Steve:

Already there is a lively debate going on in the citizen community about exactly what this means. I believe there will be a coordinated community response before too long, but meanwhile I find a couple things particularly interesting.

First, I am glad that the very large writing that citizens put up on the wall has finally been read. Green belts like the Hunter Mill Study Area are part of what citizens view as a "planning pact" made to them years ago. Our leaders need to respect that. I am concerned, however, that Chairman Connolly's carefully worded statements leave open the possibility -- nay the almost certainty - of an "out of turn" APR Nomination for less-intense-but-still-increased density, and the community will be put right back through this same exercise in 2006.

Second, I think it does the community a disservice to say that we "went crazy" or refused to "engage in discussion." The public was passionate that its side of the discussion required saying "no" -- that is NOT refusing to engage; that is exercising our right of free speech to engage at length to get a single message across.

Third, we REALLY need to engage in comprehensive regional planning and not "spot-planning" development by dense development. As part of that, we need the County to commit to a new objective review of BRT, and to include watershed and Ches Bay Protection Act issues (remember this memo: http://www.fairgrowthnetwork.org/Portals/3/Ches_Bay_Regs_limits_memo_BOS_9-17-0412.pdf in connection with its plan. We also need to have non-motorized transportation be affirmatively emphasized and integrated, especially in the most dense areas (think Segways and other new technology on the horizon -- see www.toyota.co.jp/en/news/04/1203_1e.html and www.envbike.com)

Fourth, we need a commitment from the BOS that the right of the public to be heard and to hold the BOS accountable not be abrogated by an increasing delegation of critical planning issues to administrative agencies that decide matters upon developer application w/o a public hearing or BOS vote. Growth and planning decisions that will have significant traffic impacts, abut or otherwise significantly affect public parks and lands, or implicate significant waterhed concerns should be automatically placed on a track that guarantees the right of the public to be heard.

In this vein, I think it is critical that the BOS NOT rule on the night of a public hearing, reciting pre-prepared remarks. Like all federal and state agencies, they should respond IN WRITING to citizen testimony before voting. I also think the Supervisors should have a "buddy system" for all significant development proposals -- a second Supervisor assigned to be responsive to citizens and responsible for a recommendation. This will mitigate somewhat the balkanization of the Board where they all automatically defer to the Supervisor from the district where a project is. It would be a START in trying to make them ALL accountable for these decisions.

Hopefully this topic will launch a lot of interesting ideas and debate!

There are several takeaways from this failed proposal.

First, the business community, by-and-large, stayed out of this. The Greater Reston Chamber and Fairfax County Chamber were nowhere to be found. I think the reason for that is this does not fit into their mold of high-density development around transit. This plan was too far from the nearest planned Metro station to work. This is different from Metro West and Tyson's Corner.

Second, while I personally think this development was a bad idea, watching the Task Force in action has been a remarkable sight. They heard from the public and from experts, yet they only cite the public comments when justifying their decisions. First, public comments at hearings are not representative samples. Second, the Task Force has a job. The BOS could have held a referendum if it wished to know public sentiment. In short, I believe the Task Force is punting on the issue of development. If their rationale includes the green belt, traffic etc than that is fine. However, that would not have been impacted by changing residential density to 1 du/ac. That proposal went down by a vote of 4 - 14 last night. That is irresponsible.

Lastly, there was never strong political will to make this happen. The citizens groups did an excellent job of getting their message out there and being unified and quick. They had no opposition and won easily. They deserve the credit.

We should all be happy about the way this appears to be heading. My lone criticism is of the Task Force and their apparent ducking of responsibility. We will see if the results are the same when the business community is engaged.

For what it's worth, one of the Chamber's blogs has two postings about what this means. Their site is www.policysoup.blogspot.com. Two stories on Hunter Mill and comments on what it means to businesses.

There are several takeaways from this failed proposal.

First, the business community, by-and-large, stayed out of this. The Greater Reston Chamber and Fairfax County Chamber were nowhere to be found. I think the reason for that is this does not fit into their mold of high-density development around transit. This plan was too far from the nearest planned Metro station to work. This is different from Metro West and Tyson's Corner.

Second, while I personally think this development was a bad idea, watching the Task Force in action has been a remarkable sight. They heard from the public and from experts, yet they only cite the public comments when justifying their decisions. First, public comments at hearings are not representative samples. Second, the Task Force has a job. The BOS could have held a referendum if it wished to know public sentiment. In short, I believe the Task Force is punting on the issue of development. If their rationale includes the green belt, traffic etc than that is fine. However, that would not have been impacted by changing residential density to 1 du/ac. That proposal went down by a vote of 4 - 14 last night. That is irresponsible.

Lastly, there was never strong political will to make this happen. The citizens groups did an excellent job of getting their message out there and being unified and quick. They had no opposition and won easily. They deserve the credit.

We should all be happy about the way this appears to be heading. My lone criticism is of the Task Force and their apparent ducking of responsibility. We will see if the results are the same when the business community is engaged.

For what it's worth, one of the Chamber's blogs has two postings about what this means. Their site is www.policysoup.blogspot.com. Two stories on Hunter Mill and comments on what it means to businesses.

Plan Smart: I think your criticism of the Task Force above is unwarranted.

First, this IS the citizens' own community. "Experts" from outside and with a FINANCIAL interest in increased density do not take precedence over unified citizen consensus. The BOS represents the citizens, not developers or their outside experts. The Task Force was charged by the BOS with exploring the public interest and I think has been correct in giving great weight to the final CirclePoint report showing how unified citzens are in not wanting a density change.

Second, I'm not entirely sure what "experts" you are referring to here. I've been to all but a few of the meetings, and I heard County staff speak about infrastructure and environmental impacts, and the developers and a local Home Owners Association also made presentations, as did CirclePoint, retained at a public cost of $29K to collect citizen input, but I don't remember any "experts" on urban planning speaking.

Finally, I think there was a HUGE political will to make this happen. WCI paid about TWICE market value for this property based on "an understanding" as reported in the Post (but still very mysterious) that there would be an increase in density. I think Supervisor DuBois and Hudgins have given very clear signals from the very beginning that they expected some compromise that would increase density here. They just did not contemplate that the cross-county movement now developing in Fairfax (see http://www.FairGrowthNetwork.org ) would make this more than just a local issue. And the developers got too complacent and screwed up with those ads. Oh yes, and citizens submitted FOIA requests....

Deborah: I agree with you that this is a citizens' community and the voice of citizens is important.

What I worry about is NIMBYism that leads to nothing getting done. Coalitions are built and communities support each other to prevent development, but the people have to live somewhere. Ultimately, they find a place that is less than ideal and it leads to long commutes, clogged roads and more interstates. None of which I want.

