Oh Bravo Will!

Concerned citizens should know that the first public meeting to discuss how to define "transit-oriented development" in Fairfax will be held on May 24th at 7pm in the Government Center. Here is the announcement:

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNOUNCEMENT

Message # 69

Source: Fairfax County Planning Commission and Department of Planning &
Zoning

Subject: Transit-Oriented Development Committee meeting on Wednesday,
May 24, 2006

The Fairfax County Planning Commission's Transit-Oriented Development
(TOD) Committee will hold its first meeting on Wednesday, May 24, 2006
at 7:30 p.m. in the Board of Supervisors Conference Room (behind the
Board Auditorium), 1st Floor, Government Center, 12000 Government Center
Parkway, Fairfax, VA 22035.

The Transit-Oriented Development Committee was formed in response to
direction by the Board of Supervisors to provide a more refined,
standardized definition and set of principles of TOD for the County.
The Committee will sponsor an open process to gather input on a
consensus vision and guidance on Transit-Oriented Development to work
toward developing an amendment to the Policy Plan volume of the
Comprehensive Plan. Any proposed amendments will be brought back to the
Board of Supervisors with a request to authorize public hearings before
the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

For more information, call the Planning Commission at 703-324-2865, TTY
703-324-7951, Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. - 4:30 p.m.

Mr. Elliott, over the last two years has shown himself to be a thoughtful chronicler of Fairfax County activities that need to be publicly aired. We are fortunate to have people like Mr. Elliott and Mr. Charles Hall in this county, who not only are able to cut through politic-speak and possible obfuscation, but also are able to write in clear and simple terms all can understand. FAIRGROWTH's success and subsequent broad respect is a tribute to Mr. Elliott and his FAIRGROWTH associates taking a leadership position that is bringing together citizens from all over this fine county to engage in rational discussion and pursuit of real solutions.

Thank you Messers Elliott and Hall.

Mr. Elliott says, "The stakes are too great to leave it all to the developers and the planners."

In reality the stakes are too great to leave it to the housing socialists who want to regulate other people's lives and choices.

The freemarket, not the sky-is-always-falling activists, should decide.

Mr. Elliott wanted the density at MetroWest reduced. Why? We need more housing in Fairfax County, not less. Why should Mr. Elliott get to decide what is built on land he does not own? What gives him the right to limit the housing choices of others?

Thankfully, in the coming years thousands of happy homeowners will have settled into their new condos at the Vienna Metro, and will have the electoral clout to vastly out vote the anti-housing un-"fairgrowth" mob mentality.

Thanks Gerry and the rest of the BOS (except Frey) for showing more courage than any prior Board has ever had in dealing with land surrounding the Vienna Metro Station.

Shame on you Mr. Elliott and Ms. Reyher for trying to restrict the housing choices of Fairfax County's working class.

The "hard lesson" learned is that progress can be achieved when the BOS has the courage to stand up to those who are forever stalling progress.

Vienna Resident: Under the BOS' "giveaway" rules, taxpayers lose whenever any development occurs in Fairfax County. For example, Frederick County, Maryland is going to receive $65 M for its schools from the developer of some 3100 homes -- that's more than $20,000 per house. What does Fairfax County ask for? $7500 per student - so a new single family house in Fairfax County produces a whopping $3555 for schools, using FCPS' student yield formula. Who pays the rest? Taxpayers. Meanwhile, we have kids in trailers and rundown schools because the proceeds from bond sales must go to build classrooms in growth areas of the county.

This is just for schools. What about roads, parks, sewer, libraries, police and fire stations? Guess who will pay? Not the Metrowest developers, who would certainly reflect the cost savings in their prices and who would never try to price to the market when they save money by not paying adequate proffers.

Then there are the taxpayer subsidies for county land development and zoning services, which will amount to more than $43 million from fiscal 2003 through fiscal 2007.

How this is progress is beyond me!

First, Metrowest is not going to offer any options whatsoever to Virginia's "working class." The prices at MetroWest will be unaffordable for most people.

Second, everyone I know associated with FairGrowth or the broader coalition affiliated through http://www.FairGrowthNetwork.org is very concerned about the lack of affordable housing in Fairfax County. But sheer density without infrastructure is not the solution.

Third, MetroWest was approved in the absence of any definition for "transit oriented development," a term which is simply bandied about like a promise of dessert if you eat your vegetables. Only now is the definition process even beginning.

Fourth, we never did get a proper analysis of the effects on Metro. And did you know that WMATA only approved a 1300 slot garage, not the 2100 hundred promised?.
Now there will NEVER be any more parking there than exists now, and the 1300 parking spots lost when ground is broken for construction will not be replaced until 11/2008 when the inadequate garage is finished.

