SELLING IT: FCEDA goes off the deep end selling the County's office space growth.

An article in InsideNOVA.com by Brian Trompeter, who regularly reports on Fairfax County business matters, details a presentation by FCEDA's Director of Real Estate Services Curt Hoffman to the Tysons Regional Chamber of Commerce entitled, "Commercial real estate continues headlong growth in Fairfax."  The article begins:

New office and mixed-use projects are being built like gangbusters in Fairfax County and the county’s economy remains formidable, a local real estate expert said May 11.

More than 2.6 million square feet of office space now is under construction, 83 percent of which has been leased in advance.

“It’s kind of like going to the car dealer and buying your car off the assembly line,” said Curt Hoffman, director of real estate services for the county’s Economic Development Authority, who briefed Tysons Regional Chamber of Commerce members during a breakfast meeting at the agency’s Tysons office. . . .

Companies are flocking to Fairfax County . . . Hoffman said. . . .

Wow!  How could life get any better for a developer and the County's economy and property tax revenue flows?

Just a tad of perspective shows how bogus the growth in the County's office space is.  FCEDA's data shows that, since 2006, the County has added more than 11.5 million square feet of office space.  At the same time, the amount of vacant office space has increased by an almost identical amount:  11.1 millions SF.  In fact, the amount of occupied office space in Fairfax County has increased by a measly 319.5 thousand SF--enough space to house 1,065 new office workers--112 new office workers per year--using the County's office space per worker planning assumption (300 GSF/worker).

The fact of the matter is that businesses are merely moving their employees from older buildings to new ones as FCEDA's mid-2015 data shows.  (Although it is now mid-May 2016 , FCEDA has not yet published its year-end 2015 data update.  CRE brokers routinely publish this office data quarterly with a one-month delay.)  Over the same period, the office space "available for relet" has grown by 10.9 million SF.  Available new office space has grown by less than 200,000 SF.

Against that backdrop, Hoffman called the County's 16.2% office vacancy rate (and that is "direct"only; "indirect" vacancies--unoccupied but leased space--adds two percentage points to that rate) is "near" the "healthy" range of 10%-15% range.  We call bullshit!  From a developer's perspective, that rate should be under 10%; the lessee wouldn't want to see it below 7% as rents would skyrocket.  In fact, over the 35 years the County has tracked its office market, the average direct vacancy rate has been 9.8%.  There is nothing healthy about an office market where the vacancy rate exceeds 10%--and the County's overall vacancy rate now exceeds 18%.

And office vacancy is becoming a larger problem for the County.  The office vacancy rate has more than doubled since 2006 from 7.7% to 16.5%.  Worse, it has grown every year since 2010 (then at 13.3%) when the national economic recovery began.  If the office market can't strengthen during a period of national economic growth, its future as a driver of growth in the local economy is very much in doubt, even with the arrival of the Silver Line in the Dulles Corridor.

One point Hoffman makes is that 73% of the current office space is becoming obsolete, meaning only that it is more than 20 years old--and “that’s the next market (replacing office space) we see taking off,” Hoffman said.  We disagree for several reasons.

• Office job growth in the County has been and will continue to be slow, if not stagnant, thanks largely to Congress' inability or unwillingness to spend on larger government and government contracting.
• Office space size per worker will continue to shrink.  Although the County continues to insist on using 300 GSF/office worker as its office space planning metric, the fact of the matter is that office space per worker is shrinking dramatically.  Some estimates say as low as 100 SF/worker.  We believe 200 GSF/worker is a comfortable estimate of current and future space per worker for at least a decade.  
• Office-type jobs, especially business and technology work, are shifting to other markets for a variety of reasons, including the fact that the internet means that much of this business can be conducted from anywhere in the world.  

As a result, we anticipate that a significant share of the obsolete office building market, possibly a third or more, will be re-built (possibly years from now) as high-density residential as that market continues to show a relatively strong demand.