We have lacked leadership from our elected officials for years. It is always difficult for them to stand in a room and listen to 100 citizens who are against something, but too often they ignore the million citizens outside that room who are a silent majority.

Again, this project was not the right place for high-density development. My criticism of the Task Force stands however. Their job is not to take a public opinion survey, but to make an informed decision.

How you come to a conclusion can be just as important as the decision you make.

Plan Smart: We do agree that process is critical, but that is all.

What you are saying is that if citizens in existing stable communities don't cave to the prediction of millions moving here, and agree to increase densities in green belts long promised as a buffer between urbanized areas, that that is "NIMBYism". I most strongly disagree. There is no moral imperative to pack people in at the expense of infrastructure, environment, and quality of life, simply because our officials have been spending millions of taxpayer dollars for years now to lure yet more people here. Those who say "hey" think about what is going on, look at the big picture, honor community compacts in the Comprehensive Plan" are not just "nay-sayers." There is no "silent majority" of citizens in Fairfax who want spot-planning for dense development after dense development without regional infra-structure building.

And I also disagree with you that the Task Force is supposed to be some blue-ribbon commission that can paternalistically decide what is best for the community even if the community is too "blind" to see it. That was not their assigned task, and they have no expertise to do that and were not given access to any experts qualified to advise them in that fashion. They are just citizens asked to research options and make a recommendation and are struggling to do just that.

What WAS really unfair about the Task Force process, however, is that the members were unilaterally selected by Supervisors who clearly had an agenda (and and "understanding" with developers) that there would be at least some density increase, and their tornado-speed schedule was set for them by County staff who steered them, spoon-fed them and "data dumped" them.

Now they are in a tough spot not of their own making, and trying to do right by their mandate and the community.

I think our officials and the public can both learn a lot from what happened here, but simply criticizing the Task Force for recognizing the tsunami of unified public opinion (the vocal majority) is not going to lead us to those important lessons.

Plan Smart,
You have made several assumptions and statements that I consider unfair and untrue.

Perhaps you have never served on an APR task force in Fairfax County. Citizens try to make the best decisions they can with the information they are given. To assume that the citizens on the Hunter Mill Task Force didn't do their job because you disagree with the result is unfair. I don't live anywhere near there, but I think the Task Force did the right thing. None of the information they were given convinced them that a "compromise" was the right thing to do. We don't need another high-density town center development between Reston and Tysons. What we do need in Fairfax County is preservation of our low-density green spaces and protection of our neighborhoods (the latter done quite well in Arlington).

There was nothing "irresponsible" about denying R-1 on the land at issue. Although I might have allowed R-1 on the toll road border, I wouldn't accuse a group of being irresponsible for ruling out that change. They don't owe the landowners a "bone."

"The business community stayed out of this" is hilarious. Do you not think that land use attorneys, developers, architects and their relatives, etc. are part of the business community? Just because the Chamber didn't take a formal position doesn't mean that they stayed out! They may have been lobbying pro or con in the background--often their M.O.

There was strong political will to "make this happen." Hudgins and DuBois strongly underestimated their constituents and hung themselves out to dry by taking these applications out of the normal APR process. They wouldn't have started the Task Force, padded with some development-friendly interests, if they hadn't thought they would succeed in a "compromise" increase in density. I suspect at least one of them will pay at the next election for misreading her constituents.

Finally, this outcome means nothing "for business" and everything for good business. Fairfax County is and continues to be a business-friendly environment. Developments in the right places (and many in the wrong places) will continue to be approved. Don't read too much into this.

One thing we can agree on...smart planning. The proposed Hunter Mill developments were not smart planning. Furthermore, no developer should bet the farm on high-density development on low-density land miles from public transit. That was bad business and bad planning.

Hunter Mill is a bad example because it was so far away from mass transit and the developers were shady. It's easy and almost natural for people who already live in Fairfax to not want it to change. With that being said, new residents must live somewhere. If growth stops sprawl continues further out and traffic becomes even worse for many more people.

What we've learned is that voters will be heard; and that forcing Metro West down resident's throats is resulting in a healthy gag reflex.

The county tried to stifle voters with Metro West at Vienna. The handpicked workgroup was closed and exlcusive. The data provided was - and remains - incomplete and contradictory. The developer refused to compromise, and the county sided with them and against the people they were supposed to represent.

Density at transit makes sense, but only if the community is involved, the data is reliable, and it's pedestrian-friendly... Metro West fails on these counts and more.

The result was Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth (FairGrowth.org) and the banding together of many groups countywide to form the FairGrowth Network (FairGrowthNetwork.org).

Neither FairGrowth nor the FairGrowth Network would have formed if there had been any semblance of three factors: compromise, facts, and meaningful public participation. Just one of them would have been enough to keep citizens from gelling together.

Compromise.
Facts.
Public Participation.

These should not be bad words in Fairfax. Too bad our leaders disagree.

Deborah and Observer: We can sit and argue all night, and I suspect we will disagree for a while on this blog. I look forward to a healthy debate with two very informed, very articulate people.

I would disagree with an opposition to the presumption that population and job growth will continue in Fairfax County. I have yet to see a reputable study that contradicts those conclusions. I also think the increases have little to do with the relatively small amount of money the county spends on the EDA and its marketing of the county.

We all agree Hunter Mill was a bad plan and for the most part, we agree with the result. I just do not want this to be a trend. The Task Force got caught up in the APR nomination too early and almost folded twice without taking a meaningful look at alterations such as affordable housing. The reason that happened was public pressure. That is a bad precedent.

Well, if the very first time that the County backed down on an ill-advised dense development plan opposed by citizens who finally got organized, educated, and worked together is a "bad precedent" I'll have more of the same.

Plan Smart,

The comprehensive plan for particular areas is not the right place to "designate" or discuss affordable housing. Affordable housing is "ruled" by Virginia Code and the Zoning Ordinance. No plan language can change laws.

All those task force folks discussing things that do not belong in the plan--like proffers for interchanges--are whistling in the dark.

Ms. Rehyer...I take issue with many aspects of this statement:

What WAS really unfair about the Task Force process, however, is that the members were unilaterally selected by Supervisors who clearly had an agenda (and and "understanding" with developers) that there would be at least some density increase, and their tornado-speed schedule was set for them by County staff who steered them, spoon-fed them and "data dumped" them.

-- Are all task force members supposed to be voted on by citizens? No, that's what we have supervisors for. Democracy is not pure on any level in any county in any state in any country. There are appointments and if you truly believe there was some wild conspiracy, then how come this task force is about to rule for no change? If its members were in bed with the BOS, then wouldn't there be a different outcome and they would have ignored the true public feelings? Your statement degrades the task force.