Fifth, the substantive problems with MetroWest abound, ranging from the lack of any guarantees of true mixed-use, the lack of traffic studies, school impacts, the incredible stress on local parks and athletic fields, etc., etc. Those problems have been documented in detail by citizens devoted hundreds of hours of their own time poring through complicated plans and proffers, and are documented at http://www.FairGrowth.org.

Finally, anyone who wants to invite the public to heap shame on Will Elliott or me -- or anyone for that matter-- should post in their own name. Since your "handle" is Name on Request I ask that you identify yourself.

My mistake, I'm asking "Vienna Resident" to identify him or herself.

Dear Vienna Resident,

Yours is an odd perspective. I suppose you would eliminate all zoning rules to achieve "more housing."

Zoning ordinances and districts (density) are a legal and widespread mechanism for controlling development. They are used in most, if not all, states. At MetroWest, the developer had to ask to change the rules. You might think that any such request is a no-brainer, but most of us disasgree. Changes is planned zoning are a privilege, not a right, and serious consideration must be given to their impacts on the surrounding areas.

Would you want a high-rise next to your single-family home on your little half-acre? I doubt it. Would you want an industrial plastics plant next to your home (such as I have seen in West Virginia where there were no zoning districts)? I doubt it.

The true socialists are are those who would refuse to listen to the citizens. You appear to be one of them. Maybe we should coin a term for you "go-go growth at any cost" folks. You probably think "housing socialists" was clever.

One more thing...if you think that the condo craze in Northern Virginia is producing housing for middle-class working folks, you haven't priced condos in awhile. Get a grip.

To all the blog's readers: have you ever noticed how rude the go-go growth people are? Obviously not Virginians.

To Vienna Resident:

You said: "Mr. Elliott wanted the density at MetroWest reduced. Why? We need more housing in Fairfax County, not less. Why should Mr. Elliott get to decide what is built on land he does not own? What gives him the right to limit the housing choices of others?"

I'd like to clarify for the record that the existing zoning allowed for a substantial increase in the number of dwelling units if a "transit oriented development" was created. All of the FairGrowth board supported the allowable increase. What Pulte wanted was to double that. We were not asking for a reduction in density - we were asking that the request for additional density beyond that which had already been approved be reduced. That is a big difference.

FairGrowth was created because the surrounding neighborhood felt that doubling the allowable increase would put an unsupportable strain on the infrastructure -- roads, Metro, schools, parks, etc. I think we were successful in many ways in raising awareness of this issue.

Maybe "Vienna Resident" will be less happy when his/her kid has a trailer for a classroom, eats lunch at 10:00am, and can't play soccer because there is no place for the team to play; and when he/she spends precious time stuck in car gridlock or in the Potomac crossing tunnel while on Metro....I could go on and on...

Anyone who followed the issue understood it was not a "growth/no growth" debate -- it's a "how much growth is appropriate for the existing infrastructure" debate. No one is talking about limiting the housing choices of another. I think "Vienna Resident" is misinformed.

Igor

You completely ignore all the new tax revenue the County will collect forever from the new development at MetroWest. This will more than pay for all the classrooms, ballfields, libraries etc. ever used by the new homeowners.

Fairfax County taxpayers will profit from this development, just as Arlington with more density has lowered its tax rate below Fairfax County's.

You also ignore all the taxes paid every year on undeveloped land when you mistakenly argue that land development services are subsidized.

Please get the facts.

Deborah

Your tunnel issue assumes everyone is going downtown to work. There are more jobs in Northern Virginia now than Washington, D.C. There should be more reverse commute on Metro to Tysons and Reston/Herndon which will improve the efficiency of the rail system.

You also ignore the tax revenue benefits of MetroWest.

Finally, we need more housing, not less, where the jobs are to reduce commuting which creates the traffic jams. Imagine how much better it would be if more people could live near their work.

Response

Interesting article in the Washington Post by Roger K. Lewis back in March. It is basically on the failure of the old zoning models and the need for change.

You can read it here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/03/AR2006030300817_pf.html

Lewis says that, "In many areas, zoning effectively excludes less affluent people from property ownership by generating land scarcity and unaffordable land costs through constraints on use."

Lewis's insights are certainly relevant to the debate here in Fairfax County as more and more people are priced out of home ownership.

Vienna Resident:

I totally agree with you - in theory. I would love it if everyone could take Metro or walk to work. However, Fairfax County will never have the commuting efficiencies of NYC or even Arlington. The station stops just aren't close enough and the job sites are just too scattered.

