Developer Unveils Plans for Large South Washington Parcel
By STEPHEN SIEGEL
Falls Church Times Staff
Sept. 22, 2012
After months of rumors and speculation, big national developer Lincoln Property Company has outlined its plans for the two acre South Washington Street site that is now home to Saab dealer International Motors and a Meineke muffler shop.
In an interview with the Times, the company said its plan, which still requires the approval of city officials and a zoning exception, is to build a large apartment complex featuring 224 one and two-bedroom apartments, along with underground parking. It also would offer a ground floor retail space that would include a 20,000 square foot specialty grocery store and a full-service restaurant.
The developer also plans to build a new city park on the northwest part of the site, essentially between the Victory Comics store, which will remain, and Maple Avenue, said Richard Rose, vice-president of acquisitions and development for the Dallas-based company’s mid-Atlantic office.
And unlike some other developments, where retail spaces have remained empty for years, that shouldn’t be the case this time. Mr. Rose said they already are negotiating with the grocery store, which he wouldn’t name because a contract hasn’t been signed. The development also will be designed from the beginning for a restaurant: “We are putting in the necessary mechanical equipment to handle venting,” he said.
The project will enhance the appearance of the South Washington corridor, which is the first site in the City seen by thousands of morning commuters each day. But it also seems likely to reignite the ongoing debate in Falls Church City over density, the impact on the city’s small schools, and the desirability of residential uses on the city’s small amount of commercial land.
Mr. Rose is aware of these issues and is attempting to meet them head-on. Regarding concern about the impact on the schools, he points out that the rental units they plan to build will be small, which he says “will be a draw for young professionals.”
Left unstated is that they will be less desirable for families with children, minimizing the number of new students in the schools, which already are growing at a robust rate.
Seventy percent of the units will offer one bedroom. The remaining 30 percent will have two bedrooms, but those will be just 950 square feet, he added. The company’s “saturation analysis” suggests there is ample demand for smaller apartments, which local developer Bob Young also has said. “We see a niche in smaller units with a smaller price point,” Mr. Rose said.
That would be a contrast to the adjacent Pearson Square, whose large, three-bedroom units have attracted many families with children, causing the bus stop at the building’s door to have as many as 100 kids, according to Falls Church City Public Schools Superintendent Toni Jones.
Another controversial feature that Lincoln is asking for is the right to build 85 feet high, which would be 30 feet higher than Pearson Square, which sits just across Maple from the proposed building. The complex would have either four or five stories of residential above the retail, five at the western end where the land slopes down, and four at the eastern end near Tinner Hill Road.
It would have wood-framed apartments with a brick face on them, Mr. Rose said. Loading docks for the grocery store would be located on Tinner, and loading for the other retail would be on Maple. Vehicular entrances would be on Washington and Maple.
“The (loading) door will be disguised so you don’t really know it’s a door,” Mr. Rose said.
Asked if he had any concern about possible traffic congestion on Maple, which has a fair amount of traffic cutting through to South Washington from the Broad Street area, he said no. “Traffic on Maple won’t cause any problem. I don’t think it will be an issue.”
As part of the proposal, the developer will be making capital contributions to the city in the form of proffers that amount to about $7,000 per apartment for a total of $1,568,000.
Mr. Rose said Lincoln has built all around Northern Virginia — in Arlington, Alexandria, and Fairfax — but never in Falls Church City. “We think it’s a great location and great community, and we want to be a part of it,” he said.
He also praised new City Planning Director Jim Snyder, who came over from Arlington, saying he was a good addition who “has a lot of vision.”
Lincoln has filed its plans with the City, and is hoping to do zoning and site plan approvals concurrently and have them done in the next six to 12 months.
By Stephen Siegel
September 22, 2012
Great reporting, Stephen, as always! Glad to know what’s going on with this project…and everything else you keep us informed about!
A grocer would be welcome. Wonder if it would be a specialty grocer or a regular one. I hear references to Harris Teeter but don’t know if the rumor applies to this development or the Podolnick property.
TFC, my understanding is it would be a specialty store, but it’s not clear exactly what that would be. However, at 20,000 square feet, it would be too small to be a Harris Teeter. The rumored Harris Teeter is slated for the property by the old post office on Broad Street.