-- "Clearly" had an agenda means what? Where's the proof that there was a BOS conspiracy with this property beyond one lousy quote? All along, I think you have failed to see that this process was better than the alternative...the regular, ho-hum, quiet APR process that would have been over by now. Your statement degrades the level of attention given to this property through existing planning channels (and yes, those could be improved)

-- County staff did not steer and data dump...18 different task force members all had ideas for data and it was provided to them. They wanted it and it seems like they got what they wanted. This was the task force's work. Their agenda. And that's how task forces are supposed to work. Your statement degrades county staff and implies something sinister about their work.

We're all passionate about this and while I've agreed with you in many cases, you've got to be more careful with what you're saying and give credit where credit is due and criticize when criticism is warranted.

Hunter Mill Resident:

I have never been in "attack mode" on these blogs, and ask you not to take that tactic.

You say: "if you truly believe there was some wild conspiracy, then how come this task force is about to rule for no change? If its members were in bed with the BOS, then wouldn't there be a different outcome and they would have ignored the true public feelings"

I have NEVER suggested that there was any "wild conspiracy", and my statement actually praised the TF, and did not accuse them of being "in bed" with the BOS OR developers. I actually try to blunt prior criticism of the TF on this blog. Please re-read my comment.

I post under my own name here (which I note you do not) because I am not afraid to own my comments and opinions.

What I do know, because I saw Feliza Kepler's presentation for Equestrian Park, is that EqP was not given any notice of being included in the Study Area and was not given a representative on the TF (at least initially -- I am not sure if they managed to get representation eventually). But there is one Task Force representative who is actually from Sully District, not even from the Study Area environs.

Also, Hunter Mill Defense League was not allowed to participate in the focus groups convened by CirclePoint. And some task force members affirmatively resisted public input and tried to "hush" public comments when they were finally allowed (yes, this happened to me). And I actually heard, with my own ears, county staff referring to one particular TF meeting as a "data dump" because they had loaded so much into the schedule. I do not fault the staff; they are doing their jobs and I actually have a lot of respect for them, but their management made the rules and they had to follow through.

And the evidence of some sort of "understanding" predates DeMarco's admission of this, as it is staring anyone in the face who looks at the sales documents and then looks at comps for development under current planning.

And more attenuated evidence can be found in all the chastising of citizens that Supervisors DuBois and Hudgins did, accusing them of being "unwilling to have a discussion" when that was really code for "unwilling to compromise and change the Plan."

And there is of course the "background evidence" here of $228,000 in campaign contributions to our BOS from developers. I am not making accusations of graft, but we know from all spheres of politics that money buys access and access allows opportunities to persuade that others do not have.

So, yes, I do think that the process of appointing Task Forces to study options for incresing density -- whether at Hunter Mill or at Tysons or anywhere else -- is a deeply flawed mechanism that invites bias and/or the perception of bias. The process is bad, that is all I have said and I still maintain that opinion.

Did anyone notice the second article in today's Post that addressed land use and growth in Fairfax County? That story indicated that the metro region will be short some 92,000 needed homes over the next 25 years - homes that will be required to support the 1.6 million new jobs that are expected. Gerry Connolly was quoted in that article, too, saying "This is not a trivial matter[.] If we insist on doing things the way we've been doing them, we're going to force more growth into the outer suburbs."

This quote seems to contradict his comments on the Hunter Mill issue. Isn't the retention of the so-called "greenbelt" equivalent to "doing things the same way we've been doing them?" Does not the same go for opposition to increased density at Vienna?

The point Connolly was trying to make, I think, is that Fairfax County is going to have to rethink the decisions it has made in the past if it is going to accommodate the new residents that are predicted to arrive in the coming years. For years, national planning experts have mocked Fairfax County for its poor land use planning at Metro stations, yet when county officials try to do the right thing, a group mobilizes claiming that the County and the developer are engaged in poor planning.

Part of that analysis, surely, must also include whether it makes sense to let a 250-acre, largely-undeveloped land mass along the Toll Road develop with 125 houses on two acres and costing over $1.5 million each, or should the County allow that large land area to permit housing for more than 125 rich families? I don't mean to suggest that what the developers at Hunter Mill proposed should be approved. Lord knows introducing a proposal for high-rise buildings in that area was sure to stir opposition. But one cannot have it both ways - hate both density and sprawl equally.

Dear Irony, You must understand...there is no stopping sprawl. It will continue no matter what we do. If TOD really stopped sprawl, Arlington would have solved our problems years ago.

Remember, builders are always "chasing ground," and nothing we do will stop that. I am resigned to sprawl. I'd rather see what's called "sprawl" than have peoples' neighborhoods ruined. Will there be transportation problems as a result? Yes. That's why Tim Kaine's proposals make sense to me.

What doesn't make sense to me is the argument that somehow rich people don't deserve their low-density neighborhoods. Since when did we become the People's Republic of Fairfax? Rich folks pay more than their share of taxes. Let's stop bashing them, or talking about low-density neighborhoods as prime targets for anything developers and politicians want. Forcing someone's idea of good planning and urban growth on them reminds me of China.

In this case, "the people have spoken." The Task Force should produce a very short report and call it a day.

Let's stop bashing anyone. We are all in it together: residents, taxpayers, citizens by whatever name; public officials at all levels, staff or elected; business persons, including the odious developers who build the beautiful houses we all want to live in, and the downtrodden who pine for an ADU.
Can Irony, or anyone else, explain why it is that there is not more density going in at Wiehle Avenue, where the people can walk to the train, rather than at Hunter Mill, where they won't?

There is a fundamental misunderstanding afoot that economic growth and population growth are the same thing.

This is clearly not the case. The emerging economy will be dominated by skills not numbers - we need a better, more agile, more highly trained workforce - not just a bigger one.

The growth estimates completly ignore
- the role of IT in changing where value added work gets done
(read tom friedman or just visit bangalore)
- the over-dependence of the area on government contracting and lobbying
- the growth of new loci of value creation in the global economy - life sciences, health, design, ultra-flexible manufacturing - all of which fairfax has failed to grasp

If we pave over every piece of woodland and poison every stream all of the individuals who act as the seeds for substantial job creation will just up and off to somewhere where the quality of life is better, the access to capital, global markets and information networks just as good.

If fairfax becomes another unplanned, sprawled LA then all of the value creation will leave. All that will be left will be people, concrete, tarmac and debt.

Quality of life matters - both to people and to economies. We will only retain the best people while we remain one of the best places to live.

Its not about rich or poor - its about economically sustainable rates and levels of growth.

