LETTER: Beyond Wishful Thinking for Commercial Tax Generation – The Case for Streetcars
By DAN MALLER
May 2, 2012
There is broad consensus in the City of Falls Church that realizing greater revenues from the City’s limited commercial property is a key strategic priority. The measurable but limited successes over the past decade have been based largely on allowing special exceptions to include residential development, which is economically required to support the necessary parking. Even supporters of the “mixed use” strategy recognize the limitations of this approach and view mixed use as a step towards creating the critical mass of population density and demand that will help bring additional business investment and tax revenue generation.
Many of us (including many of the candidates in yesterday’s City Council election) have advocated significant public investment in parking to address this more directly, and I believe this has to be on the short list of ideas that go beyond wishful thinking to address the economics of commercial development. However, a far more comprehensive approach, which is well suited to the City’s strip-zoned commercial areas along our major thoroughfares, would be a modern streetcar network allowing far greater foot traffic without a proportional increase in automobile traffic.
A modern streetcar would have stops at no more than half mile intervals, meaning that we would expect at least five stops in the commercial areas, including two in City Center, not to mention an opportunity to integrate an intermodal transit center that would be truly deserving of the name. My own vision would be to link the East and West Falls Church Metro Stations and to consider taking a line from Seven Corners to EFC and then along Washington Street to City Center and then West on Broad to WFC, which would maximize the service to multifamily housing and to our commercial zones, but the purpose of the proposed study is to examine all of these issues, to generate a local and regional feedback, and hopefully consensus, to guide the next steps that would be required.
The discussion of the need and desire for commercial development is another opportunity to refocus our efforts on taking action to help bring about the kind of development that the community will support, without overwhelming our infrastructure such as roads and schools that are essentially at capacity in the near term. There are obvious issues to debate such as the cost, configuration and alignment, alongside the clearly demonstrable benefits, but in my view and given the building regional momentum, this is a wave we need to be prepared to ride.
Dan Maller is a former member of the Falls Church City Council.
By (see byline)
May 2, 2012
sounds like the same arguments that got us the brilliant idea of our bus system — may it rest in peace. Yeah, lets waste some more money, that’s the ticket.
One candidate (Handly) made streetcars the centerpiece of his campaign…and he got trounced. Admittedly, this may be more correlation than causation, but I think it’s the latter. Even in the dark blue Democratic city of Falls Church, I think taxpayers are hesitant to embrace grand government projects. Before we start funding a trolley, let’s attract some new shops that are conducive to browsing and purchasing consumer goods. Right now, what are people going to take the trolley to? An antique shop? Long John Silvers? The FedEx Store? The Straford Motor Lodge?
Once we get some clothing retail, restaurants and dessert places, electronics shops, etc., maybe there will be demand for a streetcar. In the King Street corridor, there are so many places to shop that people want the added convenience of taking a trolley to go from Point A to Point B. Right now I just don’t see a justification for the spending in FC.
Don’t confuse yesterday’s City Council election with a referendum vote on streetcars in FCC; that certainly wasn’t the only issue.
How would you attract the chickens (the businesses you mentioned) to justify the eggs (the streetcars, for those still playing along)? Tax incentives? Perhaps I’m confused, but I thought we wanted to shift the tax burden toward commercial and off homeowners. I think if we can make FCC more attractive to consumers that the businesses will follow (and gladly pay the taxes to gain the then-easily-accessible business traffic).
We can get a chicken or an egg. Eggs are less expensive and grow into chickens…
I’m not sure if a streetcar is a good idea or not – but I think the idea is that the streetcar would entice retail to come to the area. Sure, it would be nice to have a bunch of retail that then “justifies” a streetcar – but in this case I think people would have to be better that a streetcar will spur development, not the other way around.
The data from places that have built streetcars shows generally that tax yield in close proximity to the line is substantially higher because of increased property value and economic activity. These benefits do not accrue to bus lines.
We have a $350k federal earmark to study “Rt. 7 Enhanced Transit,” which requires a $20k local match (from each of the 4 localities). This study should provide a physical and fiscal framework to debate the issues, which, as all of you are noting, are substantial.
