U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-10-2011, 10:59 AM
 
5,071 posts, read 8,636,362 times
Reputation: 2722

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
"Projects like that do, however, certainly deserve close scrutiny. For example, FCPS asked Pulte to make a contribution in anticipation of new students living in the development. "

are all new developments in the region required to make such contributions? SFH home developments, or TH developments in more peripheral areas? How about tear downs where a SFH is replaced by a much larger SFH?

All development deserves scrutiny. I am very unconvinced that TOD deserves CLOSER scrutiny than other forms of development.
I'm not sure what the threshold is. I think the replacement of one SFH on a two-acre lot with eight SFHs on quarter-acre lots, for example, would trigger a request for a "proffer," but that the replacement of one SFH with another does not, regardless of the size of the two homes.

If you studied this site, you could probably "reverse engineer" the thresholds or process involved.

Facilities & Transportation Services - School Enrollment Impacts of Proposed New Housing

Last edited by JD984; 06-10-2011 at 11:12 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-10-2011, 12:13 PM
 
Location: Northern Virginia
116 posts, read 176,832 times
Reputation: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvc7171 View Post
Jeb77, I've read your posts before, so your response or lack of comprehension is to be expected. You trying (yet again) to down play what someone else posts, is precisely why I edited my post to include the sentence.

My post was in relation to Arlington Country yet again standing in the way of the rest of area. It's why the HOT development will now stop at their doorstep. Furthermore, I also pointed out how its no coincidence that even existing roads like I66, look like crap from the point where Arlington County begins.

I have not even warmed up regarding the laughable condition of Arlington. Their priorities should probably be shifted locally, that is, rather than simply objecting to every improvement the area or state tries to implement. Considering the county's educated left leaning voter base, I'd expect better than this every man for themselves attitude towards the rest of the area or state.
You seem to miss the point regarding local government. The government in Arlington is elected to benefit the people of Arlington. I'm not sure that these HOT lanes will do that. I seem to recall that there was some controversy about them to begin with so I can't say that it would be an unpopular decision to not have them in the county.

I live in DC, work in Alexandria and tend to have to travel to Arlington on quite a few morning. I've noticed that traffic is rarely all that horrible in any of them. It gets backed up on 395 and the GW parkway going to the 14th Street Bridge, but for the most part, traffic flows just fine in those jurisdictions.

If you are objecting to highway maintenance, then your beef is with VDOT. If you are objecting to the widening of the highway in Arlington, why would Arlington agree to it. I think that if you increase the highways and build more of them, then you just encourage more sprawl. Traffic is lousy in a lot of the suburbs further out, because the roads and neighborhoods are laid out in such a way that you have to take one major road to get anywhere. In DC, if a road is closed there are multiple options for getting around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2011, 12:33 PM
 
Location: South South Jersey
1,652 posts, read 3,408,203 times
Reputation: 734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Viceroy of Lost Umbrellas View Post
Traffic is lousy in a lot of the suburbs further out, because the roads and neighborhoods are laid out in such a way that you have to take one major road to get anywhere. In DC, if a road is closed there are multiple options for getting around.
Fewer roads=more traffic on existing roads. People in DC have more options for how to get to places precisely *because* they are (grid-arranged) road-surface-dense. My fantasy plan for the suburbs would involve more and larger arteries to move traffic through the region quickly (with long bike/pedestrian trails as an alternative [and also to highlight 'wild'/'park'/'preserve'-like spaces in the region]; Fairfax Co. has been reasonably good at this part, actually), interspersed with walkable communities served by streets/roads arranged in dense grids. Oh, and plentiful public transit options serving the whole area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2011, 03:18 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 28,371,569 times
Reputation: 4002
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
Steal cage match including bringing in a congressman to challenge WMATA's funding? I thought that was kind of over the top. You fight at the zoning board, and in the county board, and even in court, but when you lose you lose.
That would be Tom Davis, who used his federal funding leverage to induce Metro to hold a public hearing on a proposed sale of Metro-owned land into the already giant project. Traffic studies and a cost-benefit report were also called for. Davis was hearing it from constituent groups who had been left substantially out of the Metro West proceedings, and once Metro agreed to the hearing, Davis stepped out of the way again. I don't think the sale itself was ever at issue with him. More the process.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
Maybe it worked out well - I dont even recall all the details. My point is that to accuse Arlington of NIMBYISM in a region where there is focus on local needs over regional needs in just about every jurisdiction, seems unfair.
Certainly agree there, and I can only admire Arlington for speaking up on behalf of its own interests. All too easy for people and money from elsewhere to line up and steamroller a place that doesn't play some hardball. Remember that the original proposal for I-66 through Arlington was for an at-grade, 8-lane highway separated from nearby neighborhoods by a chain-link fence. All that landscaping, all the cuts, and all the sound walls, berms, and baffles are there thanks to Arlington. Sometimes it pays to protest.