Great article. Is it wishful thinking to wonder whether the “specialty grocery store” is a Trader Joe’s?
Ah yes, drool over a small “grocery store” while the developers get permission to use commercially zoned land to shove another 224 apartments down the City’s throat, compounding the scarcity of commercial property in the City and the adverse cumulative effects on traffic, parking, school enrollment and the environment. Our City officials are such suckers that the developers don’t even bother to try to lure them with higher revenue-yielding condos anymore. Do not pass “Go” and proceed directly to apartments. If our schools are really so great, people with children (or “young professionals” planning to have children) will move into apartment units regardless of the number of bedrooms (let’s not forget single parents please). Do we really want to take the position that our school system is not so exceptional that it provides an incentive for parents to settle for more crowded living conditions? And surprise, surprise! The developer thinks that traffic on Maple will not be “an issue.” Ridiculous. Remember folks, in a 2.2 square mile jurisdiction, it’s not just about $$$. It’s about quality of life. And education.
Nobody’s drooling Lou. We’re intrigued by the possibility of getting something other than the current eyesores on the site, which produce almost no tax revenue for the city. I think everybody would all love to shore up the city’s finances by attracting nice, all-commercial developments to underutilized sites like this. The demand just isn’t there. Of course, I’ll withhold judgment on this project until we get a better idea of how it will affect the city’s bottom line. But I don’t understand the knee-jerk opposition before there has been any detailed proposal or financial analysis.
Wait; why are there two-bedroom units in this new building that’s going up directly across the street from Pearson Square? My understanding was that these new developments were designed to appeal to older seniors and young working professionals, with the goal of having little to no impact on our schools that are already bursting at the seams. So I expected this would mean only one-bedroom apartments, and this is the first I’ve read of two-bedroom units. Surely there is sufficient demand among seniors and recent college grads for a building full of one-BR units. Has something changed to make the Pearson Square-esque economics more amenable to the City?
It sure would be great if somehow the building housing Victory Comics could be included in a project of this nature, should it be approved. It’s a fun place,and I hope it could be retained as a local business; but the building is an eyesore. Better to incorporate that whole area, up to Maple, I think, though I don’t know if it’s possible.
I share the concerns that (1) it begs credulity to suggest that traffic on Maple Ave. would not be a concern under the proposed plan; (2) condos would be financially more beneficial and provide for a more stable population that is invested in the city; (3) the units are of a size to house families with school-age children; and (4) the ratio of commercial to residential is too heavily weighted to residential.
That said, the idea of a specialty grocery is interesting. We have a wealth of excellent ethnic specialty groceries, and there are a number of organic groceries in the vicinity, if not in the city. A good, basic, milk-bread-meat-and-potatoes store would be very welcome. Another restaurant, particularly one not part of a chain that would expand the available cuisines, is always welcome — more nights out and less cooking for me.
I’ll be monitoring developments with interest.
Linda, I don’t know the details but I think one problem with the Victory Comics site is that it’s built on top of a stream – probably making redevelopment difficult. I also don’t know if the property owners had any interest in being part of a bigger development.
Condos would be cool – but unfortunately there aren’t any developers interested in building them right now. Same thing with 100% commercial. Some people would say the City should wait until developers are interested, however long it takes. Others think that accepting a development like this now is better for the City in the short and long run rather than waiting an unknown period of time (potentially forever) for an “ideal” development to be proposed.
From what I’ve heard, the residential units in this development are not really comparable to Pearson Square. Pearson has quite a few three bedroom units and generally larger units than this project. Certainly, there will be more school kids as part of this project – but the question is, will the City be better off with the increased revenue (and increased costs) that this project will bring – or without it?
I think we should be okay with increasing the school population some. I worry that some folks are resistant to welcoming new families into the City, which is unfortunate, because I think with proper planning we can accomodate more kids in the schools and actually make it a better experience for everyone. Also, I think supporting these mixed use developments will finally help shift some of the tax burden off of residential property owners and over to commercial entities.
I know there will be a lot of debate about this project – with Lou (and others) leading the charge against accepting any residential development on commercially zoned land. I hope people spend the time to really understand the dynamics of the mixed use projects, consider what realistic alternatives there are, and then weigh in. Personally, I think this is a pretty good project for the City and I hope it can get through the process efficiently.