In my neighborhood, on the northside of the Metro, less than 20% of commuters take Metro to work. Extending the silver line along the Dulles corridor may help to increase that someday. Similarly, Metro West developers and the County both estimate that only 20% of the commuters in new development will take Metro to work. Through carrot and stick incentives they hope they can reduce car traffic by 47%.

I just think we have to be realistic. But back to my original statement...I, and many others, thought a high density TOD development was appropriate for the site. We just thought doubling the density recommended in the Comprehensive Plan for the TOD was too much.

Vienna Resident: Fairfax County Economic Development Authority chief, Dr. Gerald Gordon says: "for every dollar in taxes that a resident pays, he receives $1.60 in services from the county. For every tax dollar a business pays, it receives only $0.30 - $0.40 in services" in arguing for commercial development. The Fairfax County business community, including the developers, swears by Dr. Gordon's logic as reason for residential taxpayers to fund the EDA.

But now you suggest that residential development at Metrowest not only would pays for all of the services its residents receive, but also for public infrastructure. You are essentially arguing that Dr. Gordon is dead wrong. Could you help reconcile these seemingly inconsistent positions? Which is reality?

Second, with respect to the Metro tunnel issue,since all Silver Line trains would run from Reston to D.C. and back, they all must go through the single tunnel under the Potomac River that is now shared by the Orange and Blue Lines. The fact that more people might "reverse" commute is irrelevant to the tunnel problem. We have another infrastructure problem made worse by development.

I don't understand why 'vienna resident' is signing himself such - presumably 'wannabe manhatten resident' would be a better tag.

He appears to be advocating completely unbounded growth entirely forgetting that planning regulations and zoning are part of a key social contract we have with each other alongside not being able to keep alligators in our bathtubs, use explosives in our suburban gardens or sell crack in our kitchens.

That's not why the majority of people in western Fairfax live in western Fairfax and they've made it clear time and time again that that is not what they want.

What was at issue at metrowest was not whether the developer could build a very lucrative 'by-right' complex - rather whether the county should award them a windfall by doubling the density.

The BOS did this while completely ignoring the concerns of many citizens - effectively handing over vienna metro to Pulte, failing to negotiate any fair return to the county and its residents or even cover the incremental costs we'll all bear in schools, parks, traffic etc

The county needs to very seriously review its growth strategy - as many have noted, sustained economic growth is not predicated on population growth. A development led boom is just that here and on policysoup - its transitory and you have to live with the consequences.

I like western fairfax and in particular vienna, that's why I chose to live here. I could have lived in manhatten but chose not to.

It is unfortunate that higher density is being granted to developers in exchange for a turn lane, a signal light, and limited roadway extension to benefit the development. These bonuses are to benefit the adjacent project and will have no traffic congestion relief for those of us who live downstream from the project. For example, 400 dwelling units will be approved which translates into 4,000 vehicle trips. However, how often do we read in staff reports that traffic impacts will be mitigated by a turn lane or a signal light? Is there no concern about what happens to the congestion one half mile away? Vienna Metro West is the poster child for this level of planning.

It has been interesting reading the exchanges but a few facts seemed to have been missed by the county. The 4K vehicle trips is one of them. No matter what you do poeple will still jump in thier cars to go to work or to play regardless. Also this area has become a very dynamic employment market. No longer is working for the fed the single biggest commuter creator. Just look at the MD tags on the toll road each morning and the VA tags heading into MD and the WV and PA tags that show up each day. People no longer work in one place forever. Despite the best efforts the Bay area in CA still has long distance commuters and a fluid work environment. High density developments will provide a lawn free community for those who wish it but they will still work in MD, DC and even WV and commute. Do developments like Metrowest solve these issues, probably not. Do they create more issues in established communities like Vienna, yes. I grew up in town and hope like many who left that Vienna keeps its community spirit and home town environment. Developments like Metrowest will never have a Vienna or Fairfax City like spirit. Someday when all of our county looks like the Bay area, we will wish our elected officials had listened and obeyed the voters who elected them.

Obviously, there's a lot of idiots on developer payrolls like Vienna Resident -

"Why should Mr. Elliott get to decide what is built on land he does not own? What gives him the right to limit the housing choices of others?"

Excuse me, but why should Polte Homes and West Group decide what county residents want?

I suspect that if you put all of these developments to a referrendum (a vote), much like the Tysons Metro, you would find that the majority of citizens DO NOT WANT ANY OF IT! That's what the county should be forced to do - let voters decide the future of their homeland - more sprawl? more traffic? TOD for however the developers want to define it as long as it lines their pockets? Time has come to hold the BOS accountable for idiotic planning and hold a "Yea/Nay" vote on future plans at least on a coummnity level.

