Three Resons FairGrowth Was Formed

If officials had addressed any one of the three concerns below, FairGrowth would likely never have formed, in this reader's personal opinion.

1) It was a closed process that kept the community in the dark, contrary to Smart Growth principles.

The article states, "The supervisors said their land-use decisions are an open process."

Except that MetroWest - the densest project in the County - was handled by a closed, handpicked group dominated by supporters of the project and the County's leadership clique. "Smart Growth" principles state that the community should be involved; this project violated smart growth from the start.

If it had been a true open process, there would have been no reason to form FairGrowth. Multiple nearby and even adjacent neighborhoods, as well as the Providence District Council and the Area Plan Review Task Force, were all deliberately excluded. The Town of Vienna asked to participate, but were denied and permitted only a silent observer.

2) The developer's "No Compromise" stance was embraced by the County

If there had been a modicum of compromise on density, there would have been no need to form FairGrowth. Supervisor Linda Smyth ran on a platform of keeping development compatible with the surrounding communities, and she turned her back on that promise. She promised to find a level "between" the previous plan of 1100 residential units and develper's proposal. But when the developer declared there would be "no compromise" and that he would "put in as much as I can on the site," she gave him over 95% of what he asked for, again turning her back on her constituents and promises.

3) No reliable data shows how MetroWest's proposed size would be sustainable

If clear data had ever been presented showing that the size of MetroWest was sustainable, FairGrowth would never have been formed.

Residence repeatedly and for a number of years asked for reliable data showing how traffic, transit, parks, schools, etc. could accomodate over 5,000 people at the site - more than a third of Vienna's total population.

Spurious and incomplete traffic studies, funded by the developer, were performed, but when residents questioned the underlying assumptions, concerns were dismissed. Residents asked for control over Traffic Demand Management programs; instead, a committee consisting of developers, their consultants, their supporters, and cheerleading County staff was formed. Five of the twelve committee members worked directly for the developer or their consultants. Only one resident skepital of the project was permitted to participate.

Questions about Metro capacity at the projected time of project completion have been transparently dodged. The Fairfax County Parks authority twice warned that nearby facilities were already over-used, until it was brow-beaten into submission with a laughlably shallow "analysis."

Questions about how school playgrounds can handle more "modular" units were shunted aside with "everything's ok" attitudes. The one question about school facilities like cafeterias, libraries, gyms, etc. were answered with, "we'll serve lunch earlier." Lunch is already served starting at 10:30 a.m. at a nearby elementary school.

The problems with MetroWest are found throughout the County. The County calls MetroWest the "poster child" or "model" for development around rail to Tysons and Dulles - which should alarm every County resident.

Thank goodness for FairGrowth, but it's such a shame that our leaders made its formation necessary.

Fairgrowth, now lets come up with some names to run for Board of Supervisors next year! We can defeat the current bunch and we need to put all of efforts towards that goal. I'm proud of the work that this group accomplished, even though we were not as successful as we would have liked. I attened many meetings and will continue to support this group.

Yes, I agree. Come up with candiates.

Let me say it another way:

Had enough?

I have, enough for a lifetime. I don't want to get personal, but this guy, Connolly I think he is called, is a disaster.

Some may have seen my posts saying this before, so forgive me for saying it one more time:

It's a good start to air our complaints on these boards. It's fine to say we're ready to vote for change in the County.

But if we say these things, we should get involved where it really counts - the County party committees, which nominate the candidates.

We must also write checks, knock on doors, talk to neighbors, friends, co-workers, and let them know that if we want change, we must work for it and earn it.

I suggest starting with the party committee of your choice:
http://www.fairfaxdemocrats.org/joinup.htm
or
http://www.fairfaxgop.com/GetInvolved/JoinTheCommittee.asp

There's talk, then there's doing something. If we mean what we say, we must do both.

Yes, come to Springfield.

We are in real trouble here, have been for years.

If I recall, Springfield's so-called "Republican" supervisor faced a primary last time. However, instead of uniting behind a single candidate, she had TWO challengers. So even though she didn't win a majority, she won more than either challenger.
If the challengers had united behind one of them or the other, the incumbent would have lost the nomination.
Due to her support of Gerry Connolly's Developer party, the Developer party (formerly known as Democrats) didn't run a candidate against her.

So the lesson is, get involved at the party level, and resist the status quo candidate(s) of either party. Unite behind a single challenger. Otherwise we just get more of the same.

Yep, you have it.

I'd say that her performance has been as it always has been - not very good.

We need a Fusion Party to run candidates for Supervisor in 2007. There should be five Republicans and five Democrats, who have the strange idea that we need balance between the interests of developers and the interests of ordinary residents, on the Fusion Party ticket. This next election should be about good government and not party politics.

Trying to form a new party would result in the opposition of the existing parties. It would just serve to divide those who are trying to further citizens' goals.

Rather, I suggest we work within both the existing parties to change the approach of candidates.
That would also be more achievable than asking Richmond to intervene; they won't. They may find Fairfax annoying, but their own local officials would resist state incursion into county affairs for any reason.

A year or so ago, when my citizens group (Wedderburn Neighbors) met with FairGrowth leaders to talk about expanding the reach of citizens county-wide, I met a number of thoughtful, careful, reasonable people, who really just insisted on fair process, responsive and transparent government, and managed growth.

Together we formed www.FairGrowthNetwork.org, to conduct outreach to other community groups, and today the Network boasts about 20 different group members and thousands of individual members.

Together we have stood up for stream protection, lobbied in Richmond, met with newspapers (both The Post and our estimable local papers), attended many hearings, appeared on cable TV and radio shows, penned innumerable letters to the editor, spoken at many midnight hearings, and researched land-use issues for hundreds of hours on our own time.

I am so proud of everyone!

The more people living next to a Metro station, the better! I am sorry that those of you who live next to Metrowest won't have anywhere to walk your dog once they build, but this is one of the fastest growing metro areas in the country and people are not moving here just because they are building condos.

Even if you don't build it....they will come.

I actually preferred the idea of building garden condos in lieu of adding more townhouses. It's the new townhouses I really objected to more than anything - those are the units that are going to put the most demand on schools and parks, because they are more family oriented. I would have preferred to build the same number of units in garden condos and to have converted the space no longer taken up by the footprint and yard of townhouses to community green space. Housing right on top of a Metro station appeals most to young single professionals, DINKs, and active seniors and we have plenty of those folks looking for a place to live. Until developers pony up real contributions to schools and parks, I don't see adding the burden to them. That's neither here nor there now, it's approved - so let more of the trailers or modulars roll onto the school lots and let the scheduling problems with fields grow worse, I suppose!

Btw, my comments above only refer to part of the property in question - where it is nearest Lee Highway and farthest from the Metro platform.