On the Record With Dave Snyder: the Councilman Responds
The story below first appeared in the Falls Church Times on April 2, and quickly became the most-read article in this newspaper’s 9-month existence. It also garnered the most comment, even to the extent of generating letters to the Falls Church News-Press and being reprinted in Mayor Robin Gardner’s husband’s blog. Now Dave Snyder has responded to his critics. Scroll down to read his April 13 comment at the end of this article.
———————————————————–
Last Saturday the editors of the Falls Church Times conducted an extensive interview with Councilman Dave Snyder. A former mayor and the longest serving member of the Council, Mr. Snyder was first elected in 1994. During his current term, which expires in May 2010, he has opposed several of the City’s major initiatives, sometimes casting the sole negative vote. He has severely criticized the proposed budget for FY 2010, calling it “dead wrong.” The Falls Church Times presents this interview as a public service, not as an endorsement of the views expressed therein. We have invited all members of the City Council, as well as other elected and appointed officials of Falls Church City, to share their views with us. Hopefully, they will be as frank and forthcoming as Mr. Snyder.
Concerns Regarding How We’re Governed - The City is controlled by a few people whose intentions are not aligned with most of the community. An increasingly small leadership group, ingrown and isolated, consisting of the mayor, vice mayor and city manager, is diverging more and more from the needs and values of our citizens. This is enforced by the monopolizing of information and, increasingly, through ridiculing and publicly attacking dissenters. It concerns me a great deal.
Our city’s boards and commissions now are basically ignored. The Planning Commission has been ridiculed. These bodies once meant something. We have lost the anchor of community, which is its citizens. All glitches stem from this. Things have changed here over last the 10 years.
When the Falls Church Police Department lost its accreditation there was no public mention. Only because a few people raised some discussion was there any mention of it at all. A citizen had to file a Freedom of Information Act request to obtain the full story. People aren’t getting news other than about what the deciders want to occur. For example, how many people even know we lost our [water] suit against Fairfax and that we lost our appeal to have their suit against us tossed out?
An Unwarranted Lawsuit – The City’s litigation against Fairfax County over the water system is an example of the ineffectiveness of the current leadership. We used to work matters out with Fairfax, but this tradition was broken by the decision to resort to the lawsuit, which was approved by the Council majority over my objection.
Fairfax wants to serve rapidly growing areas of the county, some of which we’d been serving. The disagreement over this issue would not have happened had we worked things out as we had in the past, when we’d always prided ourselves on achieving win-win resolutions with our neighbors, rather than win-lose.
The City’s lawsuit, which was thrown out, has resulted in a counter-suit by Fairfax which, if successful, would destroy the water system. Fairfax’s suit is still pending. Thus far the judge has rejected our motion to dismiss; the case now is in the discovery phase.
Water is a budgetary matter, a bottom line issue. Two million dollars would have to be made up by the City’s taxpayers if the judge finds for the County. This would result in the loss of customers and the depreciation of the value of the system.
The Wrong Kind of Development - The decisions made over the past decade have been a departure from the traditional values of the community. Tools such as the special exception ordinance to encourage commercial development have been hijacked by developers to build residential projects. Had we negotiated for what we needed we’d be in a much better position to weather financial storms.
Instead, the concerns of neighborhood after neighborhood were over-ridden and we got what we didn’t need. Now there is growing community discontent.
The Hekemian [The Northgate] project is a classic example. We consented to a building which will hurt the neighborhood, net the city only $100,000 in annual tax revenue, and feature a dangerous cut through the North Washington Street median to allow cars to enter the parking lot.
There already are traffic problems on adjacent East Jefferson Street. The city manager brought a dead project to life. It’s the worst project of them all, with major negative consequences on the community.
Things shifted with the enactment of the special exception ordinance. The City has been good at planning; not good at getting development going. The ordinance was hijacked by residential developers; the “mixed use” idea, which allowed them to maximize their returns, led to the ordinance being used for entirely different purposes than originally intended.
Now we’ve projected 107 new kids, which pushes the need for a new school. I supported the special exception for The Broadway, but I did not support it for The Byron, The Spectrum, or The Northgate. I abstained on the exception for Pearson Square.
Unrealistic Budgets and Cost Estimates - The proposed budget for FY 2010 does not reflect the values or the realities of the community. Our strategic (i.e., Capital Improvements Plan) and operating budget decisions have been made badly.