I personally have no faith in figures for 25 years out - the errors in the assumptions at that distance (2-4 economic cycles, 3-5 technology cycles, 2-3 housing boom-bust cycles and a few wars) are just too geat

If you drill into the latest cog figures it becomes quite clear:

1. the ratio of jobs/houses remains stable for the forseeable future (and has been stable for at least the last decade)
2. the fairfax comprehensive plan provides adequate capacity for growth
3. fairfax manages this as well or better than its neighboring juristiction

so:
- Stick to the comprehensive plan
- Remove the exemption on ADUs from condo towers
- Ensure that local residents are at the core of land use
- Retain and enhance quality of life

the 'the masses are coming quick build over everything' mantra is a recipe for social and economic disaster

From what I have heard, part of the reason there are no proposals to build residential next to the Weihle Avenue station is that there are covenants that prohibit it. I'm not sure when or why the covenants were put in place, but they are there nonetheless. As a result, even if the County zoning allows it and developers want to build it, it can't happen so long as the covenants remain in place.

Even if this were not the case, I think the whole notion that residential at Wiehle (or any other transit station) is a panacea for all that troubles Fairfax or the Hunter Mill corridor is bunk. It's a convenient excuse to maintain the snob zoning that's in place in certain parts of the County. The irony of it is that, from what I read here and other places, the Vienna crowd and the Hunter Mill crowd have banded together to fight city hall (i.e., FairGrowth) while separately promoting seemingly opposing agendas. Vienna wants to keep density away from a rail station while Hunter Mill wants to concentrate development at a rail station. They are fighting hard for opposite outcomes; density at Vienna is bad while density at Wiehle is good. The common theme seems to be a disdain for change.

As for whether the forecasts of population growth are accurate or inflated, it's instructive to look back 25-40 years to the predictions made in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s about what Fairfax County would look like in 2005. The forecasters got it pretty right. They even planned for a transportation network to support the population; problem was, our elected leaders chickened out and never built the infrastructure to support the growth. Now, we all suffer the consequences; the people came but the roads did not.

No one that I know of wants to "keep density away from a rail station" in Vienna, they just want to make sure that they don't just get dense residential packing in the name of Smart Growth, without even the traffic studies needed to evaluate the impacts or funding for the new parks and schools that will be needed.

The MetroWest developers plan not to save even a single tree. Not one. There are no traffic studies, and no plans for any recreational facilities or new schools. Commercial development may not even occur, as the residences will be build first, with commercial building to come only later if a tenant can be secured.

Give us real TOD at Metro stations, whether at Vienna, Wiehle, Dunn Loring or elsewhere. But don't expect us to swallow a get-rich quick plan for developers in the name of Smart Growth when the only thing smart is using that label as a means to line developer pockets.

irony

with respect, I think you may be missing some vital elements and deeply resent the unjustifiable term 'snob zoning'

the 'vienna crowd' supported density in line with the comprehensive plan- agreed to a certain level and thought they had a 'contract' but were out manouvered with a doubling of density - they feel that they were stitched up and will not deal again for a decade

the 'hunter mill crowd' suppprt density in line with the comprhensive plan - the reston-herndon corridor, just up the road, will deliver 2-3 metro stations and 12000 TOD homes (by county statements at the task force) which will empty along the same roads and hence 750-1500 ADU's

These are not opposing agendas

TOD can benefit communities around metro if they are a serious element in deciding final mix - rather than it being driven solely by developer margins and tax base. However, they need to be part of that debate, site by site, unit by unit - they live there.

Similarly, some suburban neighorhoods gain benefit from evolution - but not all benefit at the same time or in the same ways

it is also clear that world class cities have made irrevocable decisions to protect and enhance aspects of their quality of life in their cores and suburban areas - for example Paris, London, Munich etc

The key issue is that to support a vibrant range of housing options and protection of established communities - TOD density, established neighborhoods and greenbelt buffers are all required and are compatible

unlike irony, I don't see a lack of roads - I see a lack of centers and communities. London, as an example, is a metropolis of villages with centers and souls surrounded by lower density communities at the micro and macro levels

irony

with respect, I think you may be missing some vital elements and deeply resent the unjustifiable term 'snob zoning'

the 'vienna crowd' supported density in line with the comprehensive plan- agreed to a certain level and thought they had a 'contract' but were out manouvered with a doubling of density - they feel that they were stitched up and will not deal again for a decade

the 'hunter mill crowd' suppprt density in line with the comprhensive plan - the reston-herndon corridor, just up the road, will deliver 2-3 metro stations and 12000 TOD homes (by county statements at the task force) which will empty along the same roads and also 750-1500 ADU's

These are not opposing agendas

TOD can benefit communities around metro if they are a serious element in deciding final mix - rather than it being driven solely by developer margins and tax base. However, they need to be part of that debate, site by site, unit by unit - they live there.

Similarly, some suburban neighorhoods gain benefit from evolution - but not all benefit at the same time or in the same ways

it is also clear that world class cities have made irrevocable decisions to protect and enhance aspects of their quality of life in their cores and suburban areas - for example Paris, London, Munich etc

The key issue is that to support a vibrant range of housing options and protection of established communities - TOD density, established neighborhoods and greenbelt buffers are all required and are compatible

unlike irony, I don't see a lack of roads - I see a lack of centers and communities. London, as an example, is a metropolis of villages with centers and souls surrounded by lower density communities at the micro and macro levels

After the Lessard scam, I wondered how low some of the individuals and organisations pushing sprawl at hunter mill road would go

I guess we're now starting to see...

accusing an active member of the community, who has given up a sizable chunk of her time to support her neighhors, of racism is just stunning.

Anyone who has met her at planning events or elsewhere knows what laughable sleaze an accusation of racism is.

The post aims to attack a whole slice of the county between reston and tysons - I'll just check with my south asian neighbor whether he thinks he's part of a white belt

'what do you know' should skulk back under the stone they emerged from

This confirms everything we always thought about this proposal and its advocates

Side 1 Current Fairfax County Residents:
We live here. we like the comprehensive plan. We moved here because we liked the area the relative low density. We don't want more traffic, overcrowding of schools, environmental damage. We like things the way they are. Fairfax County is Suburbia not urban

Side 2 Future Fairfax County Residents:
We want to live here. This is where the jobs are. This is where the great schools are. We don't want a 1.5 hour plus commute. There aren't enough places to live in Fairfax which drives the price of the average house up. So, for alot of us we have to move to Loudon or Prince William which creates more traffic problems during rush hour. We are willing to take mass transit, but jobs are located throughout the region and many are not close to mass transit. We shouldn't have to pay extra fess to move into Fairfax County. We are just trying to live the American Dream just like Side 1 did 5,10,20,30 years ago.