Andy, I know all that — site problems at Victory Comics building, disinterested property owners, market forces, families vs. singles, owners vs. renters, schools capacity, commercial vs. residential. etc.
But a girl can dream, can’t she?
Like I said, I’ll be curious to see how potential traffic problems are handled, what the financials are, how schools will handle additional kids, what sort of grocery store will locate there, etc. I’m all for reducing the residential tax burden, which is unconscionably high and projected to get higher if something sensible isn’t done at city hall to control costs.
Andy,
I don’t think it’s an issue of being unwelcoming to new families coming in…especially since I can say that my family (with a toddler) moved into our home in a wonderful and welcoming Falls Church neighborhood only a couple of years ago. There seems to be a natural turnover — some families move out of their houses once their kids graduate, and others with school-age kids move in. The City should and does welcome that…if new families didn’t move in to offset the ones who graduate, pretty soon there’d be no one for our great teachers to educate! My concern is that our schools are physically constrained in how large they can become, and class sizes are already creeping up, so the idea that we should actively expand the growth in student population that’s already underway by adding new any multi-bedroom units instead of solely targeting seniors or young single professionals (whose demand would likely fill the same number of units and provide a larger NET benefit to the City’s bottom line) seems unnecessary. I can see a continuing cycle. New restaurants and businesses require more people (though thousands of non-residents pass through our City on a daily basis, but that’s a separate point about woeful parking, etc.), and as we add more people, new developers will sense a demand for more businesses…which will lead to the idea that we need more residents. Where does it end?
Linda, yeah – you can dream! I like it when people talk about the ideal situations for these locations – and I agree that having the existing Victory Comics building kind of orphaned out there is unfortunate.
I haven’t heard much about traffic – although I work on Maple and if they put a light at Maple and Washington then I don’t think a development like this would cause much of a traffic problem. I’m no traffic expert, so maybe I’m wrong, but I’m mostly trying to envision what the traffic problem could be? Maybe 5-6 cars waiting at the light to get on to Washington? Certainly, Maple won’t become wall-to-wall traffic.
I suspect the City has run the particulars of the development through their fiscal model – but I haven’t seen those results yet. Maybe we’ll get to see them at next week’s EDA meeting? Or maybe the joint work session between City Council and the Planning Commission next Monday.
That fiscal model also predicts the number of new school kids the development will probably attract. My guess is about 40.
I’m sure the name of the grocery store will be revealed whenever they can do that without jeopardizing the deal. I do think that the developer will have to be almost 100% confident in their ability to get the grocery store in order to get final approvals, so that’s good.
As for those potential 40 new kids to the schools – is that okay? It sounds like this development comes with about $1.5M in capital contributions – which could go towards school expansion. It also will come with a massively increased amount of tax revenue over what’s on the site now. Between those two, if we plan appropriately, we should have no problem accommodating the 40 kids that would come with the project.
Brian, I know most people are welcoming of new kids – it’s just that sometimes I get the sense that some aren’t. Maybe I’m wrong. As for your concerns, they’re very valid. I’m hoping we’ll see the school board making some specific plans for expanding capacity at Mount Daniel and George Mason in the coming years. I think we need to be able to handle maybe 20% more kids than we have now. Maybe half of that increase is based on new kids going into existing residential – and I think the best way to pay for that is by encouraging new development that brings in more net revenue.
But yeah, it would probably be a better net impact on the City if these new units were all 1 bedroom. I don’t know why the developer wants a mix with some 2 bedroom units – but I’m guessing there are financial reasons. The reality is that the City isn’t developing these projects – private companies are. The City can’t dictate exactly what will be developed – but can shoot down projects that need special exceptions (like all the mixed-use projects need). So we end up with a balance between what works for the City and what works for developers – and that’s a hard balance to maintain. From what I’ve heard, the current proposal is a good option for the City and I hope it works out.
Brian gets it. And alludes to an another critical point I forgot to mention in my last comment, but deserves re-emphasis: there should be no further development of any kind until the City, on its own, or in partnership with a developer, provides for ample MUNICIPAL PARKING.
While a serious matter….you have to chuckle. My goodness…..is this the plan we are “hanging our hats” on at least for now…..is this the linchpin…the big bang we we need? Does this get us to what some have called “a special place.” While more residential sounds like the wrong direction to me…on the flip side I guess it is something which represents probably a sense of desperation more than anything else – - just to do something. When you miss opportunities over the years (pre-recession) and maybe most importantly develop a reputation of being not very friendly to business…and you are not very bold and adverse to risk …this is sort of what you wind up.