We appreciate that Hoffman's job is to sell the County's real estate, but he--and many others in County leadership positions--need to provide more credible presentations on the state and the direction of the County's economy, including its office market.  The continuing failure to provide credible information will itself lead corporations to move their businesses to other locations whose leadership is more candid about their business conditions and prospects.  

Here's the FCEDA data:

Countywide Office Space Trends: 1980–2015 (Square Feet) Year Standing Inventory 1 Vacancy Rate (%) Total Leased 2 New Leased Relet Leased Total Direct Available New Available Relet Available 1980 20,567,000 1.7 1,400,000 NA NA 343,086 279,539 63,547 1981 27,900,000 2.9 2,623,579 1,486,919 146,046 810,950 439,406 371,544 1982 30,750,000 4.5 2,639,313 1,193,946 451,186 1,374,534 866,906 507,628 1983 32,100,000 2.9 2,312,379 1,414,951 360,211 933,012 366,792 566,220 1984 35,100,000 7.3 3,318,178 1,706,050 562,293 2,558,566 2,018,716 539,850 1985 42,800,000 9.4 5,107,357 3,719,570 440,487 4,036,662 3,283,319 753,343 1986 48,700,000 9.4 5,889,741 3,908,799 339,682 4,555,065 3,119,637 1,435,428 1987 53,616,000 8.8 5,475,880 3,651,588 942,557 4,701,055 3,087,638 1,613,417 1988 58,073,000 10.8 5,014,401 3,046,598 1,004,913 6,263,547 3,818,738 2,444,809 1989 63,575,000 15.2 5,973,710 3,224,384 1,353,114 9,645,834 4,227,527 5,418,307 1990 67,139,000 18.3 5,006,377 2,202,932 2,424,145 12,255,516 5,118,433 7,137,083 1991 72,702,000 16.8 5,535,950 2,374,087 3,141,863 12,185,419 3,829,149 8,356,270 1992 73,056,000 14.8 4,854,778 1,433,064 3,421,714 10,788,508 2,652,612 8,135,896 1993 74,397,000 12.4 5,272,604 1,393,415 3,879,189 9,201,590 1,409,847 7,791,743 1994 75,562,432 9.9 6,306,117 1,290,152 5,015,965 7,490,605 651,098 6,839,507 1995 76,074,620 8.5 5,261,893 498,137 4,763,756 6,458,580 308,062 6,150,518 1996 78,265,573 6.2 7,040,085 1,316,827 5,723,258 4,908,932 77,775 4,831,157 1997 79,617,676 4.3 6,196,885 1,959,447 4,237,438 3,390,293 19,177 3,371,116 1998 82,088,287 4.1 6,991,158 3,810,783 3,180,375 3,392,909 531,855 2,861,054 1999 88,375,053 4.8 9,264,808 5,910,855 3,353,953 4,238,492 1,340,336 2,898,156 2000 93,563,753 3.5 12,750,968 6,918,762 5,832,206 3,236,371 1,007,213 2,229,158 2001 97,602,908 6.4 5,174,234 2,606,024 2,568,210 6,281,688 2,312,291 3,969,397 2002 100,912,347 12.1 7,648,790 1,022,910 2,631,385 12,176,938 3,291,394 8,885,544 2003 101,507,385 11.2 10,570,315 1,788,402 4,898,701 11,393,801 1,870,915 9,522,886 2004 102,117,697 8.6 10,969,819 1,762,757 6,028,830 8,764,801 919,191 7,845,610 2005 103,520,646 7.8 9,659,060 537,974 5,920,239 8,054,510 1,053,457 7,001,053 2006 105,054,801 7.7 10,805,683 2,249,866 7,569,360 8,115,057 1,155,235 6,959,822 2007 107,232,650 9.2 9,382,013 1,378,208 6,832,122 9,857,339 2,164,415 7,692,924 2008 111,189,301 12.1 9,976,277 1,808,055 7,146,620 13,422,946 3,419,220 10,003,726 2009 112,556,702 14 10,330,158 1,162,887 8,425,631 15,723,157 3,076,675 12,646,482 2010 113,191,835 13.3 13,586,158 1,317,120 11,590,346 15,091,196 1,926,139 13,165,057 2011 113,624,952 13.7 11,656,935 1,300,674 9,694,529 15,600,787 1,267,677 14,333,110 2012 114,056,515 14.4 10,717,111 1,251,127 8,833,486 16,454,250 1,039,607 15,414,643 2013 114,771,222 14.4 12,280,230 823,756 10,307,898 16,577,368 1,404,234 15,173,134 2014 116,238,615 16.3 9,833,053 521,971 8,711,025 18,897,111 1,498,179 17,398,932 2015 3 116,509,060 16.5 5,031,099 195,295 4,459,714 19,205,621 1,317,831 17,887,790 1.  Includes inventory outside submarket areas 1980-2000 only. 2.  ln some years, total leasing reflects the preleasing of buildings under construction and about to be constructed, as well as new and relet space. 3.  Through June 30, 2015.
								Relet Available
								63,547
								371,544
								507,628
								566,220
								539,850
								753,343
								1,435,428
								1,613,417
								2,444,809
								5,418,307
								7,137,083
								8,356,270
								8,135,896
								7,791,743
								6,839,507
								6,150,518
								4,831,157
								3,371,116
								2,861,054
								2,898,156
								2,229,158
								3,969,397
								8,885,544
								9,522,886
								7,845,610
								7,001,053
								6,959,822
								7,692,924
								10,003,726
								12,646,482
								13,165,057
								14,333,110
								15,414,643
								15,173,134
								17,398,932
								17,887,790