Bottom line next 25 years population and job growth will continue to increase faster than housing availability. Development needs to occur somewhere. Preferably near existing inferstructure. This is not a blank check for development. Developers need to work with the community and government. However, the community needs to understand growth needs to occur. Otherwise, rush hour will go from stop and go to true gridlock.

Side 2, a nebulous group of future residents, much like the hoped-for viewers of the King Kong blockbuster, can't win "their dream" on the backs of citizens who scrimped and saved to buy homes and who support this area on their backs with their tax dollars and commitments to the existing community.

Yes, absolutely we have to plan well for the future, and use REAL TOD to avoid as much spawl as we can, but I say again, there is no moral imperative to TAKE AWAY the dream from existing citizens. It would be like making them host late-comers to the theatre in their laps after waiting long hours and paying top dollar for their seats in front.

Creativity will be required, and newcomers WILL have to pay more fees to move here -- as it stands infrastructure development is being funded by citizens, NOT developers.
No solution will be perfect, but insisting that the green belts must go and that those who long ago paid for their seats must skooch over to make room for a seat-buddy is not the right answer.

No Easy Answers: You make a good argument about putting development near existing infrastructure. However, the problem is that Fairfax County's infrastructure is already overtaxed. Our roads, public transit, water treatment plants, parks, schools, etc. are already overused. More important, our public officials in their ongoing efforts to kowtow to developers have refused to extract the necessary level of cash proffers to fund the costs of adding to that infrastructure. In the past, both Jack Herrity (R) and Audrey Moore (D) demanded and collected significant cash to build at least some public facilities. Our current BOS chairman, Gerry Connolly, seems more interested in collecting cash for a future run for Congress than he is in funding infrastructure.

At the very same time, the average citizen (who may well have a healthy income, regardless of race, ethnic background or gender) is getting tired of paying double-digit tax increases annually only to see no improvement in facilities.

All of this growth is great for the rest of Virginia. We pour billions into Richmond to fund new schools, better roads, and low property taxes. What do we get in return? Nothing, but higher taxes.

While many people benefit from more growth, many others do not. That's why they rejected Mark Warner's sales tax increase, even as they voted for him as Governor just one year earlier. That's why Tim Kaine won so big in northern VA. He was the first politician to say: "This is crazy. We cannot allow more growth where the infrastructure cannot support it."

What does this mean? It might mean that some businesses do not move to northern Virginia or that some move away. That would hurt some people, but certainly not a majority. Alternatively, it might mean that our elected officials, developers and growth advocates acknowledge that development, be it sprawl or smart growth, simply does not pay its own way and create a large burden on many and then sit down with the other side to devise a new set of rules that makes development pay for itself and permits growth when and where it does.

If I sold my home today, I could not buy it back. If I sold my home today I could not use the funds to buy where I would like to live....in one of the restored houses in DC. That is reality.

Twenty five years ago my husband said young people will not be able to afford a new home in this area unless they had a big dollar job or some cash from relatives. I thought he was crazy. Well, this has happened.

Take a look at Sunday's real estate ads...lofts in Tysons $500,000 plus; 2 bedroom condo in Merrifield $450,000 with attached fees; condos in Reston starting at $900,000. But guess what, I bet we could do a review of the applications and find references to "make the density as high as possible so we can put in some ""real affordable"" housing.

What is happening now is a numbers game being played out in the growth and development arena.....developer put in as much density as possible and we will worry about the gridlock later, kids going to class in trailers, no parks for recreation ....and the list goes on.

When will citizens wake up and come out of the woodwork like the citizens in Hunter Mill and say "no more." Trust me, this proposal for 2000 plus housing and 20,000 additional vehicle trips on Hunter Mill and neighboring roads is not dead. Especially when words such as "probably," and "not at this time" are used.

What is the answer....join the new organization called Fairgrowth....
Access the website: www.fairgrowthnetwork.com

Until citizens come out, link hands, and smother the unmanaged growth and stop the further destruction of the few viable neighborhood resources (roads, parks, schools), we will continue to be led down the developer's golden brick road.

What I found outrageous from this whole experience is the attitude of our elected officials. As a citizen of a free country, I have every right to express my opinion, and I have every right to not have the views of the Supervisors forced down my throat. So the accusations by Supervisor Connolly that I "didn't want to listen" is wrong; I listened -VERY CAREFULLY- to the proposals (as I have to every proposal since I've lived here) and this one was without merit, either for me as a current resident nor for the community at large. The broad-based scolding from Supervisor Hudgins similarly was insulting. Sure, in a large group of people you're likely to get some bad behavior. But all of the citizens who attended did so not because they had financial gain, but because this is important to them as citizens. I was proud of the participation in this democracy by my neighbors.

The simple fact of the matter is that the community fully mobilized in opposition to the development proposal, and it's clear that the Supervisors don't like it. Between the two task force meetings, roughly -500- people showed up, most (but not all) opposed to the proposal. That's a LOT of busy people giving up their free time (and we've seen the studies on the decrease of free time in this society; I can attest to that in my own job.)

I'd hope that the County Supervisors (who didn't show up for some of the meetings) and the State legislators (many of whom were similarly AWOL) take to hear the substantial distrust expressed by the community on the process. Now I hope that distrust on this issue turns into more attention paid to elections of those officials.

I have not been, and am not now, opposed to development in the Hunter Mill area. I am now, as I have been, opposed to development that is out of character with the area. If the developers had proposed a change from 2 acre to 1 acre, I certainly could have supported that. A change to maybe 1/2 acre, if well presented and well throught through, might have garnered my support. But not a change to 16/acre, and certainly not one accompanied by Politically Correct pius mouthings about 'affordable housing'.

Oh, and the first house I owned was in a townhouse complex built by Hovnanian (Freehold, NJ). So I don't have particularly negative feelings about Hovnanian as a developer (but recent news stories do have me very concerned about the direction of that company.)

What I want to see is an end to all this. In 8 years, there have been 3 (or maybe even 4) separate review cycles for proposals that do substantial damage to the Comprehensive Plan. What I want to see (and what I specifically told my state Legislators, although they blew me off) is some state legislation that would place limits on the the number of proposals and the number of meetings that I have to attend on my own time (with -no- secret bonus payable for a specific result) to participate in my local government's decisionmaking. Due to work travel, I've missed all of the Task Force meetings, but I made the two big Visioning [sic] Workshops and at least one other meeting. That's a major investment of my time (and I sure wish someone would pay me for it...)