My idea is to focus the service on our commercial areas, both because that is where we need to generate additional revenues and because commercial property owners would finance the project in significant part. This of course will require owners of commercial property and potential developers to support the plan. In Northern Virginia we have local authority to impose a commercial overlay tax which applies only to commercial property, which Arlington and Fairfax have already imposed [11¢] but we had not until this year. This allows a very significant source of funding by borrowing against the surtax revenues, which in the ideal scenario does not affect the City’s ability to take on debt for other priorities. Further to the ideal scenario, the construction of a streetcar line along 2-3 miles of our roads with several stations would double or triple the generation of commercial tax revenues, and result in a substantial reduction of the tax rate and balancing of the burden between residential and commercial taxpayers.
We can wish for more commercial revenue, but we will not get office development without transportation (or more residential density than most of us would tolerate), and retail like BJs requires too much parking to be more than a “one-off” measure. The alternative imo is to resign ourselves to increasing taxes to support our schools until we find the tipping point.
Dan raises an important topic, streetcar could play a pretty big role in our future. It’s less about “initial” ridership and more about attracting commercial development and private investment along the line. I’m guessing that when the DC metro system first opened its doors in 1976 there weren’t a ton of riders, and not much development at the metro stations. But look at where so much commercial investment has been made over the past 30 years, and that development at the stations has helped make the metro system successful (now over 300,000 riders a day). Kind of a chicken and egg relationship.
I agree with a lot of what Dan points out. But I do think for streetcar to be successful (and affordable) in Falls Church it needs to be part of a regional system. Arlington is trying to get federal funding for their Columbia Pike line now, and if they get it they will have a 5-mile line between Skyline and Pentagon City built and operational as early as 2016. If that line is successful and eventually expands to Tysons Corner, we’re right in the middle and looking good.
If the system proves out and continues to expand regionally, I think there will be a pretty good argument at some point to run a line from Falls Church (or perhaps Merrifield) down Washington/Lee Highway to Rosslyn, connecting to East Falls Church Metro and the Silver Line along the way. This line along with one to Tyson’s would literally put Falls Church at the crossroads, an enviable position.
I support all the streetcar planning we can afford at this point via the grant and match, and it would be a huge win if our Council can really push for a regional system with Falls Church at the crossroads. Too early for a commercial overlay tax until there’s something concrete to put it towards, but I do think we need to stay involved and push the topic.
I don’t think WMATA is a fair comparison here. You’re talking about a mass transit system that gets significant federal, state, and local funding and shuttles people to and from work every day of the week. The DC area didn’t start booming because of the Metro — people were already employed by the Fed gov’t and its vendors.
In any event, if you want to use WMATA as a comparison, look at the Silver line. Are we building it to develop the areas that it will service (Tysons, Dulles, etc)? No, those areas already have significant commercial and residential assets, which justify additional transportation options.
Unless and until retailers start telling us that they’re not coming to FC because they sense a lack of transportation, I see little demand for a streetcar. People manage to get to the Farmers Market each Saturday; they walk, they drive, they bike…some even take Metrobus, which we all pay for. We should focus on attracting businesses through tax incentives, marketing, and a streamlined process with as little red tape as possible. Then we’ll worry about the nice-to-haves.
re Garrick:
I agree that streetcars were not the only issue in the election. Please note that I said “Admittedly, this may be more correlation than causation…”
Nevertheless, commercial development was clearly a big issue in this race, and the only candidate who really harped on streetcars as a solution got the least votes.
Does this mean FC voters oppose streetcars? Not necessarily. But given that only 1 candidate proposed it as a major solution–and he got rocked in the votes–it would seem to indicate that this idea was not widely embraced by candidates or voters.
Pardon my basic question….are we talking actual streetcars or trolleys that would tear up streets or just a vehicle or vehicles that would follow defined routes?
I do think that a very basic transportation vehicle that traveled from EFC Metro to WFC Metro via Lee Hwy and Broad might be a good idea for the future. It might be a good test to see if it stimulates retail/entertainment dollars for the City. I think of it as a low cost test before we jump in with a more costly plan.I think of the State theater, Dogwood, Mad Fox, 4 P’s as possible destinations with other stops along the to-and-fro routes.” Ding-dong, I want to get off here”
I believe that Paul Handly was talking about the trolley buses like Alexandria uses, more like TFC’s suggestion……
Suzanne, you are correct that Handly suggested a rubber-tired “trolley,” but given the George experiment I am thinking of several puns involving traction or flying, all of which is to say we need to use the data at our disposal to narrow the options. The Northern Virginia Streetcar Coalition advocates for vehicles that would share the existing roadway and integrate pedestrian-friendly stops and stations along existing rights of way.