Are Fairfax County and Reston "fraying around the edges" or "elite"?

In an April 2 article, Washington Post reporter Antonio Olivo writes:

For decades, Fairfax County has been a national model for suburban living, a place of good governance and elite schools that educate children from some of the country’s richest neighborhoods.

But Virginia’s largest municipality is fraying around the edges.

A population that is growing older, poorer and more diverse is sharpening the need for basic services in what is still the nation’s second-wealthiest county, even as a sluggish local economy maintains a chokehold on the revenue stream.

Since the 2008 recession, local officials have whittled away at programs to the tune of $300 million. They now say that there is no fat left to trim.

Instead, they are searching for ways to raise taxes, draw new businesses and revitalize worn neighborhoods. Their effort mirrors the struggle of aging suburban communities nationwide, as a turn-of-the century economic boom settles into a sluggish post-recession status quo. . . .

We strongly recommend you read the full article.  

We agree that Fairfax County's economy is sluggish although Reston appears to have slightly higher economic growth than the county as a whole.  We also doubt this situation will change significantly anytime soon and it could last a decade or more, especially if local taxes--inevitably dominated by property taxes--continue to rise.  Fairfax County relies on the federal government for its strength and growth, and there is little sign that there will be growth in either federal government employment or contracting.

The primary reason Reston has grown marginally more than the county has as a whole is based on its location--as in "location, location, location." The arrival of Metrorail, despite its poor operating condition, is a relative strength as is our location near Dulles Airport.  The recent revision of our community plan to encourage huge new growth around Reston's stations offers a solid reason for businesses to locate here--if they have a reason to locate in the Washington area at all. And residents will have a much-expanded option to live in high-rise dwellings if they choose.

That said, new office demand is extremely limited across Northern Virginia with vacancy rate of 18.2% per CBRE data as of yearend-2015 (Reston has a 16.1% office vacancy rate according to the same source), and the recent blooming of near-vacant high-rise residences in the Silver Line station areas and generally stagnant suburban housing market has shown that housing demand is also constrained.  (Zillow reports a 1.2% drop in Fairfax housing prices over the last year as of January 2016.)  In particular, we believe developers in the Silver Line station areas are too taken with their own marketing language about the attractiveness of their Reston and Tysons locations and so they continue to overprice their business and residential opportunities--and their vacancies remain unnecessarily high.  A prime example:  A Reston Town Center spokesperson said, Reston Town Center thinks it is "elite."