Enough is enough! Let's put this issue to rest, once and for all!

dave

On the notion of "Live where you Work", that was a big part of the argument for this development:

1. We bought the house in the Hunter Mill area because I could walk to offices in Reston (I need the exercise :-).

2. Then my employer sent me to work in the Pentagon. At least I could walk to the Weile Park-and-Ride.

3. When I got back to the Reston office after the Pentagon tour of duty, the company chose to consolidate operations in McLean, and sold the building in Reston.

4. That's the same time my wife's company moved their office from Reston to the Dulles corridor. We went from 4 miles/day commuting to 35 miles/day commuting, in opposite directions.

5. About a year ago, I changed jobs. My new company's home office is in New Jersey. I travel a lot for this job, but when I'm not on airplanes, I'm very happy in my home office, with the occasional extra trip up to NJ. Much of my time at home is spent on telecons with people located across the country. It really doesn't make any difference where I live to do this job.

So my experience above contradicts the rhetoric about "live where you work". I tried it, and it didn't work. I bought the house, and the job kept moving!!!

Irony,
You mentioned the article the post ran which was based on the Council of Governments report on growth trends to 2030, and stated that we have a deficit of 92,000 homes coming. I would like to shed some light on that report because quoting elements of it without correctly stating the larger context can give false impressions. Data I will refer to here showing the larger context has just been shared with the Post reporters who worked on that piece.

The report covers only jurisdictions that are members of the Coucil of Governments (COG). It is accurrate and reliable for the jurisdictions covered. It does not report on seven counties in the metropolitan area that have a combined total of over 400,000 households in them. It includes a large number of households in the BWI Parkway an I-95 north corridor.

COG does have data on their website that shows the totals for the entire metro area, including these seven counties. When the completer picure is looked at, there is no housing crisis on the horizon.
To conclude there is a crisis based on the limited scope of the report is somwhat like looking at just the District and Arlinton and saying "Look at the housing crisis we have", without looking at the big picture.

The Reality Check excercise has proposed some planning modifications that can help prevent sprawl into the outer counties, and can better balance work and jobs regionally.

Like those who participated in the Reality Check excercise, the residents of the Hunter Mill corridor are against sprawl. That is the nature of the battle here. There is great capacity in our county's master plan to add high density housing. I encourage prospective builders of high denstiy housing to buy the poperties so designated in the plan, and build away.

Many have accused members of this community of being NIMBY's or of not being willing to look at the big picture. This community has taken a great deal of time over the years and in some cases spent significant sums to get educated on the big picture issues. Their positions are highly credible from a metroplitan planning and design perspective.

Renovate downtown Washington. It is a beautiful, beautiful city.

A lot of existing apartment buildings in Reston and other areas are at a critical time for renovations. I'd like to see those sites expanded to include more apartments with possibly some changes from 2 to 4 stories including elevators. The objective would be to still retain woods and open space.

Since developers seemed to change from commercial to residential based on the surfeit of space, they ideally could redo older Tysons high rises to mixed use. Commercial tenants are moving out into newer buildings.

In response to Mr. Fehr's original questions, yes, I do believe the developer "blew it" by running the ad. They galvanized citizen attention on a plan for Hunter Mill Road that I personally believe was way too dense and way too far from transit to be considered transit-oriented under any realistic present or future scenario. Seeing the ad just really brought the point home.

Setting up fake citizens' groups with developer backing is not a smart tactic, either. It is pretty childish as I see it. It is not too hard to sort out the real citizens' groups from imposters.

I think citizens, citizens groups, business groups, developers, and officials all have a proper place in planning discussions. The problem in Fairfax is that the trust is eroded for various reasons between the groups and I guess workgroups really don't work like they should work. We're going to have to think about how we can do better individually and within the various interested groups.

When there are projects where density is to be increased, have you ever noticed who is appointed to the task force? What distinguishing characteristic seems to be present?

To Dec 18, 2005, you bring up an important point and a question that should be put on a WP Blog.

Citizens, do you think the Supervisors stack the Task Force with persons who support their high density goal? If yes, please explain. If no, please explain.

Residents who live in the study area or near the study area complain that task force members often do not represent residents who live in or near the area that will receive the density impacts.

Should Task Force membership be made of persons who do not live within the study area or even near the study area?

Let us begin by looking at the membership of the Tysons Corner Task Force.

If Lessard and his low income housing group, and the developers are so interested in the needs of the educators, firemen, police force, etc. then why don't they build smaller affordable houses on the lots. The choices are huge Mcmansions, town houses or condos. Where are the moderate-sized houses these days? I know the reason-money, but if they really are concerned, they would build something that is less than $1 million

When reading posts on various boards and when talking to persons looking to buy homes, I've come to the conclusion that this area has disposable housing. Some young people seem to consider it terrible that they can't graduate from college, get a job, and automatically slip into property ownership. It didn't work that way 30 years ago. Another bizare fact is that people might live in a smaller townhouse and will not consider older homes from the 40's, 50's, or 60's. They want high ceilings, absurd numbers of baths, etc. Oddly enough to me, people would rather a mcmansion in a less desirable location than a nice solid brick home in ie Alexandria or Arlington. The EDA and high cash cow tech industry resulted in a real imbalance in this area which used to be driven by the federal govt and related Washington DC stuff. FX is pushing for business that could be located anywhere - meanwhile it is rapidly destroying the reasons people bought here. I do not like the county wide form of government with only DuBois making decisions for my community located in Dranesville. Many states would have counties with 5+ school divisions. I wish I lived in a legal municipality with a school board overseeing a few entities similar to pyramids and an official community. That's a lot more oversight by volunteer elected officals. Fairfax is becoming LA or Phila rather than a nice county like Westchester, Morris, Bergen, Montco PA. This Hunter Mill thing not even located near a potential train station was so bizarre. Then the Orange soil...Hudgins on compromise was too much. What part of the word Green Belt does she not understand? These people are like medieval potentates.

task force watcher,

i can only speak to the HMR task force but there were a number of very serious issues with the structure and make up of the task force from the beginning.

That having been said, the majority of TF members have worked diligently to understand the facts and represent local residents. There work has been matched by the involvement of the local community who really have worked to understand the issues and make their views crystal clear. The role of the press in bringing openness to the process has also been key.

It was never been clear who the task force was responsible to. Is it a random set of political appointees providing expert personal advice to the supervisors? Or is it meant to represent the public?

This has profound implications, for example do the TF members have a responsibility to reach out and take the pulse of their local communities, should they be keeping them upto date with the latest information, should they be expected to share issue papers, analysis and developer proffer information with the members of their communities and HOAs? What is the role of TF members who don't live in the affected communities?

Its clear that the public thinks the latter and expect the TF to represent them - the TF is certainly subject to FOIA and VA laws relating to openness.

