Budget Part 3: The Citizens Speak (Still about GEORGE)

Carol DeLong, four-term Mayor in the 1980s, made an interesting point at the April 13 City Council budget hearing: “Time was, all you would hear at a budget hearing was about schools. Now all you’re hearing about is GEORGE (the City’s commuter bus service).

DeLong was right: nobody even mentioned schools — the pearl of great price, the City’s sacred treasure. Maybe that’s because the proposed budget is enough for “modest” pay raises for school staff.

Not so for the rest of the City’s employees, who get a pay freeze. Tennille Parker, employee spokesman, reminded Council of that, just for the record.

After that, it was all about GEORGE.

No, wait, first Councilman Dave Snyder spoke to “review my record on economic development.” Someone had been disparaging Snyder as “against” everything, so Snyder listed what he is “for” and what he is “against.” (See his FCT comment here.) “I wanted to make these points for the record so we can move on to other matters,” Snyder explained.

As noted, there was only one other matter, and it consumed the next two hours. Not surprisingly, regular riders turned out in defense of GEORGE, which the City proposed to discontinue. They had lots of ideas as well as criticism for the City.

Two speakers said they moved to the City specifically because GEORGE gives them easy access to the Metro. “I moved here six months ago,” said Sabina Rashpaul. “If GEORGE had not been available, I would have looked elsewhere.”

“Regular rider” Jay Majors said “I would be driving to West Falls Church without GEORGE, increasing traffic in the City.”

Carl Cucuci said GEORGE is “an amenity for the City that contributes to the quality of life.”

Richard Hipolit said it’s appropriate for government to subsidize public transportation. “I live in Poplar Forest — without GEORGE I’d be driving to the Metro.” He added his experience was that “when gas shot up, ridership increased drastically.”

“In the future,” said Elizabeth Fenton of South Virginia Avenue, “we’ll need the bus.”

The most poignant comment came from the Gibb family — father and daughter ride GEORGE together, she to school, he to work. “I don’t have that time with my daughter if GEORGE is gone,” Gibb said.

A Hillwood Avenue resident was “frustrated by the debate over facts and ridership at this late stage. I hope in the future there is more coordination with other agencies. It’s disturbing that you have to make a decision without all the facts on the table,” said Patrick Bracken.

Only one lone citizen ventured out on the rainy evening to dissent: “What are the compelling reasons to have GEORGE? I don’t see why we need our own intra-city bus service,” argued Charles Gonzales of West Broad.

And then there was Barry Buschow, the “pampered commuter” of Madison Lane: “This is the future for Falls Church, proposed back in 1987,” Buschow began, launching into a history of the City’s decades-long effort to establish a bus service. But a minute later the buzzer sounded, indicating his time was up. “That can’t be three minutes,” Bushow snapped at the timekeeper, Falls Church City Clerk Kathleen Buschow. “Sorry,” his wife apologized, to the amusement of the audience. (Read Buschow’s position here.)

Northern Virginia Transportation Commission Director Richard Taube told Council that “you’re on the right track,” but should consider:

– Marketing and promotion;

– Learning more about customers;

– Restructuring METRO to put more emphasis on GEORGE;

– Lowering rather than raising fares (or, lower off-peak fare and raise peak fare).

When it was all over, citizens for GEORGE appeared to be in alliance with a majority of Council, overcoming the initial direction of the Mayor and Vice Mayor, who suppported the City Manager’s plan to end GEORGE completely.