“….desperation….just to do something.” Right on, Mel. That’s what bureaucrats and politicians do.
Right, Lou. My hunch is that we are in a defensive position with our “backs against the wall” to a large extent…..developers talk and know this……they also know that the City is probably still difficult to work with….the unfortunate thing is we can’t be choosy at this point……those days are probably over…..a lot of good projects that we may have had a shot of have migrated to all sides of Falls Church City…..what the City gets for consideration are probably leftovers…and undesirables – - those projects that are others such as Merrifield are passing on. Any decent project is going to require a solution to parking…..we essentially ar content in a lot of ways with the look and feel for the 100 block of West Broad (as an example)….trying to somehow retrofit that into the current day without the parking needs, etc. and frankly the demolition of some areas to make it all work in the present day.
Okay guys, I get it – this project stinks. I guess Mel is suggesting we missed the boat, and maybe we did. I wish you guys would chime in with specific suggestions for how to go about this better. It’s easy to shoot down every development that comes along. It’s also easy to say we’re screwed due to things we did or didn’t do 5-10 years ago. But here we are – what’s our next move?
Parking – not a bad idea. Let’s get discussions going about that – I think there might be something to it. The City could buy some land and build a parking deck somewhere. We could look for a developer who is willing to put in parking in exchange for something – but what? Or we could hold fast until a developer is willing to put in parking as a requirement for building anything in the first place. We definitely need to work on the parking issue – so let’s work on it.
(As for Merrifield – that recent development is a giant mixed-use project with tons of residential – I can’t image folks like Lou being happy about a project like that in Falls Church.)
I don’t think the project stinks at all. It actually looks pretty promising. Let’s hear the public debate through the boards and commission before rushing to judgement. Lou’s position is clear, and has been, for 10 years – no residential on commercial land. I used to agree with him until I realized if one were going to increase the residential density required to increase demand for commercial development, what current residential neighborhood should be razed?
Try looking at what is there. A car dealership (no almost out of business) and a muffler place. The car dealership brought in no tax revenue on the sales (goes to the state) and only on repairs. This is why the previous council chose to prevent a Car Max where BJ’s is now. Everyone agree that was a smart move? This developer managed to consolidate a large piece of land and is bringing in small apartments, potentially young professional residents who will (and already are) filling our restaurants and bars in the evening, and FILLED retail space! On parking, I’d bet they have that covered too.
It would seem to me that more of the S. Washington corridor will start to turn over into modern class A buildings as a result of this development. Sure, I love Super Chicken, but the S. Washington blocks are some of the most dilapidated in town.
I look forward to hearing more specifics about the this as it goes through the public process, before condemning it.
Beauty is in the mind of the beholder, Gordon. I don’t think the car dealership and that part of S. Washington St. is any more “dilapidated” than the Volvo dealership on W. Broad and that part of W. Broad. To me, it is much less of an “eyesore” than the ugly monstrosity across the street from it (that would be Pearson Square for those of you in Rio Linda).
Lou, I’m surprised to see you use that “Rio Linda” term (which I was unfamiliar with until I checked http://www.urbandictionary.com to find out that it’s a Rush Limbaugh term for people who are mentally slow) – I thought you were a proponent of keeping these discussions civil.
In previous discussions Lou made it clear that he preferred the dilapidated duck pin bowling alley over Pearson Square and the Tax Analysts building (and Red Lobster over The Byron). Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Fortunately, I’m pretty sure there are more people in town like me, who think both projects are huge upgrades over what was there before. I look forward to more projects like this one from Lincoln going up over the next several years.
Andy, all I said was that “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” If I were you I would not be so sure that you are in the majority on what is and what is not a “huge upgrade” esthetically.
Yes, I am aware that Limbaugh uses the term but, sadly, I am old enough to know that it predates him.
I preferred the duck pin bowling alley because of the child and family entertainment center it was. It had many positives and no negatives, and only became dilapidated after the property was sold and development plans mandated that it be razed. Pearson Square started out ugly, and has many negatives and only a tiny art facility as a positive. And, you betcha (hopefully you don’t have to look that up), I much prefer a decent seafood restaurant, which are few and far between, to another condo with a Cosi and a spice store.