Thus it is striking that the skimore-stowers proposals currently on the website make no mention of the consensus of local residents against any increased density. Not even a mention of the more than 500 people who attended the public input sessions. Not even a mention of the extensive and expensive visioning exercise which was run for the task force by consultants CirclePoint and its unambiguous outcome.

Another major issue is the make up of the task force. One of the TF members showed a very telling map at the last meeting, also now on the website. The map showed roughly where each of the members lived.

It should be no suprise that the members who voted for increased density at the meeting live nowhere near the Hunter Mill Road or in its communities.

To my mind there should be two types of TF member:

- ones who live in the area immediatly affected, in this case the communities of the Hunter Mill Road, who should vote and should represent the clear views of their neighbors

- those who should think of themselves as external experts, help make sure that the public understand the issues and who should not vote if they cannot vote with the local residents

This is split is pretty straighforward at the HMR site - there are 22 communities along the road or for whom it is their major or sole route and who would be directly affected by any change

Should vienna residents get to vote on whether Reston should become a town or whether Great Falls should get more condos?

The community values the advice of external experts who understand the subtleties of planning - but will not accept being railroaded by single issue advocates who are not part of the affected communities and are intent on bringing density to the greenbelt buffer despite all of the facts.

It is also bemused by one of the non-residents who previously introduced a motion to close the TF supposedly because the public had been quite clearly against any change, but who suddenly introduced a motion for increased density (which thankfully was defeated 14:4 - although make no mistake, its not dead yet!)

The TF chairman's off-hand comment to dismiss the public input at the last meeting (along the lines of 'we keep seeing the same faces') would have been suprising if he wasn't from outside the area and hadn't voted for increased density earlier in the meeting.

After local residents spoke so clearly at the visioning workshop, the conclusion of the TF should never have been in doubt.

The community are not children - we know the tradeoffs we're making.

The majority of TF members, both local residents and experts, have done a great job - they have asked, they have listened, they have discussed and they have reflected the needs of the local communities.

So why does a hard core of individuals who do not live anywhere near the HMR continue to defy the needs of local residents?

I hope once affordable housing comes into existence, it stays that way. My once affordable house in Equestrian Park has now become unaffordable, in spite of a low mortgage, because of the real estate taxes.

To No Increased Density

Excellent comments. You raised an interesting and very important question. There are citizens and members of the Reston Association Board who want Reston to become a town. Should this vote be opened up to all who live along the HMR corridor?

Maybe that question should be asked of those TF members who live in Reston and who want Reston to become a town.

TF Watcher - An even better idea would be to break up Fairfax County into a number of independent cities. Each such city would likely be more responsive to the needs of its citizens; local taxpayers would not likely support the huge Fairfax County bureaucracy (the Economic Development Authority would be the first to go) and Fairfax County Schools could be broken into more manageable districts.

igor

that may well happen - if bird flu hits, our HOA plans activate its militia and cecede.

I think I'm joking - we'd have to annex costco first

My comments were, obviously, somewhat tongue in cheek. However, a couple years ago, the Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce lobbied for changing Fairfax County's 10 magisterial districts to a substantially lesser number, with multiple at-large seats. The stated reason was local supervisors paid too much attention to the petty concerns of their constituents and it was too difficult to persuade the board to look towards the bigger picture, i.e., what the developers want.

Residents of Fairfax County should consider avoiding making purchases from Chamber of Commerce members. This would send a good message to the many responsible businesses in the County that pay dues that are used to foster uncontrolled and subsidized development. Don't forget that the County admitted to one or another of the civic associations that taxpayers are subsidizing building permit, land development and zoning services by millions of dollars each year.

Is this a great county or not?

"No increased density," you are right on target! The TF has been lop-sided from day one. Having attended each TF meeting since the Open House at Madison HS, I can see just how the high density-oriented, non-HMR residents are manipulating the entire process. It's like a chess game isn't it? Those TF members who are loyal to the BOS are working in concert to return discussion to the issue of density and affordable housing. I am thinking back in particular to the bantering back and forth about affordable housing. Did you notice at the last TF meeting the way that the BOS loyalists kept tossing the bone back to one another to keep the discussion

alive?

I have a novel idea! Instead of allowing a developer to come into the county to destroy pristine communities in the name of AF, why don't we insist that the county PAY ITS TEACHERS and other service-oriented workforce a LIVING WAGE? Remember, FX CTY pays its teachers less than Montgomery County and Arlington County. Many teachers work two jobs to make ends meet. Why does the county think that a developer is going to change this situation? First, these professions need to be respected enough in the county to command at least decent salaries! Let's clear the smoke and make people aware of this situation. As a teacher, I do NOT want K. Hovnanian and WCI to come into my community to destroy it just to justify AF!

"So what is the lesson that county residents can learn from the death of the planned development in the Hunter Mill Road area?" Citizen action can be effective if it is organized with effective leadership! The effect of collective citizens should not be underestimated....especially by the elected officials!

"Did Hunter Mill residents 'fight city hall' and win?" In the short term, yes! The developers' strategies have only just begun, however. Citizens must not become complacent. They must remain diligent and hold to their convictions.

"Did the developer blow it by publishing that full page ad?" Absolutely! What an arrogant thing to do! Obviously, "the understanding" must have been as strong as a contract for the developer to go this far!

"Should the supervisors be praised for listening to the people?" No way! We are just being given lip service through a well-orchestrated "hollow" government procedure! What a FLEECING of our tax dollars! We will know if the BOS have really listened when they actually support no increased density which is our vision for our communities!

"What are the implications of this on the future development along the Dulles Toll Road corridor?" The citizens must continue to do their collective homework! They cannot assume anything. The FOIA questions are important ones....thank you to all who have led the charge there! Community members must hold firm in the no compromise stand. The Comprehensive Plan is effective and flexible enough. If the citizens gather data to this effect then it will be difficult for the developers and BOS to refute it. We must research fully the prospective developers and link with those elsewhere who have experienced frustration with them. We must EXPOSE the flawed process that we were asked to be a part of.

To Clear the Smoke: Go to the Hunter Mill Special Study area website and click on Jim Barrett's presentation.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/dpz/huntermill/taskforce/pastmeetings.htm

Residents who live along the corridor keep asking, "Why do the TF members who do not live adjacent to the study area or along HMR keep trying to change the Comprehensive Plan for higher density?"

If one were to count the show of hands of residents who have Hunter Mill Road as their main street, there has been a consistent message: Do not change the Comprehensive Plan. That includes No Compromise for a Little/Modest/Some Density.

to Dec 21, do you know how many affordable units or workforce units are in the building? Does the site have a name?
Just interested.