There are many factors that need to be considered to come up with the right plan, but right now we are in the midst of spending millions of state dollars to fix the road bed along Broad Street, to bring it up to modern standards, so my question is why should we not consider the 21st century in addition to the 20th?
Again to the point of data on commercial development, all of the examples (mixed use, BJs, “By-right” etc.) require significant compromises and/or public investments of cash of other even more limited resources, so why not consider more comprehensive solutions?
Every single point in this thread is a valid part of the inputs that will be required, but I challenge everybody to come up with a realistic and tangible plan to alter the fiscal curves over the 5-10+ year horizon so that the long-term projections no longer show red as far as the eye can see.
What I’ve read about streetcars is that one of the reasons they help economic development more than buses is specifically because they’re more permanent (and expensive) than a bus line. To TFC’s comment – deploying a temporary bus route most likely wouldn’t entice a retailer or restaurant to sign a 10 year lease since they will worry that the bus will go away. But if there’s a streetcar going down the street the businesses will know it will be there for 10 years – making them more confident in their investment.
I will say that back when we were talking about what to do with the George Bus I kept suggesting we completely change the routes so the bus would be taking people from the metro to the middle of the city – and not from neighborhoods to the metro (which is how it was configured).
Speaking of the 21st century – what are the changes that by the time we could get a streetcar deployed we’ll have technology that allows for autonomous, driverless buses?
I got trounced in this election for a lot of reasons, but I suspect that my stance on “Trolleys” was pretty far down the list.
Andy had it right back when we were planning the George route. We have a real need to connect our downtown to the two Metro stops that flank our city. We never did need a circulator bus.
FC Voter (what’s with not using your name?) is wrong about development and its relationship to transit corridors. Retailers want to see large foot traffic counts that are directly correlated with the ability to move people efficiently through the corridor outside of cars. Investment is made once developers suspect that the plans have a chance of being ratified. Only a very few visionaries invest significant monies in areas that don’t already have transportation plans of the sort we are discussing in the works.
At issue here it seems are long range and nearer term transportation needs in our city. I agree that major capital infrastructure investment on the part of the City makes a more compelling case for attracting major private sector investment in our city’s commercial corridor. Building Municipal parking is a tangible, realistic, near term investment our city should make to show developers we’re serious.
I haven’t read any plans or heard any proposals from regional planners that would lead me to believe that modern streetcars will reach Falls Church City before the ’20s and more likely we’re looking at a the ’30s, at least a 20 year planning horizon.
That’s where a less expensive, attractive business focused “Trolley” bus comes into the transportation mix. Lets not forget that we have many businesses and thousands of residents in the city that would benefit from better transportation alternatives right now. Couple the “trolley” with a new municipal parking structure in the heart of the Little City and we’re not just talking chickens!
Andy, point taken…I didn’t mean to imply that a small scale to-and-fro from EFC to WFC might be an incentive for a developer…only that it would be interesting to see if testing the waters (or pavement) would result in a generally positive response (maybe more spending at entertainment/restaurants) and/or ridership. Maybe businesses might be in favor of trying this approach first? The tax overlay is in play for 2014 budget but we must have a concrete plan to present to businesses as to how the money they pay will help the business segment in particular.
Folks – I know I am a cynic at times but I really applaud you all for being creative. But come on – - get real. Wake up or sober up – - whichever. We can’t agree on development for the downtown area. We can’t find success with a George bus system. Do you really think time and any money should be spent pondering a trolley system while we have so many “gaps” in other areas. Let’s get a few other things going first – - we can keep a trolley system in mind – - but for me at least this goes on a back burner that is barely lit. Let’s first do a bit more than things such as couple new banks and a jewelry store. To me at least, Falls Church City is and never will be the kind of area that brings in masses where such a mode of transportation is convenient and advantageous, and most importantly be used.
TFC, yeah I think some kind of shuttle that could get people from Metro to the middle of the city could be interesting (and obviously something that could be done much sooner than a streetcar, as Paul points out). It would probably help existing businesses and encourage some new development – but unless/until it showed strong performance (and therefore longevity) I don’t think it would have an impact on significant additional development.