I am with those who have mentioned parking… we are in dire need of more parking in the City, and hopefully this project will have enough parking for the size and scope of it – and NOT count on on-street parking on Maple! That would be a disaster.
Lou, indeed beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Maybe I’m wrong about the majority… I guess we’ll find out. I will say that you’re the only person I’ve ever heard mention that they miss Red Lobster.
However, I am old enough to know that the duck pin bowling alley was dilapidated before the development plans mandated that it be razed. I suppose dilapidated is in the eye of the beholder – so we’ll have to disagree on that one.
Lou and Andy,
In a fit of community loyalty, we decided to have our son’s 8th birthday party at the duck pin bowling alley. I thought it would be fun… but was mortified when I overheard one of my son’s little friends say “This place su*ks!” LOL.
Even 8 year olds can indentify “dilapidated”, which is what I’m sure the little boy meant to say.
My son is 17 now, and he’s forgiven me for his 8th birthday party. It’s become a family joke how mom threw him a birthday party in the “scary, run down, abandoned warehouse” section of town…
Just wanted to share my memory of the duck pin site and hopefully bring a smile.
Lou, what would you do to ensure 100% commercial development? Maybe I am missing something?
Maybe I’m wrong but my sense is that the developers bring res/commercial because that’s what works best for them for a variety of reasons. What could we do to* make* them develop only what we want?
I have been here quite some time and, as I recall, we tried the path of standing firm on our desires for commercial and found no takers. So, would we just wait until the right plan came along, even if it takes years and years?
TFC, no one can “make” developers do anything. I can’t “ensure” 100% commercial development. You are absolutely right: developers will always try to do what’s best for them, i.e., $$$. We have an attitudinal problem. The City has never really tried to “ensure” commercial development on commercially zoned property. We have never really tried “standing firm.” That’s a cover story. Commercial only development is possible in this City! Bob Young has done it and continues to do it, or try anyway. And is doesn’t have to be 100% commercial. We just need to persuade developers that if they can’t reverse the 70 – 80% ratio to favor commercial rather than high-density residential, they can take a walk. Why can Fairfax and Arlington have supermarkets without 4 – 8 stories of condos and apartments? Why not us? I believe that it is an attitude problem. Those in charge of economic development have not exerted maximum effort to get more commercial because they haven’t really cared that much. They will accept what the developers want because they don’t care if we waste all our commercial property with condos and apartments. They will take what they can get and then tout the condos and apartments as “cash cows,” which they have not turned out to be. Just look at the increase in our tax rate for the last 10 years. Andy will have the figures in a jiffy. So, No, I don’t have a magic wand to “make” developers do anything. But I can guarantee that if I were in charge I would not be shy about telling them that what’s best for the City comes before what’s best for them. Bottom line: we don’t NEED more condos and apartments on commercial land. In fact, for the reasons I have stated many times, as a 2.2 square mile jurisdiction, I believe continued high-density development does us more harm than good. So if, after making an honest and diligent effort, we can’t get primarily commercial development on commercial land, so be it. We can help and encourage our existing commercial
entities to upgrade.
Thanks for your perspective on the issue
You are welcome. [The civility police will love us.]
I won’t bother with the figures – but I will say that every mixed use development in the City is having a net positive (usually significant) impact on the City’s bottom line (compared to the things they replaced). Look at our tax rate increase for the last 10 years – and then look at what it would have been without the mixed use projects (it would have been higher).
It’s not really possible to respond to Lou’s accusation that those in charge of economic development haven’t exerted maximum effort or that they don’t really care that much. Depending on who Lou’s talking about, I know those people and it sure seems like they care to me. But maybe Lou’s right – maybe we haven’t ever tried standing firm. Maybe nothing at all was happening in the decade before the first batch of mixed use projects were approved?
One quick thing – other than Bob’s Flower Building (a good portion of which is rented by the City), what 100% commercial has he built in Falls Church? Lou suggests that Bob has done it and continues to do it (or tries) but what is he talking about? The last proposal from Bob that I’m aware of was primarily an apartment building. I’m not saying anything negative about Bob – I’m just trying to understand where his 100% commercial successes have been.