For Reston, the last thing we need to be called is "elite."  Bob Simon's vision for Reston was anything but elitist.  It was as egalitarian and diverse--and still economically successful--as any community vision in the country.  And it remains so.  An attempt to make the community--or any significant part of it--into an elitist colony will undermine the community and likely impede its overall growth.  We have a great community founded on great planning principles calling for, among other things, racial diversity, affordability, inclusiveness, and recreational and cultural opportunity.  We shouldn't be imperiling that foundation by trying to become some version of Palo Alto, the snobbiest small city in the US, or even Chicago's Magnificent Mile. 

That is the other side of the growth story:  It seems everyone except the business community has recognized that regional, much less Reston, growth is sluggish.  So while developers go looking for handouts from the County and the County imposes more taxes on homeowners and others, they are acting as if the boom of the last decade is back.  It's not--and it will not be for quite some time even around the Metro stations.  And, at the same time, homeowners are no better off than they are, so shifting the costs of their initiatives (starting with road, school, emergency service, and other public improvements to sustain service levels) to them is both unfair and inequitable.

Reston may not be fraying at the edges, but it needs to focus on its founding vision to continue to be one of the premier planned communities in the world, not some haughty elitist self-delusion.  

Preliminary Notes on Inequality and Urbanism, Paul Krugman, The Conscience of a Liberal, New York Times, May 27, 2015

Nobel Laureate economist Paul Krugman, now of Oxford University, offers some preliminary thoughts on inequality-driven urbanism and its implications.  While he focuses on the implications for people moving into booming urban areas, it seems the same could be said of neighborhoods and larger areas becoming urban.  His thoughts raise interesting questions about the urbanizing of Reston, Tysons, and other areas in the Metropolitan Washington area. 

Here is how he begins:

Tim Wu has an interesting piece about the phenomenon of vacant storefronts in booming New York neighborhoods, which by coincidence dovetails with a number of conversations I’ve been having here at the Said Business School in Oxford, where several people are interested in the changing economic geography of London and its links to globalization.

The empty-store phenomenon is interesting, and cries out for a bit of modeling, which I won’t do right now. But it’s part of a broader story of big money moving in to desirable neighborhoods, and in the process destroying what makes them desirable. (Emphasis added.)  And this in turn has me thinking, blurrily — this is just a start — about the relationship between inequality and urbanism. Not as a diatribe — I think it’s a fairly complex issue — but just as an interesting thing, especially if you’re in the process of moving into a big city.

Some thoughts . . .

Click here to read the particulars.

Jet lagged at Dulles, Loudoun Times, April 22, 2015

Wednesday, Apr. 22, 2015 by Trevor Baratko

Anyone who doubts the severity of the problems facing Dulles International Airport – the hundreds of millions in capital debt, dip in passenger totals and a consistent failure to compete with the smaller Reagan National down the road – need only consider the speakers headlining an April 16 seminar on why Dulles matters.

There, in an open conversation hall at AOL's Dulles headquarters, stood a governor, a U.S. Senator, congresswoman and a half-dozen state and local politicians. All were speaking to the airport's importance, and listening were more than 300 stakeholders and interested parties. These were busy people – busy people who made time for Dulles, because they know the airport is struggling, and they know they need solutions.

Passenger counts at Dulles have fallen over the past decade, from a peak of more than 27 million in 2005 to 23.6 million in 2010 and less than 22 million in 2014. Cargo activity too has dipped, about 25 percent in the past five years.

Two key stats further underscoring Dulles' trials note that nearly the same number of travelers used Dulles and Reagan in 2014, this despite Dulles being 14 times larger than Reagan, and the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, which operates Dulles and Reagan, has racked up about $240 million in annual debt service.

Why does the success and viability of Dulles matter? It's simple, economists and politicians say. The airport generates more than $1.2 billion a year in state and local tax revenue for Virginia, D.C. and Maryland, and it supports nearly 250,000 direct or indirect jobs, according to a study commissioned by MWAA. . . .