They are holding the community town hall meetings on the budget for cover, notice that they never held them in past years. There has been discussion of charging for trash pick-up, but it would be crazy to provide less service while raising taxes. There should not be a trash collection fee; allow citizens to buy larger bins for recycling.
The chief financial officer is projecting a $7-9 million deficit for FY 2012, though only estimates for FY 2010-11 have been shown so far. The cost for a new school is shown at $30 million, rather than the true cost. The city manager has acknowledged that this has been squeezed to meet the 12% debt service limit.
The actual cost for a school is more like $70 million. And Fairfax County will not provide the city with land for a new school. This shows how the water authority litigation has worked against us; something that once was negotiable now is off the table.
The Wrong Approach to Affordable Housing – The Council rushed to commit to the affordable housing project (City Center South Apartments – CCSA), which the state says we haven’t the resources to fund. It’s used a huge amount of staff resources in the effort to justify it.
The project’s financing is extremely complex, requiring funding stated at $750,000 per year for 15 years, though more likely $1 million per year. Why not downsize and right-size such projects, which is what the state advises?
We will be forcing the residents of the affordable units in Winter Hill to move to a high-rise. Those units then will be sold as affordable real estate units. It would be better to let the current residents age-in-place, rather than building them housing in the heart of a commercial area.
The Falls Church Housing Corporation, which I once chaired, has evolved itself into a special interest. It became politicized three years ago when Steve Rogers was brought in to run it.
Questions City Center - The project is very much in flux. The Council has been unable to negotiate with developers and adapt when there are changes in the market. We may wind up with more of the same, i.e., something that’s 80-90% residential. I voted for it reluctantly to get the commercial development – the hotel, the supermarket, and the entertainment center (new Bowl America) – in order to build up the city’s commercial tax revenue.
Supports GEORGE - We have received more email on GEORGE than on any other issue. I see the bus service as both a means of Metro access and a tool for economic development. A recent Northern Virginia Transportation Commission report states the taxpayer subsidy really is $3 per ride, not the oft-quoted $8.
If GEORGE is de-funded the actual budget savings will be insignificant or nil, due to the loss of transit subsidies, plus there clearly will be an environmental loss. I have long supported transit as a common value. When I found several years ago that the City was overpaying for transit, i.e., receiving less service than it deserved, I forced renegotiation of our subsidy to Metro, making the formula more fair to Falls Church.
Originally we received a grant through Jim Moran to experiment with alternative vehicles. The plan was to use an electric bus, but Metro did not have repair facilities for such vehicles and so rejected it. When that contract terminated we switched to GEORGE, which used the only technology Metro would accept.
Service began in 2002. The buses were larger than we preferred but still very environmentally friendly. When grant funding ran out in 2005 changes needed to be made, but none were made.
Advocates Light Rail - Arlington has shown that mass transit can be a huge money maker. Arlington would be a disaster without the Orange line.
The City made a mistake in rejecting a downtown Metro station. A light rail line running from Skyline to Tyson’s will give us another chance. I see Route 7 as an urban street, no longer a highway, a street converted from a liability to an asset.
Rail could go down the center or on either side. Modern light rail is not wide. Rails in the Basel, Switzerland, system are only three feet apart and the cars fit in well with vehicular traffic. This may be 15 to 20 years out but we need to plan now. Light rail has been called a Disneyland ride, but see what the Orange line has done for Clarendon, Court House, and Ballston. Failure to see this is another example of the leadership’s self-imposed isolation from reality.
Looking Ahead - The buying power that exists within five miles of here is huge. In 20 years I want to see a very vibrant retail-, restaurant-, and hotel-focused downtown. A niche activity is needed, which will draw people to spend money here.
Once we could have had a children’s museum. In the short term we need to provide better transport infrastructure as it’s critical both to preserving the environment and supporting economic development.
We need to establish bike trails, and improve the City’s appearance through low-cost, high-impact improvements, e.g., signs, better lighting. A downtown parking garage like Bethesda’s also is essential.
There are few places anywhere where you can find more history in two square miles: The Falls Church, where George Washington was a vestryman; the Lawton House, which was a Confederate headquarters after Bull Run; Tallwood, where General Eisenhower resided in 1941-42 ; there are over 110 buildings here that pre-date 1910.
We could have had more if we’d driven a harder bargain as we have one of the best locations in the entire DC community. We need to be better linked to that, in the sense of being on a transportation line as opposed to off it. We are not as strong as we could have been, given we have the schools and location we have.