I think for a goodly number of years the tone in the City was anti-development. I remember folks voicing a desire to keep the “village” feel of the City. Maybe this originated with the residents? Maybe leadership? Dunno. Maybe opportunities were not explored back then? Maybe developers passed us by if they sensed our attitude. I think we have an opportunity now..we are open to ideas and need to make sure we convey that attitude.
I am not a visionary on what exactly a good project looks like…..never could have become an architect…smile. It sort of is you will know it when you see it. But I have some sense of what a less-than-desirable one is…and I think one falls in that category.
Hey folks – - I don’t mean to beat up on this City….after all I have lived here a long time and have a lot of pride. I did something I have not done in quite a while long. This evening I walked around the downtown area (around the 100 to 300 blocks of West Broad and Park Avenue. And you know what? It sucks too! Between not much going on (yes there are some places) and some kooks and shady characters that I guess come out of the Unity Club, no parking, etc….frankly let’s say it needs a lot of work….no surprise there. I felt somewhere between the 1960s (which is not all bad) and a mish-mash of other things spread apart – - a mess and just an old, worn out feeling in my opinion.
I am back to saying to really bring significant change to that area you really need to demolish most of the current structures in that area, free up a large area and start over…that is going to cause some a lot of angst….sorry Brown’s Hardware…while we like you we are going to need to relocate you or at least change the look and feel. This will enable parking and new structures with some good mix of comericial and residential, heavily slanted toward some form of commercial enterprise. Currently, we seem to be doing some things on the fringes just hoping it all somehow comes together…sort of a “hail mary” in sort of a deperate state to use a football metaphor.
I still say and maybe I don’t know what I am talking about is if the City is looking for an Arlington model….take a look at Shirlington…maybe not exactly…maybe smaller, maybe bigger. But the size seems to fit the City. Forget the talk of Clarendon or Ballston…not the right model to consider and way to overwhelming.
Mel, I appreciate your thoughts on the issue of development – and I think you have the right ideas. The challenge is how to make any of that stuff happen. The City isn’t a commercial developer – so we can’t just go and do those things (even if we had the money). So, we try to do things to encourage developers to come to Falls Church and build things that we think we’d like.
The current strategy involves a few things. One is the area planning that we’re doing – where we take a section of the City and try and figure out the uses that we’d really like to see there. We do some research and pull together some data. The hope is that by doing this developers will be encouraged that if they come in and propose something that fits with the plan they’re likely to get fairly quick and easy approval. It also helps developers see how different kinds of projects could work and be profitable to them.
The most controversial (I think) strategy we’re using is allowing developers, under certain conditions, to use land for things that it’s not zoned for. In this specific case we’re considering letting a developer build apartments (residential use) on land that is zoned for commercial use. This is an incentive for developers because right now it is a lot easier for a developer to make money building residential. I know that the City isn’t in the business of helping developers make money – but hopefully we’re in the business of helping the City grow and evolve into a better place and in order to do that we have to leverage current market forces to make it worthwhile for developers.
Part of this strategy is that once we get some momentum with new developments it will make it more attractive for developers to redevelop adjacent areas. In this case, if the property across the street from Pearson Square and the Tax Analysts building gets redeveloped it will make the land farther north on Maple more attractive for redevelopment. So, I don’t think of this current project as a “hail mary” – more like methodically driving down the field for a touchdown. If anything, I think the approach of holding out for 100% commercial development is a hail mary.
Some people don’t agree with this strategy, or with the vision of what Falls Church can/should become. I enjoy hearing ideas for other strategies. I’m less eager to hear people complain about the current strategy without any ideas for other approaches.
Thanks Andy. Just a lot of rhetorical questions I have and I am sure you and others have the same questions too. The frustration that many people have is why doesn’t some form of the strategy/process you articulate get carried out – - and carried out more timely. As you know, this has been going on for many years…you, yourself, I believe cited a 10 year horizon. This could not be that difficult, or is it? How did other areas in the region get developed (such as Clarendon, Merrified, Reston Town Center, for example)….this can’t be rocket science or is it? Is it that as a whole that the culture of the City just doesn’t want it that bad….that we as a City are are just content in the status quo (pretty much) and willing as residents to simply open up our wallets and pay more taxes….is it leadership within the City, or what? I have friends who visit me who see Falls Church and ask me what in the world is the problem. We have a new planning director who comes from Arlington who is supposed to be the development guru….is he the one to make the difference?