Clear the Smoke is right: "The effect of collective citizens should not be underestimated...." That is the single fundamental lesson to take away from all of this.

But the work is not done -- Hunter Mill Road will soon be subject to more APR nominations to increase density.

Citizens must continue to pull together. Please come to http://www.FairGrowthNetwork.org and REGISTER to receive periodic updates on community events in the development arena.

Affordable housing was the red herring of this debate. High-density proponents like to throw it on the table because it's universally appealing.

Unfortunately, those same high-density proponents (at least the developers and builders) won't allow the Commonwealth and County to write code requiring more ADUs. They don't have to build ADUs in high-rise residential buildings! They have more "outs" than kids trying to weasel their way out of school. It's such a farce, and I'm tired of their duplicity.

To One more thing:

You are absolutely correct about the affordable housing component. When affordable housing enters into the equation, the discussion becomes emotional. There are new units going up in Tysons Corner and Reston....how many are affordable?

Isn't pulling the affordable housing card just another way to get high density approval.

Here is an article about some real programs in other cities where affordable housing is undertaken seriously.

http://www.homeownershipalliance.com/documents/HOA_Report_lo-rez_rnd4.pdf

watcher...

agree - affordable housing is a red herring used by developers to drive density in greenfield such as hunter mill

if the county was serious, they'd mandate ADU's in towers.

the current situation is laughable - no ADUs in low density, no ADUs in towers where the real money is made - just a developer argument to upzone greenbelt - not suprising we saw the lessard scam (expect more of them at metrowest and beyond)

that having been said - no one has shown me a good mathematical model of the effect that ADU provisions have on the market e.g. mid-long term price dispersion

I hear a lot of emotion but no sound economics - I'm not suggesting that they work or don't work but I'd like to see some proper analytics

Give me a break!
Blame Lessard and the developers all you want, but without a zoning change all we are going to see is supersized mansions on two acre lots selling for three million dollars and up. A block north of the WCI/Renaissance property on Hunter Mill Road a new "Palace" just sold for over $4,000,000.00.! Yes, over four million dollars. Real affordable in the so called "greenfield" which is really just a "rich belt". So continue screwing hardworking Americans. Let them commute in from West Virginia. If Fairfax County was serious they would tell you to go jump and they would mandate higher density at this underdeveloped Dulles Toll Road Interchange. You aren't a "red" herring you are a "selfish" herring.

'to watcher':

as staff disclosed at the recent task force meeting, more than 12,000 units (mostly transit-oriented) are already catered for in the plan along the reston-herndon corridor alone

If the ADU exemptions are revised to remove the exemptions, this could lead to between 750 and 1500 ADU's.

accusing the residents of the hunter mill corridor of selfishness is utter tosh. The majority of neighborhoods along the corridor are modest family communitees build in the 70's and 80's - the long term residents suffer as much as anyone else from the way that market rises have pushed up the taxes on what were once affordable homes. The vast majority of homes along the hunter mill road still cost less than the condos which sprung up on the parkway opposite reston town center- and they certainly did when people bought them.

The vast majority of residents of the corridor are the very 'hard working americans' you mention - mostly 2 job families with young kids, retired people, school teachers, government workers etc.

All these neighborhoods are asking for is that planned growth takes place in a managed manner as laid out in the comprehensive plan. The plan rationally lays out 25 areas in the county for substantial managed growth - that's a huge capacity.

The proposal to build a new town center at the the hunter mill site would have overwhelmed local roads and schools which will already face a large enough challenge from the planned growth along the reston-herndon corrridor.

Local residents have been very clear in their support for affordability - but they have been equally clear that they are vehemently opposed to increased density along the Hunter Mill Road.

The county is not short of planned capacity.

As previous blog posters have noted, proper analysis of the COG figures show that the plan effectively the job/housing ratio over the next 20 years.

Read the Plan

"To Wathcher," I am a bonafide hardworking American. I am a professional. The developers say that the affordable housing should be for me and others in similar professions.

Why do I feel used by the developer? Why do I feel that my profession is being used insincerely in the argument to increase the HM density? Why do I feel that those like me are being duped?

I happen to know that the developer could really care less about affordable housing. It is all one big scam on the public.

I have been out of town during the past week. I am just catching up on the excellent exchange of information between bloggers. Keep up the positive dialogue.

As the Hunter Mill Task Force prepares its report, the recommendation at the last meeting was to preserve the present Comprehensive Plan denisty.

Despite its many bumps at the beginning, the TF should start a precedent of how TF should operate. There was community support for the TF. The meetings were well advertised and residents showed up to listen. Residents sent e-mails to the TF. The TF read these e-mails very carefully. After a few meetings, the public had an opportunity for public comment at the end of each meeting.

A true community visioning opporuntiy was organized early in the process. When over 800 citizens come out to engage in a visioning exercise....that is dramatic.

Now compare this to what happened at Metro West and what is happening at Tysons.

How many citizens attend the TF meetings of Metro West? How many citizens are attending the Tysons Corner TF meetings?

Was the Tysons Corner TF stacked?

The impressions of the previous poster, Task Force Watcher are largely incorrect.

The Hunter Mill Special Study Task Force was by no means a model/precedent for how land use should be planned/reviewed. I would even say that it succeeded inspite of the manner in which it was convened and organized by the Supervisors. Many of us still resent the heavy handed and patronizing conduct of both supervisors toward the HM Corridor community and we still are not confident that they understand our logic and rationale. It is very telling on Supervisor Hudgins' level of understanding when she makes statements like I had hoped that the Community and the developers would have a dialogue and that never happened.

There were some bright lights though.

It is true that the Hunter Mill Corridor community was very energized and active in the Special Study process. There was a core group of dedicated community members who spent hours away from their families and other obligations in order to promote the citizens' awareness of the issues and organize the community response. But it should be noted that the Supervisors and the County staff appeared to throw stumbling blocks in the community's efforts to participate --- especially at the outset.

Many of us were sensitized by the MetroWest experience although we found out about those second hand. The first Fairgrowth Town Hall happened right about the time that the TF was getting organized. And we quickly began to detect patterns that would be inimical to the community's goals.

In general, the TF members selected for the TF were intelligent, impartial, articulate and representative of the community. Only a handful of questionable appointments were made. From what I have heard, the same can not be said of the Task Forces for MetroWest and Tysons Corner.

Many of us in the Hunter Mill Road Corridor community have ideas on how this special study could have/should have been done. But so far, Supervisors Dubois and Hudgins do not seem receptive to our ideas and thoughts on the Special Study process.

The TF for Hunter Mill returned the results the community wanted but it should not be held up as a model. It was a learning experience is all I am prepared to say. I am just so pleased that the comunity and most of the Task Force members persevered.