In response to the last comment, everything I have read indicates that a solid majority of the residents of Fairfax County realize that there is going to be addtional growth in the future and that it is necessary to plan for it. Most of them seem to favor channeling that growth to areas that are or will be served by Metro, for jobs,residences, shopping and other activities. No one expects congestion to disappear, but at least we can provide residents (present and future)with additional choices that they don't have now. While "Transit Oriented Development" might seem like a buzz phrase to some, it actually is well defined by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) and the Coalition for Smarter Growth. If used properly, TOD can help align future job and housing growth to everyone's benefit.

John:

Your argument makes theoretical sense. But we live in Fairfax County where the supervisor have not defined TOD, but rather, approved a TOD project first based on what the builders wanted. Also, keep in mind that the chairman of the board of supervisors works for one of the big landowners seeking rezoning at Tysons. We have supervisors who provide discounts on proffers to builders because students spend their days in trailers. Our county executive wrote a letter promising taxpayers would surely fund cost overruns for Metro's expansion even though the evidence shows spending billions will not reduce traffic congestion.

Theory belongs in text books. We need results and protections against our local officials.

Run for Supervisor, Mr. Elliott. Please. You have shown concern for working class people all along, which Vienna Resident seems to miss and if you were any sort of a nimby, you would have said "don't build it at all." You were very vocal about getting affordable housing for the working people, accommodations for the kids, and open space for residents to enjoy. Thank you for all you have done. You are a wonderful counterbalance to the compassionless souls that make up the FX Dem party. Please join and run.

In the article, "In MetroWest, Hard Lessons On Land Use" (Fairfax Extra, Thursday, May 11, 2006), Mr. Elliott states that, "According to the developer, only four neighborhoods supported the project."

Can anyone identify for me what neighborhoods supported the MetroWest project and if they were they defined by letters of approval to the BOS from citizens associations? If so, which ones?

Thank you Mr. Elliott for all your involvement in Fairfax County activities.

I am guessing that Will Elliott must have been referring to people who testified before the Board of Supervisors in favor and who identified themselves as speaking on behalf of a neighborhood or civic association...? Hopefully, if he's out there, he can answer that and tell us.

There was a citizens workgroup, early on and before the planning phase hearings began. It was made up of individuals from different neighborhoods, but I don't think that would be what he was referencing. I was a member of that group. I would say we were like a focus group, really. Personally, I did go back and talk to my citizens association because we have a formal land committee set up. I know we wrote up many, many pages of comments. Some were addressed by the developer or the County, some were not. I do hope we added some value. I'd hate to think all those seemingly endless nights were wasted!

Anne,

Actually, Will was quoting the "developer" as stating that only four neighborhoods supported the project.

I was curious to know whether the Briarwood Citiizens Association ever took a formal position on the project. I simply don't remember there ever being one, but then I think I may be a little senile. I do know that I would have been dead against it. But what's done is done. It's nice that NOW there will be an attempt to define what has been approved, a bastardized TOD. Pardon the sarcasm.

To John....on several occasions, Smart Growth, developers, county staff, etc were asked to identify TOD similar to Vienna Metro West. Many wanted to research these TOD...guess what....no answers. Perhaps you can offer examples.

Interesting comments but maybe something is being lost here. Do the majority of current county residents, not businesses or developers really want any more development on a large scale. If you read the undercurrent of most of the comments posted it is a resounding no. Basically who do the board of supervisors and the county employees work for...you guessed it.. the citizens who pay thier taxes and have a vote. Up to now it seems the citizens wishes are continuelly overridden by the very people who are supposed to represent them. There are lots of things that could have been built at Metrowest, some good for the community as a whole and some bad. The bottom line is money talked and citizens were ignored. If we the voters of this county want to regain control then it has to be at the poles. It is about time the board of supervisors stopping acting like they think they are our parents and they know better what we the children need. Growth managed within what the residents want is the way to go, not some master plan by developed in a think tank by people who don't live here. Lets face it, the quality of life people cherish is what this county has been all about and developments like Metrowest are not what the residents see as the way they want the county to evolve.

Vinny - I believe the citizens association voted to express itself through the land use committee's written concerns about the proposed out of turn plan amendment. It was a lengthy document (maybe 20 pages all typed up), but worth reading, and was sent to the planning commission to consider and put in the official record of the hearing.

Anne, where can this document be found?

Sorry, tod watcher, didn't see your post until today.

It certainly should be in the County record for the out of turn plan amendment. It was submitted as a written comment. I imagine there were many other written comments representing various opinions on this OOTPA/RZ!