You know what, Andy, I did lay out a “strategy” in my reply to TFC. I am sick and tired of you cherry-picking other people’s comments for parts you can criticize and listening to you complain about other people complaining without offering “strategies” or “other approaches.” It seems to me that, on those infrequent occasions when you don’t just surround an issue with every possible permutation, the position you wind up taking reflects regular drinking the City kool-aid. I am moving to the Falls Church Post. Have fun.
Mel, I’ve been in the City for about 4.5 years now – and paying attention for about 4 years – so I’m not sure about things that happened before that. The sense I get, and an “excuse” I’ve heard in the past, is that development progress has been hindered due to the “will of the people” – the suggestion being that the people of Falls Church were resistant to development. But times change, people come and go, and I think we’re at the point now where there are enough different people in the City, and enough pressure from the tax rate, that the will of the people may have changed.
What you see in Arlington (Clarendon, for example) is the result of 20-30 years of planning. It takes a long time. We’re not trying to do quite what they did in Arlington, so I don’t think it will take 20 years, but it still takes a long time. For example, the project being discussed, even if it goes through the approval process very smoothly, won’t be occupied for 3-4 years.
I think Jim Snyder, the City’s planning director who worked for years in Arlington, certainly brings a lot of experience and ideas for encouraging the kind of development that I think will help the City. He has a lot of experience with planning, which we’re leveraging. It seems like we have a lot of folks on City Council who want to encourage economic development (although different people have different approaches and priorities). So, I think we’re in heading in the right direction.
I’ll give you all a break now… signing off.
I can pull out from various written materials going back at least 15 years…….that same quote made by others….”I think we are heading in the right direction.” Oh really? Andy, I realize you have only been here 4 to 5 years, but you really need to get a bit better grasp on reality. If this quote is true we are not moving very fast. And a lot of us are not going to be able to outlast the continued tax increases….we will be forced to move from homes we have lived in for years because we can’t afford to live here any longer…..period. I think you hit on the same point I am making…..the City as a whole does not have the desire….really don’t want it that bad….for the most part, content with the status quo.
Love this dialogue. To do what should be done downtown FC we need eminent domain capabilities. Has anybody looked at the question on the ballot this November? If it passes forget fixing up downtown for a long while. I’m for personal property rights but I think the question that will be asked needs to be defeated and re-written to allow areas like our “city center” to be re-developed in a manner that benefits all.
Barry – - that is an excellent point. I wonder how many even know about this. Is it appropriate for the City to take a positon on this. Is there any sort of organized effort to increase the awareness within the City?
The Falls Church Leaque of Women Voters will have a program on Eminent Domain on Tuesday October 30 at 7:30pm in Council Chambers City Hall.
Okay, I’m on vacation but everyone knows I can’t let Lou throw bombs at me without responding. Yeah, I think I get your strategy: hold out for 100% commercial – if we just play hardball with the developers we’ll get what we want. I’m fine with you having that strategy – at least it’s a strategy. If that’s not your strategy then I guess I missed it. Fortunately, the people in charge don’t have that approach. I’m sorry you think I cherry pick – check out your comment history, you’re the master of the cherry pick, maybe I learned it from you?
Mel, I’m fine with my grip on reality – it’s a lot better than the “nothing will ever get better, woe is me” attitude that some people seem to have (maybe even you?). I’m not sure what you’re considering the status quo – but I’m trying to push things forward – like this proposed development. Without projects like this the tax rate would be higher. I’m confused about what you’re suggesting we do.
Barry, that’s an interesting topic – I’ll have to check it out.
I’ll really try to sign off now… but this is what bugs me – too much complaining and not enough energy and excitement about making things happen. Falls Church will change, it has to change, let’s actively work on changing things. If you don’t like the changes that people are proposing – start working on better ideas and get those ideas out there in a positive way. Lou is one of the most negative people I encounter out here on the Internet and as much as I exhaust him with my naive enthusiasm and Kool Aid drinking he exhausts me twice as much with his harping on how we screwed things up 20 years ago. At least I’m doing something.
