Candidates, a referendum and questions

by Pete Behr

There are eleven names on the Falls Church City election ballot for Tuesday May 6, and one question: a proposed referendum to restrict future economic development, advanced by opponents of the City Center South project.

Then there are a host of other questions not on the ballot that link the candidates and the referendum.

The proposed referendum would require future developments on commercially zoned land to be at least 60 percent commercial or retail. Would that requirement tie the City’s hands?  Does Falls Church have the economic clout to tell prospective developers what they must build here?

If development slows, would residents and existing businesses willingly shoulder a higher tax burden to maintain quality schools? School officials say a major new construction program will be required to expand or replace George Mason High School and improve other schools within five or six years. 

The City Center South project follows a strategy of building multi-use residential/commercial projects, a strategy backed by a succession of City Council majorities. New multi-use development has boosted commercial tax revenues, saving the equivalent of $700 in annual taxes on an average Falls Church home. Experts said that multi-use projects were required to create a critical mass of new customers before major retailers will take a chance on Falls Church. What’s the alternative?

Some residents want to preserve the current “village” atmosphere of small shops on Broad Street, which would be dwarfed by the City Center South buildings. The City Center plan lacks the large open “commons” residents called for, and except for a planned Harris Teeter grocery there would be few new “magnet” retail stores. Why can’t the city get the development it wants?

The City’s fiscal analysis model predicts that 75 students will be added when the City Center’s 428 apartment units are occupied, or one student for every six units. However, the three new multi-use projects Broadway, Byron and Read have so far added 17 students to the school system, or one for every ten units -- less than the model anticipated. Most of the city’s enrollment increase comes from turnover of existing homes. Will the apartments in the new projects bring in unexpected numbers of parents of school age children who are willing to rent here to get their kids into Falls Church schools or are the current numbers realistic?

The candidates address these and other issues in their responses to the League of Women Voters and The Washington Post.

Click here to hear from City Council candidates in their own words

Click here to hear from School Board candidates in their own words

Peter Behr is a freelance writer and a member of the steering committee for Deliberation Falls Church City.  He is also a member of the Citizens for a Better City.

Comments

[Bill Corbett]

Hi Mike and Lou,

Nice of you guys to visit.

I think you two have said it all. No more from me.

Cheers,

Bill

[Mike@Blueweeds]

Look at Louie trying to bully Bill and the entire nice calm DD Blog (and trash the FCNP and belittle council candidates).

Don't give in to all the fancy lawyer gibberish Bill!

Use the force. Just use the force.

[Lou Mauro]

Bill,
There is a difference between, on the one hand, expressing your opinion that the effect of the referendum would be to restrict development and, on the other, characterizing as a matter of fact the question on the ballot as one whose purpose is to restrict development, which is what Peter's first sentence does, when no such language is in the ballot question. The former is completely legitimate, of course. The latter is unfair and inaccurate. I fervently hope that this site does not experience NewsPressian-like difficulties in distinguishing fact from opinion.

No comment on candidates who may be trying to have their cake and eat it too--- if that is indeed happening.
Lou

[Mike@Blueweeds]

Wow. I NEVER get thanked and commended by any of the Deathstar charter change sponsers ... I must be doing something right.

The radical proposed charter change would allow the city to approve projects "ONLY IF" they met the artificial commercial criteria Lou Mauro made up out of thin air. The same screwy proposed language also reads the council "MAY NOT" under any circumstances approve residential projects which meet some other number Lou made up in his head. Finally, the Lou/Sam/Dave/Nader charter change attempts to "reach back" and restrict the conditions of the already approved City Center South project.

Writing absolute and arbitrary zoning condition formulas into our city charter ties the hands of our city government - ALL of our city government (not just council, but all of our city staff, boards and commissions, and citizen activits) - and says we cannot as a community participate in the market and decide (through representative government) how to run our own city. So we will restrict ourselves by changing our charter rather than our zoning ordinances ... and then when market conditions change, or our perception of the market changes, we will go ask Big Daddy Government in Richmond to let us have an exception to our self-imposed charter restrictions.

Hopefully, on Tuesday voters will say, "hey, thanks but no thanks for your offer to 'guide and assist' my local government ... if it's all the same with you I prefer to just vote, participate, and not have to depend on Richmond politiceans to run Falls Church."

Lou and the other Deathstar proponents are just way too slick for Falls Church.

[Bill Corbett]

Hi Lou,

Thanks for looking in, and for the comment.

Without taking any position on the referendum one way or the other, I respectfully disagree with your view that the word "restrict" is inaccurate. The referendum, if passed, would restrict the city from doing things tomorrow that it can do today.

Sincerely,

Bill Corbett

[Falls Church Lifer]

Lou Mauro's comments couldn't be more wrong. Lou, read it again. The Referendum, in it's own words, would most certainly restrict future economic development in Falls Church. That's the whole point of the Referendum: to place restrictions on the percentages of commercial vs. residential development which would be allowed in mixed-use projects. It is unwise by any standards to change your City's Charter of Government to include what are essentially zoning restrictions.
The current Council has already initiated a comprehensive review/overhaul of the City's Zoning Ordinances. Citizen's concerned about the percentages of residential vs. commercial development need to get involved in that process - that's their vehicle for change, not attempting to change the City's Charter!
Charter Changes should not be taken lightly, and should only be initiated after much thought and reasoned public debate. This "development" issue is too hot and too reactionary to risk tampering with the City's Charter now.
I've also been hearing disturbing reports from citizens who have encountered Pro-Referendum candidates campaigning in their neighborhoods and telling people that "even if the Referendum is passed, it will never be approved by the General Assembly in Richmond", therefore it's "safe to vote for me, even though I support the Referendum".
Voters should be appalled by the dishonesty and manipulation such a statement reveals, no matter which side of the Referendum issue they stand on.

[Lou Mauro]

Bill & Peter,
So far you have been relatively accurate, objective and fair on this site. I thank you commend you for that. As we near election day, however, some deviation from those standards is becoming apparent. The most egregious example is the very first paragraph of Peter's May 2 article, which states that the proposed referendum is to "restrict future economic development" and is "advanced by opponents of the City Center project."
While opponents of City Center South are certainly among the proponents of the referendum, what is common to all proponents is the belief that the City's development policy and strategy in general need a different direction and emphasis. And it is most definitely inaccurate to say that the proposed referendum is to "restrict future economic development." To the contrary, it is to guide and assist the City in pursuing an economic development policy that is weighted more to commercial and retail development, rather than condo and apartment development, on land that is zoned for commercial use. I hope you will correct those inaccuracies.
Sincerely,
Lou Mauro