CBC — A Member’s Perspective — Part Two

This is the second part of A.C. Miller’s discussion of the CBC.  He has been a member of the organization since 1986.  The views expressed here are his own.

CBC’s Role in City Politics  -  One way to explain the organization’s role is by comparing it to a Parent-Teacher Association (PTA).  Such a group is not Republican or Democratic, but a non-partisan or, perhaps multi-partisan organization of parents fighting for the best schools, the best curricula, the best teachers and the most educational opportunities for their children.  While there may be differences of opinion among members, a PTA ultimately has a shared set of goals and a strong commitment to schools.  In Falls Church, the CBC membership has always included Democrats, Republicans, and independents.

But of course it’s more complicated than that.  Egos become involved.  Rightly or wrongly, people in leadership are accused by those outside the leadership of being “elitists.”  Sometimes leaders become complacent and lose touch with the populace.  Sometimes they over-reach.  Sometimes they fail to lead and are replaced.  But love them or hate them, citizen volunteers get things done.  And CBC, for the most part, has been the “only game in town” to provide a forum for getting things done.  Comparing the CBC to a PTA may be overly simplistic, but I think it’s fair.  What has always drawn me to support the CBC (and indeed, the PTA) is my admiration for those “doers” in the community.  They are volunteering to make the schools and the city better.  And they are doing it in an open environment.   So then .  .  .  .

Why is the CBC so controversial?  -  Three reasons come immediately to my mind.  First, CBC has been very successful at dominating local politics, and success breeds contempt.  That’s a pretty simplistic explanation, but I think people generally respect the two-party system in America and see CBC as a “one-party” system, which can effectively choke off political debate.  This is very ironic, given CBC’s long-standing commitment to vigorous public debate and discourse, but I think it is an inevitable criticism.

Secondly, CBC-backed city councils, in the opinions of their critics, haven’t done a good enough job of controlling spending.  Much of the opposition to CBC’s leadership over the years has been about Falls Church’s relatively high property taxes.  Many members also have railed against high taxes, but over the years the public generally has been willing to pay for quality schools and services, recognizing these are in large part what make our town so attractive.

Finally and more recently, CBC has been perceived as favoring all of the mixed-use development projects springing up in Falls Church which, in the opinion of many, are not in the best long-term interests of the City, either economically, aesthetically, or socially.  I can say from experience that economic development issues are vigorously debated by CBC members and that there is no “CBC position.”  In fact, CBC’s refusal to take official stances has been criticized by many inside the organization.  In any case, the members of the CBC-dominated council ultimately must defend their decisions and understand that those citizens who disagree likely will oppose them in the next election.

Comments Welcome  -  I hope these articles have shed a little light on a complex subject.  I welcome any comments, corrections, or criticisms.  I avoided any discussion of CBC’s relationship to the school board, not because I think it is unimportant, but because I haven’t enough experience in that area.  Perhaps another commentator can provide that piece of the puzzle.

Finally, I would welcome an article written by someone less sympathetic to CBC because, as much as I’ve tried to be objective here, I confess to being biased.  I’m sure there are many opinionated people  out there , thinking ” hey, wait a minute, what about . . . ! “  So please, by all means feel free to comment.  I won’t take it personally.

Citizens for a Better City – A Member’s Perspective

CBC Executive Committee Photo: Gary Mester . . . .

Author A. C. Miller has been a member of the CBC since 1986.  The views expressed are his own.

I’ve been asked by a number of folks, many relatively new to Falls Church, to explain the organization known as Citizens for a Better City and the role it plays in local politics.   

It’s a long story.  A few paragraphs here may shed some light, but if you’re really interested in how this city has evolved politically go to CBC’s website – fallschurchcbc.googlepages.com - and read Wayne Dexter’s “The History of the CBC.”  I think you will find his essay very well-written, informative, and entertaining.  I just re-read it myself and was amazed at how the issues facing Falls Church in the 1950s and 60s were so similar to the ones we have today, namely schools, fiscal responsibility, and economic development.

The Very Short History  -  The CBC was established as a non-partisan political organization in 1958, ten years after Falls Church gained its independent status.  It was non-partisan in part because of the Hatch Act, which restricted federal employees from participating in partisan elections.  But perhaps just as importantly, it was non-partisan because the city’s early founders shared values that transcended political lines.  They believed that for a small community such as Falls Church to remain sustainable it needed to have strong civic engagement, without partisan political posturing, and a forum for a broad range of views.  Thus CBC was born.  It has since dominated city politics, controlling the majority of the council seats in all but a handful of years.  The goal of the CBC has always been to support public interest in government, to identify emerging leaders, and to urge citizens to serve on our many boards and commissions.

A Party Without a Platform  -  The CBC does not  take policy positions, aside from two or three occasions when it advocated approval of school bond referendums.  There is no party platform, only a set of principles.  Briefly, these are the organization’s primary principles as set forth in the preamble to their by-laws:

>   Encourage citizen participation in public affairs.

>   Conduct public business openly and make maximum use of citizens’ talents.

>   Preserve the independence and quality of our schools.

>   Maintain high quality and cost effective public services.

>   Maintain a soundly organized municipal administration.

>   Appoint able, qualified persons to city commissions and boards.

There’s much more at their website, but those points effectively summarize CBC’s credo.  

The Executive Committee  -  Leadership resides in the executive committee which consists of a president and four other officers, plus 10 at-large members.  Members are elected for 2-year terms by the organization’s membership at the annual CBC meeting.  The meeting is open to non-members as well as members, but you must be a member to participate in the election.

All CBC-supported council and ex-council members, as well as current and ex-school board members, are considered ex-officio members of the committee.  The committee meets every month. Meetings are open to the public and are held at the Falls Church Community Center. 