The proposed law in question will be Question 1 on the November ballot. In essence, it would prohibit the use of eminent domain for private enterprise, job creation, tax revenue generation, or economic development, thus limiting its use to situations where land is taken for direct public use.
just happened by this discussion (after reading the bit in today’s post about the City’s continued ownership of two properties linked to the now gone plan for the City Center) and read the various bits — clearly a topic which needs wider discussion.
One small bit — and I do realize how tiny it is, but it stuck me — in an early post, Mr. Mauro used the phrase “for those of you in Rio Linda.” When Mr. Rankin called him on the use of the term — noting that, after looking it up, it appears to be a term used by Rush Limbaugh to describe people who are mentally slow — Mr. Mauro responded that he was aware that Mr. Limbaugh used the term but that he was old enough to know that the term predates Mr. Limbaugh’s use.
Being plenty old myself and not knowing the term (I don’t listen to Mr. Limbaugh and hadn’t otherwise heard it), I too went wandering on the web to see what I could learn. The explanation at the link below from Mr. Limbaugh indicates that he claims full credit for the term and that he started using it in 1984.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2007/11/30/rio_linda_explained_for_those_in_rio_linda
So, my little question on this teeny tiny point (tho’ I do believe it goes to the issue of civilty on this site): Given Mr. Limbaugh’s claim to having coined the term, Mr. Mauro, can you shed some light on when/where you heard it before Mr. Limbaugh began to use it in the 1980s? Did it have the same meaning that Mr. Limbaugh appears to give it — having to explain a point in simple terms for people who apparently are not able to understand the point as originally presented? And lastly, whatever the origin, do you believe its use promotes the level of civility that most posters seem to believe is desirable on this site?
Bill, if you must know, I heard the phrase used on a radio program while in college in the 60s. I don’t give a hoot that Limbaugh claims he invented it. He may have popularized it but, by golly, I know what I heard and when I heard it!
And it has nothing to do with civility. It’s a joke, for Pete’s sake! If you are so uptight and fault-seeking to think that jocular phrase is uncivil then you might as well crawl in a hole and have food and water piped in because you are going to be offended constantly. I suggest you let the FCT editors decide what is and is not civil on its site. Moreover, if the folks in Rio Linda are OK with it, it should be OK with you! Any more earthshaking topics or questions you’d like to raise? [Good grief. What IS this country coming to?]
Mr. Mauro, thanks for your response.
I work hard to maintain what my sainted grandmother used to demand when she’d say “keep a civil tongue in your head.” I spent my professional life in an arena where civility has become less and less the norm, but I always found it best if I treated those with whom I disagreed with respect, both in actions and words.
I guess it is fair to say that you and I have different senses of humor – I don’t find humor in a remark which has at its core a put down of other folks as not being smart enough to understand a conversation. I don’t know how most of the residents of Rio Linda feel about how Mr. Limbaugh talks about them, but I did find this column from one former resident that indicates his feelings: http://www.annarbor.com/news/opinion/the-rio-lindas-rush-limbaugh-never-knew/
Mr. Brew, you have used the tiniest and most insignificant remark to make this thread about me. I don’t appreciate it and I’m sure none of the other FCT readers do either. However, as long as you keep talking about me in public I have to reply. But I will try to be brief—- I don’t know Limbaugh’s intent when he uses the phrase. And I don’t care. My intent was light-heartedly humorous and informative, i.e., to inform those who might not know off the tops of their heads that Pearson Square is across Maple Ave. from the Volvo dealership. You do understand, do you not, that the same words may be insulting or harmless depending on the context and the intent of the speaker/writer? If you don’t, then you are not the paragon of civility that you think you are. Perhaps you will now use the obviously enormous amount of time on your hands to move on to something else.
To all FCT readers to whom I’ve unintentionally given offense, please accept my apology.
Lou, Pearson Square is across Maple from the Saab dealership. Volvo is across from the Giant Shopping center. Just a little Rio Linda. Lightheartedly, of course.
Taxpayer, you are of course correct. I was wrong [Save that. Using those three words in that combination is extremely rare for me]. Alack and alas, so the whole Rio Linda tempest in a teapot was unnecessary to begin with!
falls church has alot of empty store fronts all over rt 7, a major thoroughfare, does teeter understand this?
@sam wilson – You’re actually asking if Harris Teeter realizes there are empty storefronts on Rt 7?