Editors’ Note: To clarify the interview process, the Times invited Mr. Snyder to speak initially on anything he deemed important and then aked him numerous questions on topics such as development, housing, GEORGE, and light rail. We wrote the story, but the words are entirely his.
By George Bromley
April 12, 2009
A very interesting article… Mr. Snyder, who is often assailed for taking two sides of an issue, comes out clear here. Sounds like some fighting words for the Mayor and Vice Mayor. I am sure they will respond in some manner. Hopefully they’ll take up the invitation for an interview.
The water system issue is interesting, but not the current city leadership’s fault. As I recall, the city allowed a contract with Fairfax Co. on water service to lapse years before any of this was an issue (I think it expired in 1998). We reap what we sew (or don’t sew). It would be better to seek a mutually satisfactory compromise with the county, especially since FC’s water reliability are better and water rates are lower than the County’s.
You mentioned that you interviewed Mr. Snyder but this seems more like an article written by him. Did you guys talk to him and then he provided this write-up or is this a write-up that you guys did based on a conversation with him? When I saw the headline I was expecting a Q&A type format.
I like the mixed use developments that the City has. Could they be better? Probably. Could they be worse? Certainly. All that stuff went down before I lived in the City so I didn’t follow it very closely but it seems like not much happened for a long time and now there are these mixed use developments – I’m glad the City is moving forward.
Ok, I get what Dave is “against” but what is he “for”? In terms of a positive program, all I get here is:
- fully fund George
- light rail on Broad Street
- a niche activity, such as a children’s museum
- better propomition of our historic sites
Everyone wants more retail, restaurants, hotels — but how do you get there? There have been no practical legal or regulatory impediments to 100% commercial development for decades — but our town is still dominated by strip malls (at our very best) and used car dealers and palm readers. Nothing vibrant about any of that.
Hope is not a strategy.
It is interesting to note that I am accused of promoting a special interest. Mr. Snyder is correct. I have joined others devoting efforts to provide housing for our seniors. How many of our founding mothers and fathers left or are leaving Falls Church because there isn’t appropriate housing for them. As a business owner, I lose employees to lesser paying jobs because employees can’t find affordable housing. City Center South will be an economic driver by providing employees for local businesses. I have frequently disagreed with Mr. Snyder but I never questioned his motives. It saddens me that he stoops to personal attacks instead of providing specifics.
Hey folks cut it out. You’ve got Mike over at Blueweeds in a tizzy. Listen carefully…one can actually hear….that’s not the wind…it’s his hyperventillating over a balanced on line discussion over city politics. He’s even questioning your journalistic competence. Speaking of which, you’ve got Nick Benton pouring over old Lyndon LaRouche speeches and his dog earred copy of “Rules for Radicals” trying to figure out what to do in response. Play along? Demonize? Ignore? Competition. It’s a good thing. Well done.
Andy – the jury is still out on the mixed use developments. There’s no question that replacing a vacant lot with upgraded property is a step up and a good idea. The big debate was over using commercially zoned land for residential. The response was that we have to let the market decide. Well the market changes constantly. Some years it wants to build commercial; some years residential; some years nothing and some years everything. The better questions are : What do you want the city to look like when your done because your going to have to live with it for decades. Will it generate taxes or expenditures?
A big question for the mixed use projects was the number of school students. This question was critical because the Whittier site generated a lot more students than anticipated which meant the taxes benefits were considerably less than predicted. The number of school students can change with time. Right now it’s on or below projections. But I know people who have bought into those complexes just for the schools. (They rent their non-city home while the kids are in FCC schools.) What has probably kept the numbers on target is decline in rankings of the city schools. This was bound to happen. Jay Matthews original trumpeting of the city schools heavily weighed AP participation something Fairfax limited by testing. Once the rankings came out, Fairfax opened the courses up, expanded access to IB programs and restored some balance to the rankings. Hence schools like Langley and McLean outrank city schools on USA Today’s rankings. What continually will attrack people to the schools is their small size which offers a small town feel with modern suburban amenities though at a much higher price ($18k/pupil) than Fairfax ($11k/pupil). (That and the knowledge that they will never be redistricted) How small that town will remain is a question.
Keep in mind also that after constructing these three projects the city decided that there were viable commercial uses: Hotels. The EDA study said that the industry was a license to print money. Well maybe and maybe not. Unfortunately they picked the wrong site, wrong size building, did no community relations until it was too late and kicked over a hornets nest at St. James School and with the neighbors. It appears the project is dead.