Click here for the rest of this article.  

While the downward trend in Dulles air traffic has been know for some time, it's linkage and impact on the rest of the area's County--especially the much vaunted "Dulles Corridor" including Tysons and our own Reston--is another sign of the growing economic difficulty of Fairfax County and especially the Dulles Corridor which is counting on the Silver Line to be the engine of County growth for decades to come.  That fewer people that use or work or ship at Dulles only adds to the growing laundry list of things not quite working the way developers and politicians fantasized more than a decade ago when planning for the Silver Line got serious.

We can hope that completion of the Silver Line through IAD and into Loudoun County, now scheduled for 2018, will help reverse the trend for the airport and the corridor, but it will take a long, long time. 

Grim Fairfax County Budget Forecast, FY 2016-2017

For those planning to attend the Hunter Mill District shindig this weekend at Frying Pan Park, we strongly recommend that you first review this presentation to the County's School and Supervisors Boards by County Executive Ed Long.  It show the substantial shortfall in revenue growth as jobs and housing growth has turned negative in the face of federal spending cuts.  At the same time, it highlights the need for added revenues to meet employee pension fund requirements and even the hiring of 250 more public safety officers in the next two years and an increase in their budget of about $25 million.

There are many statements in this presentation that should lead to good questions and probably not very good answers from our County leadership. 

Joint Meeting of Board of Supervisors and School Board: FY2016-FY2017 Budget Forecast from Fairfax County

The Future Commercial Office Market, EntreWorks, January 2015

In its January newsletter, Entreworks of Arlington discusses the future of the office market, especially in the Washington, DC, region as a member of a county task force focused on the county's future office market.  The article begins by providing some important context:

Today, that once robust (note:  Arlington County) commercial office market is reeling.   Countywide office vacancy rates are at 21.4% and are even higher in certain submarkets. (National vacancy rates were roughly 14.5% in late 2014).   In the view of county leaders, a government spending downturn was only part of the story. Something bigger was underway and our task force sought to figure it out.

The Changing Demand for Office Space

As we began our work, the task force quickly recognized that the market demand for commercial office space was changing.  New kinds of companies---technology and high growth entrepreneur-driven ventures---are seeking to locate in denser urban and suburban markets.  Similarly, traditional anchor tenants, like law firms or government agencies, are downsizing.  Meanwhile, new ways of working, such as telecommuting and hoteling, are affecting all kinds of companies.   The bottom line is that potential tenants want less space and they want new kinds of workspace.   

The impact of these new preferences is quite pronounced.  In 2000, the average office in the DC Metro area provided nearly 200 square feet (sf) per employee.   Today, that average is about 185 sf per worker.  Certain tenants, like law firms and many government agencies, are cutting even further, reducing their space needs by nearly fifty percent. . .

Companies want less space; they also want different space.   Flexibility is their most pressing demand—they abhor long term leases that lock them into large spaces.   They want shorter leases, more flexible work space, and the ability to expand or reduce space demands as needed.   The anchor tenants who sign a long term lease for large swaths of space are becoming rarer and much more desirable.

They are being replaced by more and smaller clients that want it all—flexible leases, cool spaces, lots of amenities, and the like.  But, they may not be able to pay a lot for it—at least for a long and extended period of time. . .

Even with some griping, these new office structures look like they’re here to stay.  They save energy, they reduce costs, and a good share of employees, especially millennials, like them.  So, a period of adjustment is upon us.   First up is the commercial real estate sector that is scrambling to adjust to the new realities.    As the Deloitte analysis predicts, 2015 and beyond will be focused on redevelopment, where key players allocate “resources to newer formats and design for redeveloping existing properties” in response to lower levels of tenant demand.

Economic developers will also need to adjust.  Adjustment number one focuses on the broader question of tax revenues.  Jurisdictions that rely heavily on property taxes to finance local government must pay close attention.   Nationwide, property taxes account for 35% of state and local government revenue.  This represents the largest source of local revenue so large scale declines will be felt.