The committee’s chief function is to oversee election of CBC candidates and to maintain the organization between elections.  Views are routinely exchanged between CBC city council members and the executive committee.  Members pass their views on to councilmen, either personally, through the executive committee, or through other organizations to which they belong.

The Nominating Convention  -  CBC holds one every two years to offer its endorsement and support for city council and school board candidates who are running for election or re-election.  Candidates do not have to be CBC members to seek its endorsement and the nominating convention is open to all citizens, with equal voting rights for both members and non-members.  That briefly describes the foundation and workings of CBC. 

In the second part of this series Mr. Miller will discuss the CBC’s role in local politics and offer his view as to  why the organization is so controversial.

 (l-r): Kim Maller, George Molaski, Steve Sprague, Stacy Hennessey, Matt Smith, Kathy McCleary, Gordon Theisz, Carol Loftur-Thun, Deb Gardner, Kathy Kleiman. (Not pictured: Rob Meeks, Susan Allan-Burnett, Julie Krachman, Mike Gardner, Hannah Jordan.)

Northgate Development Jeopardized by Credit Crunch

As a follow up to a piece I posted on February 27 on the Status of the City Center Development, I was asked to comment on the status of the Northgate/Hekemian Development. This is the planned mixed-use development, in the 400 block of North Washington Street being undertaken by Hekemian & Co. It consists of some 95 apartments, 10 rental townhomes, 22,000+ sq. ft. of ground floor retail space, and 14,000+ sq. ft. of office space.

After going through the public vetting/approval process for the better part of 2007 the project was finally approved by all the appropriate boards and commissions and the City Council in 2008. This project, like the City Center project, would appear to be in jeopardy as well, victimized by the current credit crunch. The lending environment for new developments is virtually non-existent at this point in time. To the extent Hekemian can find financing, the amount of equity required (of the investors/developers by the lenders) will be a lot higher than the amounts required one or two years ago, making the project’s economic viability (the investor’s internal rate of return, or IRR) more questionable.

Hekemian has all the approvals needed to proceed and is apparently anxious to do so despite the difficult economic environment. But they must make a decision about whether to wait for more favorable borrowing conditions or go forward under these much less favorable terms, assuming they can even get them at all. Today lenders are demanding far greater equity in a project for a construction loan and permanent financing is extremely difficult to obtain. Even if the current economic crisis abates, lenders are still unsure how to value a property in the future which is how they calculate their risk/reward making the negotiation of terms very difficult for all parties. Projects such as this are valued using a set of assumptions about rental prices, occupancy rates, and “secondary market” prices (what institutional investors would pay for a fully mature property some years down the road) and all of these assumptions are in a state of flux and uncertainty today.

Meanwhile, Hekemian continues to absorb burdensome carrying costs for the project as they already own the land and/or options, tying up their own capital. The value of the land is probably less in today’s market than what they paid for it. And the value of the entire development, when/if completed, is most certainly less today than a year or two ago the combined impact of lower net operating income (lower rents) and higher capitalization and discount rates (to account for greater perceived risk).

All this being said, they continue to shop the project around to potential lenders, still believing that the market for higher end apartments is very strong at their N. Washington St., Metro-walkable location. I understand they have hired a broker to work with them to fill the ground level commercial space with tenants that reflect a theme of healthy living. For example, they will target health food stores, spas, yoga and Pilates studios, weight loss centers, along with cafes and restaurants. But, another hurdle, Hekemian will most likely have to include tenant improvement dollars to “turnkey” the retail space because retailers, large and small, have been shut out of the market due to the inability to obtain loans for FF&E (furniture, fixtures and equipment), inventory, and working capital.

The overall project design and mix of component uses for Northgate remain the same as originally planned and approved. It was enthusiastically supported by the EDA and, I think, most of the boards and commissions when it went through the approval process. Personally I think it would create an impressive gateway to the city from Arlington. And it certainly would add considerable net tax revenues to the city. As bad as the current recession is right now, turn-arounds can come quickly and unexpectedly. Hope springs eternal.

I hope this adds some clarity to an admittedly cloudy situation, and as always I welcome any corrections if I have mis-stated something, more facts, updates, and feedback from all.

Status of the City Center Development

I’ve been asked by a number of friends over the past few weeks, “What is the status of the City Center development in Falls Church?” The simple answer is that it seems to be on hold at least until the country starts to climb out of the recession. The credit markets are still “frozen.” Retail establishments, including hotels, are not committing to new leases, anywhere, as far as I can tell.

Atlantic Realty, the developer of the project, was given 3 years to break ground under its contract with the City. So they have two years still to go. They have a lot invested in this. I don’t think they want to scrap it. But they need financing, and in order to get financing they will probably need pretty solid lease commitments from major tenants. And then there is site plan approval, and the need to complete all their land consolidation, including Bowl America, which is under option, but that option will likely have to be extended. In short, it’s not easy.

I was also asked about the City’s contribution of City-owned property to the project. There is no danger that the City will forfeit its property. If the project does not go forward, the transfer of City-owned property does not go forward.

I know some people would rather the project not go through. I have my criticisms too, but perfect being the enemy of the good, I think it is the best Falls Church could get right now, even if the economy had not tanked, and it would be a good start to developing more of the downtown.

I hope this clarifies the situation, at least somewhat. I would certainly welcome more facts and feedback from all involved in the process. I’m looking forward to more discussions about developing our downtown. By the way, a good resource for those who are interested in the city’s development activities is the website of the Economic Development Authority. There you will see a fairly comprehensive explanation of its activities, studies, programs and services. 

[Full disclosure: I served on the Board of EDA from 2001 to January 2009.]