NIMBY is otherwise a usually misused term in my view. As it's intended to be pejorative, it ought to be reserved for cases of patently excessive and selfish refusal to go along, such as when in the face of otherwise convincing arguments built from actual fact and reason. Such is not the case when someone wants to build a road through Arlington that provides very little benefit to Arlington, but obviously all of the costs. If you expect to get a Yes out of Arlington or any other place in that sort of situation, come up with ways to share, lessen, or mitigate that cost. There is nothing NIMBY about asking for at least that much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2011, 03:28 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,793 posts, read 10,705,766 times
Reputation: 2515
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
That would be Tom Davis, who used his federal funding leverage to induce Metro to hold a public hearing on a proposed sale of Metro-owned land into the already giant project. Traffic studies and a cost-benefit report were also called for. Davis was hearing it from constituent groups who had been left substantially out of the Metro West proceedings, and once Metro agreed to the hearing, Davis stepped out of the way again. I don't think the sale itself was ever at issue with him. More the process.
.
I lived in the area earlier in the process, and I think the hearing and Davis getting out of the way happened after I left and stopped following it closely. My memory is that Davis was really hostile to the project overall - I dont know if I am misrembering, or the reaction from the WaPo and others to Davis' intervention caused him to step back a bit. Even if it was 100% about the process, it still seems rather over the top to pass a specific federal law about one specific local project. Either pass a law about ALL TOD in the USA (but that raises the question of why one would add a process burden on TOD but not on all development - that transit agencies get federal funding would be the legal hook, but seems weak as a substantive argument) or on none. Why just on the one thats adjacent to where Rep Davis lived?


It certainly didnt leave me feeling more inspired about the political process.

And in a world where there is all kinds of rhetoric about new projects, about rapacious developers and corrupt county boards and technocratic planners, all against the noble "community" , etc, which is rarely spared in these kinds of debates, I think "NIMBYISM" is one of the few rhetorical arrows on the other side, is a good one to have. As long as its used to bring attention to the real impacts on folks outside the local community, which in the case of TOD I think it can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2011, 03:33 PM
 
Location: The Port City is rising.
8,793 posts, read 10,705,766 times
Reputation: 2515
Quote:
Originally Posted by saganista View Post
If you expect to get a Yes out of Arlington or any other place in that sort of situation, come up with ways to share, lessen, or mitigate that cost. There is nothing NIMBY about asking for at least that much.
a town house development isnt a coal fired power plant. (a highway is somewhere in between I guess) There is a point where mitigation of cost shades off into bribes, to the reactionary.

I lived close to where metrowest was to be built, and I personally think that the availability of improved pedestrian access to the metro station, and the amenities it was to add, were arguably a net benefit to the neighbors, who should have been willing to pay for it
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2011, 03:37 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 28,371,569 times
Reputation: 4002
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
is that not in large measure because the "steel cage match" so delayed the project, as to prevent it getting underway before the housing/financial crisis hit? (not that a global financial meltdown was part of the strategy of the project opponents to be sure, but had we had a more reasonable process, one that did not include local zoning by the US congress, perhaps the result would have been better?)
Yes, it was. The decision-making on Metro West certainly was protracted from the schedule that the folks over at Pulte, etc. might have preferred, and that's all to the good as far as I am concerned. Additional delays brought on by the credit-crisis-induced recession are not to be viewed in the same favorable light. Those were unfortunate. The point is to get all voices involved. Most if not all of them are lying or at least exaggerating, but the gist of their ideas and interests at least does make it onto the table where some hopefully rational conflict resolution and reconciliation can be accomplished. Taking steps that will have long to very long periods of impact on the area is usually a mistake when not first sent through this process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-10-2011, 04:43 PM
 
19,183 posts, read 28,371,569 times
Reputation: 4002
Quote:
Originally Posted by brooklynborndad View Post
I lived close to where metrowest was to be built, and I personally think that the availability of improved pedestrian access to the metro station, and the amenities it was to add, were arguably a net benefit to the neighbors, who should have been willing to pay for it
I would clearly agree on the merits in principle of Metro West, and I personally have some decent amount of hope that when the dust ultimately settles over there, the plans as finally amended will have produced something worth at least a B or a B+. I would agree that most of the opposition to the project was from lunatics, but lunatics aren't always wrong in everything they say. The fracas of getting something from proposed to planned to built shouldn't have very many buy-in rules attached, and certainly not when the interests in question are those of the people most affected. If an idea or complaint really is lunacy, it should die of its own lack of weight in any case, but it should still be eligible for tossing into the fiery crucible to see if it really does get burned off.

As for Tom Davis, I don't think he was sponsoring any new TOD law, but rather threatening to put language into a regular Metro funding bill that would have effectively prevented Metro's sale of a key parcel of land. His conditions for removing that language were not very severe, and removal did occur once the public hearing and other items were agreed to. So, he could brag to a few outraged constituents over how he went to bat for them, but he didn't really do anything that damaged Metro West unless there were other incidents as well that I'm not recalling at the moment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2011, 01:09 AM
 
Location: Fairfax County, VA
3,718 posts, read 4,783,921 times
Reputation: 1454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Caladium View Post
If you want replies from people who posted in a thread from several years ago, I doubt you'll get any. Most of the posts came from drive-by posters or people who were only around for a week or two. Lots of times posters jump into a thread like this because they're mad about something and want a place to dump their anger. Or they're bored and they think a thread like this might be amusing. Most of them move on fairly quickly.
You were saying? lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-12-2011, 04:11 AM
 
Location: Virginia
18,717 posts, read 26,898,941 times
Reputation: 42861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joke Insurance View Post
You were saying? lol
LOL--but you know what, before you get too snarky, I was right. You didn't get what you claimed you wanted. You claimed that you wanted to hear from "those who previously posted on here," on the topic of "illegal immigrants as one of the plights effecting Northern Virginia. How do you know that they're illegal to begin with?" Did you hear from those people or discuss that topic? No (but hey--so what, the topic this time is 100 times better so it's cool. )

The remarks on MetroWest have been thought provoking and fun to read. The only thing that's a shame is I wish these posts had been made in a thread specifically about that topic so the posts will be easy to find 6 months from now when someone wants to refer back to a comment someone else made about pedestrian access to the metro. But hey, can't have everything we want, can you? MetroWest is a good topic even if this is a weird thread to be discussing it in.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Virginia > Northern Virginia
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top