Second, economic developers and real estate professionals will need to help support a new “product mix” when it comes to commercial office space.  Aligning available space to various business life cycles may make sense. . .

Instead of making hard (and perhaps misguided) predictions on the nature of the future office market, we opted to develop some basic principles that are likely to guide the evolution of our office market.   Some of the principles are unique to the DC Metro area (e.g. “Reframe the Federal Presence”), but a number of them have relevance for all communities.  A few highlights worth considering:

• A New Paradigm:  As tenants begin to prefer mixed use over traditional single-use office settings, economic developers must actively assess previously set aside space for office development and consider other uses or mixed uses (e.g. entertainment, live-work space) as well.
• Grow the Pie:  Office space initiatives should be linked to entrepreneurial development efforts.  Develop “step out space” for firms that have the potential for growth.
• Activity Attracts Investment:  A nice building is no longer sufficient.  Firms and workers want amenity rich urban environments, so effective place making goes hand-in-hand with successful commercial office development. 
• Mixed Use Inside and Out:  Mixed use needs to occur in neighborhoods and inside buildings themselves.  Desirable office spaces combine workspace with play space and even living space.  Expect to see more live-work spaces in the future.
• Connect Everything: Successful markets will have interconnections across all forms of infrastructure, with special focus on multi-modal transportation options and world class broadband connections.

This shifting office market is not just about real estate—it’s part of a wider transformation of work now underway and part of a larger constellation of forces that also includes the rise of the 1099 or freelance economy and the emergence of new on-demand ventures like Uber and AirBnB.   How we work, where we work, and what companies look like are now in flux.  This will create many challenges, but also more opportunities for communities, firms, and individuals that effectively handle the transition.

Click here to read the rest of this article and to link to the work of Arlington County's Future Office Market Task Force. 

Unlike Fairfax County, which officially rejects the notion that the office market is changing and has drafted an economic development strategy embedding the old office market economic model as a foundation for county economic success, Arlington County is taking a serious look at its commercial real estate future.  The difference reflects the excessive influence developers in Fairfax County have in shaping our communities.  In fact, the Arlington results are consistent with what Reston 2020 has been saying for nearly two years:  office size is shrinking and will continue to do so.  It goes further and suggests what that future space may need to look like. 

County Has New Longterm Plan to Boost Economy, RestonNow, February 4, 2015

Strategic Plan to Facilitate the Economic Success of Fairfax County (Jan. 27, 2015) from Fairfax County

Fairfax County officials have unveiled a new plan that will "strengthen Fairfax's economy for the 21st Century."

While Fairfax County boasts one of the strongest and largest economies in the region, a new strategy will ensure that that the economic climate remains strong in the 21st Century, said a release from the county. The proposed plan offers high-level policy recommendations to expand and diversify the economy. focusing on six goals to accomplish this. . .

The six goals:

• Further diversifying our economy
• Creating places where people want to be
• Improving the speed, consistency, and predictability of the county’s development review process
• Investing in natural and physical infrastructure
• Achieving economic success through education and social equity
• Increasing the agility of county government . . .

Click here to read the full article.

Reston 2020 added a comment to the article as follows:

Thank you for bringing this draft strategic plan to Reston's attention. Actually, other communities also ought to be looking at it. Having briefly reviewed the actual plan, I have a few comments on the section regarding "Create Places Where People Want to Be."

First, I couldn't help but notice the few photos in this section of the report were all of Reston locations. It suggests quite strongly that Reston is a place people want to be.

Second, in this section, the draft strategy emphasizes the expansion of the transit station areas. It notes the following:

• Section 2.2.a: "Explore creation of 20 Minute Neighborhoods where a variety of housing options and jobs are linked by high capacity transit to support clusters of opportunity and innovation." A "20 Minute" anything is a ONE-mile ring from the Metro stations, doubling the current HALF-mile walkability ring.
• Section 2.3.b: "Include the concept of expanded Transit Oriented Development (TOD) in future planning efforts by increasing the radius distance recommended for higher densities from ¼ mile to at least ½ mile around mass transit stations, such as Metrorail, light/heavy rail, or other rapid transit stations." Like the preceding, this doubles the distance for the highest density development and the commercial vs. residential focus.