As far as the tax overlay goes, it certainly wouldn’t come close to covering the cost of a streetcar but I suppose it could help cover the cost of evaluating a streetcar (or streetcar-like) solution.
Mel, I think you make a good point about priorities – but I’m not picking up on what you think we should be doing instead of considering streetcars. I would love to see something other than banks and jewelry stores pop up – but unless the city is going to get into the retail business directly we need ideas for how to encourage the kind of development we want.
Andy – I admit I don’t have the solution but the City may be reaching a point where it may have passed on the past opportunities to the point where we will almost take any development within reasons….maybe we are not that dire….but with many things going to areas outside our borders…we may be reaching the point where we will have to take some leftovers. Anyway, I feel right now that any sort of trolley system is definitely not what should be focused on.
Mel, we do have to recognize we have what we have; we will not be developing a regional shopping mall, but we do need to evaluate the possibilities for targeted public investment to achieve tangible goals. Transit investment is one of the most highly incentivized forms of investment because there are federal and state programs and funding which could enable us to multiply our investment. In addition, just having a plan, ala Columbia Pike, has generated a great deal of private investment in anticipation of the implementation of the plan, so it is not even a question of “if we build it they will come.” For decades we have struggled to come up with a formula, but we still have at least 50 – 100 acres of woefully underperforming sites, many suitable for various higher density uses that would double or triple the revenue to the City, but because of the cost of structured parking it is not going to happen. In round numbers, lets say a major piece of the problem is a shortage of 1,000 parking spaces, that would cost about $25 million to build. Our roads can not handle additional traffic, so why not see whether developers would partner in a long term plan that would allow the same number of people to access new development? Andy, I think you are not seeing the whole picture of how the overlay would work. In addition to the direct “proffer” mechanism whereby a developer would perhaps build a stop for their development, the C&I tax would enable the City to borrow $10 million or more, which could well satisfy the whole initial local capital component of a regional system. The other thing I believe you are missing is the scale of the upside, which should be on the order of $10 million+ of tax revenue ANNUALLY even in a lower than optimal scenario. Recall that the City Center South project would have generated $2.7M net positive revenue from about 10 acres, and reducing the need for parking in that development would free up millions of dollars of somebody’s spending power. If the CIty develops a credible plan for this kind of infrastructure it really will solve the economic issues that have limited what we have been able to achieve. Otherwise I would agree that we will just have to accept what comes along.
I will never comprehend the shortsightedness of all the grand plans the powers that be in FCC make.
Essentially ignoring the ONE thing this city needs. PARKING! Don’t mean to yell, I love this Little City.
Imho we have the quintessential example of successful ‘compact’ urban development literally right down the street – read Clarendon.
With all the money spent on ‘studies’ to determine the best use of Falls Church City, I’ve not seen anything that would realize the reality of this little place and all that could be done to allow it to thrive, not just limp along.
We have successfully, small mindedly, continued to try to reinvent the wheel while ignoring the opportunity to model after Arlington/Clarendon.
Those people took a small, ‘landlocked’ piece of land with a metro stop and look at what they’ve done.
Has anyone seen the Market Commons area in Clarendon?
Dan, thanks for keeping the discussion going. I should say that I haven’t dug in on the issue of streetcars or parking garages – so I’m not really aware of the costs. If a tax overlay can actually be leveraged to build a system then maybe that’s the way to go – I’d love to see more details on that (note, I own a business that would be paying this tax and I’m on the EDA so I’m interested in keeping our taxes on par with our neighbors).
$25M for 1,000 parking spaces – that’s interesting information. I don’t have any sense for this though – is 1,000 spaces what we need? Just to give me a sense of scale, how many spaces are in the parking deck attached to the Kaiser building? What would the cost be of a deck with 400 spaces? And would that help much? Anyway, Dan seems to be suggesting that a public parking garage is a non-starter but I know others are strongly supportive of it – I’d love to get more information about the options.
Finally, I know traffic is a challenge but when Dan says our roads can’t handle more traffic I generally wonder how other, more dense places manage it? Do we have a particular configuration that’s limiting? Is our pass-through traffic that much more than other areas? I guess what I’m asking is – what is that conclusion (that we can’t handle more traffic) based on?