Finally the mixed use has replaced some small useful business (Alpha Lawn -yea that guy was ornery) with some really useless stuff (Penzy Spices, Impulse). Small businesses displaced generally move elsewhere unless the city helps keep them around. We all need banks but there’s a limit to how many.
Another note: just outside the city there’s new tower being planned for 7 Corners and somebody sunk a lot of change into the office building next to McDonalds. So there is a commercial market out there.
David said, “Hope is not a strategy.”
Have you not been paying attention?
Charlie,
Falls Church’s water rates are not lower than those of FCWA, which charges $1.83 per 1000 gallons. Falls Church charges $3.03 per 1000 gallons. The lawsuit is in part about that.
Tom
Pat, I agree that the mixed use approach is a complex issue. Personally, I think it’s a smart way to build a town – having people live, work, shop, play all in one place. Yes it can/will change some things and the schools issue is a big one – but I think we’ll figure out something that will work.
I’m all for bringing more business and revenue to the City (my business is in the City) but again, I just like the idea of mixed use. Even if we could have had pure office and retail buildings in place of all the existing mixed use I don’t think I would have liked it as much.
A big reason I moved into the City was for the schools, partially because they have a good reputation but also because of the fairly unique size. The system is bigger than a private school but much smaller than Fairfax or Arlington Counties. So, to the extent that we can keep the City going I think the schools will be a good fit for me, even if they’re not as highly ranked (whatever that means) as they had been in the past.
Some folks might argue that the mixed use developments could push us to some point where we can’t support an independent school system and that would be a problem for me – but so far I don’t think there’s any real risk of that.
Pat, isn’t Whittier an all residential project? Was the land zoned commercial before becoming a neighborhood? They are all large single family homes and townhomes, something that is not compairable to mixed use condos at all.
Someone just informed me it was a school, prior.
We used to have more things for families to do here in FC. We had an ice rink, and pool that you could pay $1 to go to in the summer, not just for the memberships at our area pools. We also had a ball park next to Lee Graham, where the entire city of ball players and coaches, along with the high school band, etc.. all marched for opening day. We seem to be cramming in mixed use and commercial properties without the desire to create family friendly activities for the residents to remain here. We had a stables on Haycock Road, not in the city but city folk had their horses there. We had a dirt bike area, and fun nature areas kids and adults could go and have some peace right in FC. We had a horticulture area behind the baseball field, now Rt. 66 of course. Our city is shrinking, with fewer green spaces. It’s getting noisier with all of the traffic filtering through our once peaceful town.
I think before city council approves any further development they all need to take a look at our peaceful past.
Amy I think you have an interesting perpective. David says “everyone wants more retail, hotels and restaurant”. I guess that’s not the case. To what degree does the city want to urbanize and at what cost? I’m not sure everyone wants more development. I do think it makes sense to replace under utilized commercial space with something better (the vacant AdCom lot, Duck Pin bowling).
David I think you oversimplify the history of mixed use vs. commercial. The use of the Special Exception Ordinance has facilitated development greatly. Any additional housing units can potentially add to the school population which undermines their tax advantage. Additionally the purchase and consolidation of land is not just a function of the market but whether the land owner wants to sell. There are plenty of areas which don’t have access to Metro which have commercial development. Just outside the city borders you have 66, the Beltway , Metrorail. Metro bus covers the two main corridors. Not many areas can boast that kind of transportation link. BJs apparently thinks the east end of the city is a good investment.
The difference between the mixed use and commercial use has to do with a vision for the city. Some folks want to have a vibrant after hours downtown with an urban center. Others couldn’t care less about after hours and just want the revenue for schools. Still otheres, like Amy, love Falls Chuch just the way it is. What I see are a lot of people who moved to Falls Church City for the schools and then wanted to turn it into Bethesda or Clarendon. Some would view that as ruining what is unique about the city.
I love Amy’s perspective and I’m sure I would have loved living in Falls Church when those family friendly amenities existed. However, I think times change and there’s not much you can do about it except do your best to guide the changes. When there was the ball field, ice rink, and stables what was out at Tyson’s Corner? What about Centreville, Ashburn?
It just seems like it would be hard for a place like Falls Church to survive without changing when all the area around it is changing.
I have thought that it would be nice if there were more community pool options and a big recreation field within the City. It’s interesting to hear that there used to be those things. What exists on the land now where those used to be located? I’ve looked that the City map and tried to think of a place where a full sized soccer/baseball field could be put in and there just doesn’t seem to be any options. I suppose the City could try to buy up some land somewhere and put something in – but even then I’m not sure what land would be bought up.
