acre subdivision to get there without crowding Hunter Mill and Sunset Hills. If we are making Hunter Mill four lanes, there should be a plan for us to get out of our driveways and also to make it safe to get to the W & OD trail. Bike paths should be a part of the plan all the way down Hunter Mill (which, by the way, when the county took that 20 foot easement from all of us - it was under the impression that the trail was going in - not another lane). And that new 300 acre subdivision is going to need its own school. And the developers should have the responsibility of making that happen - as well as making some of the road improvements.

I am not against development. I'm not against affordable housing. I am against doing this irresponsibly. I'd hate to be Dave right now!

I agree that this is a County wide problem. It's not just the Vienna/Tysons area.

Here in the Braddock district - there doesn't appear to be any solution for congestion here except to widen the roads. And how many churches and schools do we need on Braddock Road? There are so many places of workship beyond 123- and ultimately they may want to build schools on the large tracks of land - where is the planning? And GMU has plans for expansion and keeps growing. As an example, onne large property on Braddock was turned into a school and parents actually line up on Braddock Rd, taking a lane out of commission, to wait to get in and pick up there kids. Couldn't they build a turn lane or a parking lot as a condition of getting permission to establish a school on this site?

I agree that a Washington Post review of zoning change proposals over the last 5 or 10 years - would really be beneficial and help get to the facts.

As for the McMansion issue, I think the problem is not only Fairfax County's weak zoning laws but their inability to even enforce the weak laws they have. It would be much better if Fairfax would adopt zoning rules such as those in some of the beautiful old northern NJ bedroom communities - where houses cannot exceed a certain "volume" or liveable square footage - and a certain percentage (sometimes 30 or more?) of the entire lot must be left "green" - that is free of sidewalks,sheds, driveways, etc.

I am hopeful that if we band together we can get the supervisors to listen to the home owners and help keep Fairfax county communities intact. At least we can make our voices heard at the polls the next time there is an opportunity.

As one of the citizens who met with the Washington Post on Thursday, I want to thank the Metro editors and reporter for hosting that meeting and for posting this blog.

I'm greatly heartened by the responses so far, but I'd like to see the Post's original question broadened. Whether the supervisors are listening to the community on growth issues is significant, but there's an equally important question: In carrying out what seems to be an undeclared vision of urbanizing Fairfax County, do the supervisors and developers have a credible plan for this county's future?

Even people who favor urban growth should want to know if we are adequately upgrading our roads, schools and parks. The county executive wrote last year that our sewer system can't handle expanded development, so we even have to worry about that. Wondering where poorly planned development will leave Fairfax County is not NIMBYism; it's planning responsibly for the future.

Every time one of us is stuck in traffic, we are living with bad decisions from the past. Development was approved, but the real need for roads, schools, etc., was underestimated. Once the people came, it was too late to fix things after the fact. The time to ask hard questions is now. As developers seek to tear down old neighborhoods and increase the housing levels by 20, to 30, to 40 times, we need, and deserve, real answers on what the impact will be.

At an April 19 town hall meeting sponsored by numerous community groups, a questionnaire posed several questions that I hope people on all sides of the growth debate will pause and consider: 1) Do you agree that the county has a clear and workable plan for handling long-term increases in population and traffic? 2) Do you agree that the county does a reasonable job of integrating land use planning with other planning, such as schools and transportation? 3) Do you agree that, in land use planning, the county gives equal weight to average citizens and developers? 4) Do you agree that the county is doing enough to preserve public green space?

On that particular night, the vast majority of respondents--80 to 90%--gave the county poor marks, even those who favor many of the urban development proposals. I would like to hear what others have to say, especially if you generally favor the new development schemes. Do you feel the county is planning responsibly for our future? Have they asked the questions that need to be asked, and insisted on solutions to keep Fairfax functional?

In closing, I want to say I think this debate is very important, and people on both sides deserve respect for their views. History does offer examples where the naysayers were wrong. When I was growing up in San Francisco, people violently opposed the pyramid-topped TransAmerica building. They were wrong; it became an instant classic in the city's landscape. At the same time, certainly, not all development is good. In the years before the New Orleans floods, environmentalists warned that developing the wetlands at the edge of the Gulf would eliminate a buffer against major storms. No doubt they were ridiculed as NIMBYs and tree-huggers. But would anyone look at the remaining splinters on the ground and call that good development now?

The point is, we all have a right, and duty, to seek the best for Fairfax County--while there is time to make wise decisions. Developers can't plan our future for us, and even supervisors can't plan in the absence of a vital dialogue with their voters. So even as citizens disagree, I hope will we all hear each other, and respond thoughtfully, with real answers and not just derogatory labels. We all will share the future we create.

Charles Hall
Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth

Thank you, Charles.

When I read the original post from the editor (that starts off the blog), I did not picture reasonable, articulate men like you and Martin among the attendees. I am starting to get a better picture. I actually did not know who the attendees of that meeting were, so it is helpful to hear from you all one at a time as you post and to piece together a picture. Your posts here are enlightening. Your message is a vital one that should bring people together.

Far from using your posts to "vent [your] frustration" (to borrow the editor's words at the top of the page), you and Martin are being extremely forward thinking. You are thinking comprehensively about - what was it called again? - "the C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-V-E plan!" ;-)

And you are considering HOW to get input from all citizens - and not just the ones who share your vision. I hope everyone - fellow citizens of various views, Supervisors, planning commissioners, developers, journalists - is listening to what you are saying here in your own, very eloquent and very rational, words.

Bravo, Charles! "We all share the future we create." You have hit the nail right on the head in that one sentence. This is what Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth is really all about.

Try Cathy Hudgins on-line constituent feedback form at http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/huntermill/
I didn't get a response there, or from my letters, but it may work for others.
Other district supervisors may have similar feedback mechanisms.

The vast majority of my neighbors think that the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors cater to their developer friends.

The prevalent feeling is that their priorities revolve around campaign contributors, especially to Gerry Connolly since he seems to have the other Supervisors under his thumb.

I live in Providence District which extends from Tyson's Corner in the north to Little River Turnpike in the south. It spans from Fair Oaks in the west all the way to Seven Corners in the east.

I was flaberagsted during the last election when then candidate (and now Supervisor) Linda Smyth campaigned on a platform of status quo. Her mailings showed three former generations of Providence Supervisors who supported her (Jim Scott, Kate Hanley, and Gerald Connolly.)

And a large majority of people actua