Andy, Fairfax already imposes the overlay tax, so our rate on commercial property is not much different and they also have several tax districts to pay for various infrastructure. Arlington does as well, but they are significantly lower as a result of truly urban density along the metro line. I share your interest in tax burdens; maybe I can join you on the EDA and assemble some information to make sense of all of this stuff.
Jodi, everybody loves Clarendon, but I think it is fair to say it works because of their commitment to transit and a pedestrian-oriented environment. Our Planning Director Jim Snyder was there for the long process of trial and error than resulted in that and other great successes in Arlington, so I feel pretty good that we will come out of the process with the right balance.
The garage comment was just to give a sense of scale, significant commercial development would require more in various places, which is why it is not going to happen (residential can pay the ~$30k per space cost of underground parking but commercial will not). This is why we were going to invest $6M in the parking garages in City Center South so we could get a hotel with a conference room.
We probably should build more parking, but parking will not increase roadway capacity, although building parking would take the load off of property owners and remedy the towing issue. Certainly there are areas where I would support public investment, but only as part of an integrated plan taking all of these issues into account. However, we need pedestrians as much or more more than a place to put cars, and I question whether money invested in parking is more beneficial than money invested in Streetcars. Streetcars will increase roadway capacity and bring far higher upside in terms of tax revenues from commercial activity and property values.
Way to cut through the gobbledygook, Jodi. In caps, no less!
Thanks, Lou.
////////////////////////
Mel’s input is spot on.
////////////////////////
Dan,
There are signs on Rt. 7 saying Shop, Eat and whatever else they say in Falls Church.
With litle to no signage along that road (Rt. 7) guiding people where to do any of the above.
How are people supposed to do any of those things without knowing where to go and no place to safely park if and when they get there – wherever ‘there’ is?
And, isn’t this what FCC wants: “…commitment to transit and a pedestrian-oriented environment.” as you mentioned re Clarendon.
All the discussion about Green Space in the plans for City Center South – which is also something I don’t ‘get.’
I can’t figure out how a street car system smack dab in the middle of the only, and very busy, road from Tysons East. on Rt. 7, would work.
If FCC were not connected to the rest of this area, maybe. But it is essentially right in the middle.
Clearly I don’t understand the topic of street car system discussion.
I so agree with Mel. This is not where the focus should be on, imho.
I welcome enlightment..
Jodi, the purpose of the study is to determine “how” it would work. Streetcars would most likely share the existing road, and because they would carry more people than cars they would tend to reduce traffic except the desirable pedestrian kind. The 35,000 cars that use Rt7 daily mostly do not stop in FC, and yes the lack of parking is a very good reason not to stop. I fully support doing reasonable things to address that situation but the point is that the basic economics of development are not going to produce sufficient revenue to move the fiscal needle without a more integrated approach. A garage would improve the economics within a 1/4 to 1/2 mile radius while a single streetcar stop would have a similar impact with a much smaller footprint. This would allow us to focus on development and revenue without chewing up commercial land to provide so much parking. All of this could happen while ENHANCING the connections between us and our neighbors.
I support Dan’s view point. Unless you have done the homework necessary to understand the economics of transportation you probably don’t agree with Dan. Has anybody read Steven Fullers analysis of the Silver line and what that means to Loudoun County? And yet they are arguing over making the investment. I told several of the candidates that you need to make decisions today in order for our city to be viable 20 years from now. Unfortunaly those decisions require investments that will not be popular in today’s terms but must be done now to preserve our city and school system and probably will not get you elected. And that is why you heard very little from the candidates on Solutions, you only heard about the problems…. that is the way it is with politics……..
The streetcar idea makes little sense unless somebody can guarantee that people will use them. Remember George!
GEORGE only failed because it was not managed. We left it up to METRO and did not oversee the operation. When we finally hired Arlington ARTS to manage it, the cost of operating went down by almost 2/3rds. By then our grant money was gone.
Also, see http://www.loudountimes.com/index.php/news/article/Metro_report_Loudoun_County_billions_Stephen_Fuller424. The true cost of not extending Metrorail service into Loudoun County is seen in an economy that will be 9.7 percent smaller by 2030. The collateral consequences of this smaller and slower growing economy on Loudoun County and its residents will be seen in a less diverse economy with a lower wage structure and a local tax based that is more dependent on residential land uses and less dependent on commercial land uses for its tax revenues.
