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?

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.

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.

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’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.

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