As much as I love nature and open spaces (and I really do – just ask my wife), I do think the City can be a great place for kids to grow up. I plan on raising my two daughters here. I’m hoping the City will offer a mix of small town charm with modern development in a way that is environmentally friendly. My kids should be able to go through school knowing all their classmates. They should be able to walk to activities around town and feel safe doing it. When they get older they might even be able to hop the metro into DC or take the light rail (yeah right) out to Tyson’s or down to Old Town.
I haven’t been in the City (or paying attention) long enough to know exactly what all the new developments have replaced. I know Pearson Square replaced a duck pin bowling alley (I had been there before) and some scary looking warehouses. I think the Byron replaced a Red Lobster restaurant. I’m not sure about the other ones.
Anyway, I do appreciate the history and past of the City (my house is 136 years old) but I think we need to be smart and figure out how to evolve the City in a way that will make its future as promising as its past. Wow, that sounds cheesy.
Thanks for all of the comments. Here are some responses:
1. I want to say clearly that I did not, certainly did not intend to, nor do I in any way, question Steve Rogers’ motives or anyone else connected with the Falls Church Housing Corporation. I highly respect his public service and that of the other citizens connected with the Housing Corporation. My comments were directed to the unremitting advocacy of a particular very large and expensive housing project in the City Center and our inability to negotiate alternatives that, in my view, better reflected current economic realities and still pursued a housing mission which we all share.
2. As to Dave Chavern’s comments–I appreciate his prior service, as well. Here is my real record on development and what I am “for”. Vice Mayor Sam Mabry and I actually started recent development efforts with an option on one of the since developed sites on West Broad Street, back in the late 1990s. Since then, I voted for the creation and funding of the Economic Development Authority, the Broadway, the Special Exception Ordinance and City Center because they offered the potential of providing important new commercial tax revenue and occupancies that we needed. I voted against the Byron and Spectrum and abstained on Pearson Square because they were large residential developments with a very small percentage of commercial on prime commercial space (especially the Spectrum and Byron). I voted against the later amendment to Pearson Square that significantly reduced its tax yield. I also voted against the Hekemian project on North Washington Street because, in my opinion, it is largely residential on good commercial space, generates an inadequate amount of taxes, destroys several buildings with historic aspects, jeopardizes a neighborhood and creates a new safety problem, requiring drivers to cut across two lanes of on-coming Washington Street traffic to enter the parking garage. In addition, I pushed hard for the opening of the State Theatre (achieved), and for a downtown parking garage to support our growing business community (not so far achieved). I have also advocated for transit and for a downtown transit center that would make it easier for many more people to reach our businesses. Finally, I believe we have a great opportunity to become our immediate area’s “downtown”. That continues to be one of my goals.
3. As to I-66, the “spot improvements” were directed and largely funded by a Congressional earmark over which I had no control. I, along with officials from Fairfax and Arlington Counties, have consistently linked that project with a more comprehensive review of what will best relieve congestion in the corridor. The recent votes I made, after public discussion, represent that approach. In addition, because I worked closely with our neighbors in Arlington and Fairfax Counties, we were able to add, in the last vote, neighborhood traffic concerns in the City of Falls Church to those in the Counties, for VDOT consideration.
One quick note about something Dave mentioned – the Economic Development Authority does not currently receive any ongoing funding from the City (although I assume the City seeded it with something when it got started – that was before my time).
Thanks for you response Dave. I am still not sure how to interpret your paragraph #2 in terms of a positive agenda for City development. But I think that is all beside the point.
Overall, my basic view on development is that the whole debate about “mixed-use” versus “100% commercial” is a false choice. Anyone can build dense, 100% commercial developments by-right, TODAY. (By way of example, there was absolutely no Council action needed for the development of the Flower Building.) Our commercial corridors have been that way for decades — and yet the City’s commercial areas are still dominated by low density, low economic value development. The density of our City Center area, as it exists today (and has for decades) is equivalent to the density of a single family residential neighborhood. The residential taxpayers carry a huge burden as a result.
So what are we going to do about it? Crossing our fingers and wishing upon a star for the magic office buildings to appear is unlikely to be successful. If mixed-use, as we have experienced it to date, isn’t the answer then what is? What, exactly, is the alternative strategy — and what would need to be done to execute on that strategy?