Sound familiar……
Dan:
” …share the existing road”? Really?!?!? There’s barely enough room for the four lanes of traffic that currently traverse the road every minute of every day.
Nothing would make me happier than finding a way to make FCC more viable.
The reason I keep referring to Clarendon is they’ve done it and quite wonderfully I might add.
Guess I think the “solution” is simpler and less expensive than believed – just not all that easy, is all. Given all the politics, egos and what not – how will we be able to create the wonderful place we all know FCC can be with all the above mentioned obstruction at play and in the way?
Barry, We didn’t manage GEORGE, really, was it that hard to do? I don’t want my SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED taxes to fund a $2m parking garage that I will never use, unless it significantly reduces my taxes. Isn’t the new Bob Young proposal a re-marketed elderly affordable housing proposal, with 52 + more voters who don’t see the school system as a principal issue? How much will it save me in taxes….that’s the bottom line to City Council, because, isn’t the push for commercial to reduce our taxes? What’s the savings to me as a taxpayer in year one, year two…
FCCFamily, we have short-termed ourselves into a long-term problem by listening to the voices that always ask what the immediate payoff is. Long-term investments require long-term thinking and planning.
Jodi, building separate rights of way for transit vehicles is unnecessary and cost-prohibitive. A well-planned regional system will take people out of their cars and make more efficient use of the 50 or 60 feet of roadway. The cars will always be there, but why should we give priority to land and energy uses that make us dependent on unstable foreign sources and lock us in to a warming climate? One of the reasons Clarendon works is that people want to live in a place that offers a real choice of a lifestyle liberated from the strict dictates of the automobile.
All of these questions and comments deserve answers and analysis, but the bottom line is our CIty has tremendous under-yielding assets including our roadways, which we need to figure out a way to make more efficient use of. Streetcars offer a uniquely targeted potential to change the economics of commercial development, which will in the long run result in a better place to live and work. I say the greater risk is to slap another coat of paint on the high school, another layer of pavement on our roads, and wonder why developers do not share our vision of a more prosperous City.
Once again, I TOTALLY agree with Dan….won’t even try to make it any clearer. Those that don’t believe need to do some research.
FCCFamily, your taxes are Not going to go down till we invest in our community and stimulate what market might still be available to us. Look around, do you think Tysons/Merrifield/Bailey’s is just sitting around doing nothing? Politians won’t tell you that because then you won’t vote for them. We need some serious investment in our Little City to stimulate all our “underperforming assetts”……I know you don’t understand that and probably never will……
So, what is the main benefit of a streetcar solution over a bus? Is it because streetcars won’t be shut down if they underperform in the short term like a bus service might? Or are there technical aspect of streetcars that make them more effective than buses?
Andy, ask the EDO to put together a presentation with speakers and invite the public. I think Dan can help with finding qualified speakers. Then judge for yourself…..
Barry, we had some guys in to talk to the EDA a while back. I can’t remember if I asked the question back then (or if I did, what the answer was). I read an article once that suggested the main value of a streetcar over a bus was the permanence of it (which allows businesses to count on it operating for the long haul) – but that was just one article.
Help me understand, Barry, an apartment complex at Annandale and Lee for singles will net the city $X in years 1 through 20. Singles with discretionary income, or elderly with fixed incomes?
Why not a multi-story Wegman’s on that corner, with the underground parking, why does it always have to be mixed use? Why not something like the shopping center up at Harris Teeter at Lee and Harrison, with an Elevation Burger and all those stores, with parking available, and I can pop in to the grocery store? Living on the East Side, I guess I favor Arlington and Lee-Harrison and Clarendon and Westover and Ballston for shopping and dining, because the stores and restaurants are centrally located and there’s parking. I
FCCFamily: I feel your pain, and have for more than a decade. No matter the combination of words used in reply to you, it will all mean “the developers can’t make enough money” without the residential. That’s why we have City government, didn’t you know? So we can ensure that developers make “enough money.”
To all the Moms out there: Happy Mother’s Day!
FCCFamily, you changed the subject, but that is fine. It does not always have to be mixed use a Harris Teeter is fine, but why don’t they come? If you go to Harrison Street what is the issue? Parking, something else we need to fix…We are on the same side, but its public investment that is needed to fix the problem. Yes, developers need to make a buck, that is why the would come to FC…..