Reston Spring

Reston Spring
Reston Spring

Friday, May 1, 2015

The difference between protecting RNGC and Tetra properties.

The following is a comment Terry Maynard placed on the RestonNow article in which Rescue Reston endorses RA's purchase of the Tetra property. 

I am deeply disappointed that Rescue Reston (RR) has taken this position and, in particular, that it sees the Tetra and golf course properties as comparable. “At stake is our control of open space and development in Reston,” they say.

That certainly is the case with the golf course where RR has been focused until now. The decision there concerns whether or not that 166 acres of beautiful greenspace should be converted into an apartment complex with thousands of new residences.

The legal decision hinges on whether the existing Reston Master Plan, part of the County’s Comprehensive Plan, actually allows that to occur. The new Master Plan, to be approved in June, unequivocally calls for it to be retained as open space. The Plan, however, is just a guideline as developers like to say. And the case for preserving this space has been hampered by the disappearance of dozens of key documents that I don’t think disappeared inadvertently. RR has an uphill fight that all of us who believe Reston was planned to retain large open spaces like the golf course absolutely must fight for all our good, even if it becomes expensive. This legal battle will go on for years.

On the other hand, RR is wasting its time, our contributed money, and their credibility by endorsing RA’s purchase of the Tetra property. It shows they do not understand the different protections afforded the two properties. The Tetra property is protected by environmental and stormwater LAWS preventing lakeshore area development there, RA’s EASEMENT banning development in nearly all other areas of the property, and, yes, even the new Reston Master PLAN that calls for it to remain as built. It is a war no intelligent developer would wage, and the stupid ones would lose politically, judicially, and administratively.

I don’t expect RR to change its position, but I would hope RestonNow readers would understand the difference between the two cases and vote accordingly. A “yes” vote is a vote for irrational fear and gross expense. A “no” vote will prevent the waste of RA member’s assessment fees—and better enable RA to secure funds later if needed to buy the golf course—while the law keeps development at Tetra to its current level.

1 comment:

  1. Rescue Reston's mission remains unchanged. No expenditure of funds donated to Rescue Reston was made in connection with the process by which the seven volunteer Board members came to their own conclusions regarding this matter.


Your comments are welcome and encouraged as long as they are relevant, constructive, and decent.