Third, it also highlights the importance of developing amenities that improve quality of life in the face of recent evidence of County actions to the contrary:

• Section 2.3.d: "Support the creation of a premier performing and other arts facilities in Tysons or possibly other activity centers, as both a community amenity and economic generator." Why Tysons and not Reston (where a performance center is included in the Master Plan) or even Springfield's new urban center? This is the only place in the draft strategy where a specific location is suggested for providing a public amenity. And the County wants Restonians to pay for one if it is built through its internal Reston tax special tax district; it's NOT a county investment in our community at all.
• Section 2.6: "Continue to improve the overall quality of life to sustain Fairfax County’s reputation as a great place to live, work, play, and learn by protecting established neighborhoods and maintaining our superior public schools, parks, libraries, and public safety services." The Reston Master Plan for the station areas does NOT provide adequate, much less "superior", parks and libraries for the 50,000-plus who will live there. Indeed, the county's libraries are being abused by its administration and the Board through continuous cuts in their budget, staffing, and collection going back a decade.

So my question is: If we live in a place that is a place where people want to be, why would we want to change it in ways that would detract from our quality of life? Moreover, why is the county unwilling to invest in Reston to make it better? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the committee that put this together is dominated by developer and other business interests focused on high-density development and County officials who know they have limited tax revenues.

For those of you interested, the draft strategy is available here: http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/s...

We would also note that, in light of the recent County streamlining the development proposal approval process through "Fairfax Forward," it is easy to interpret the section titled "Improving the speed, consistency, and predictability of the county’s development review process" is little more than an effort to further allow the railroading of development proposals without meaningful community participation.

Little, if anything, in this draft strategy protects the quality of life of existing residents in Reston or elsewhere in the County.

Alarm bells ring for Washington regional economy on growth, infrastructure, Washington Post, January 18, 2015

This article by columnist Robert McCartney highlights the results of a major regional conference on the Metro DC economy held last week and a just released study by MWCOG on our aging infrastructure.  We present some of the key points below, but strongly recommend that you read it in its entirety here:

A pair of loud alarm bells sounded last week for the Washington area’s economy, and political leaders from Richmond to Annapolis should take them seriously.

The warning of immediate concern came Thursday at an annual conference of 750 business and civic leaders in McLean. Economics mavens led by George Mason University professor Steve Fuller presented eye-opening data showing that our region has trailed almost every other major U.S. metropolitan area in job growth for the past three years. . .

“You’ve got all these shiny new restaurants . . . and therefore everybody thinks everything’s great,” said David Oberting, executive director of Economic Growth DC, a non-profit organization. “They just don’t see the underlying weaknesses.”

Cutbacks in federal spending are largely to blame, of course, and they can’t be helped. But it’s worrisome that no other business sectors have emerged to replace Uncle Sam as the region’s engine of growth.
The region’s top politicians ought to heed calls at the conference for a Washington-area summit to take steps to respond. . .

The other alarm, of a long-term nature, was rung in a study approved Wednesday by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. It showed how much the region is falling short in investing in infrastructure such as roads, bridges, sewers and the electrical grid.

The staggering figure, considered a conservative estimate: $58 billion over the next 15 years.

That’s how much we need just to “maintain” what government planners view as “critical” building blocks of the regional economy. The cost per resident would be more than $10,000 in extra taxes, user fees, tolls or other charges.

Again, evidence of trouble is all around us. . .

This shortfall in infrastructure spending is hardly unique to our region. The whole country is facing it.

Nonetheless, it’s striking that the report is so much at odds with current budgetary and political realities. . . .

This is not a fun read, but everyone should take this article and the two recent events to heart and begin thinking about and doing whatever we can to reverse the situation.  Nothing could be worse than not to have the economic growth we need to address the huge shortcomings in our infrastructure.  Both need to be fixed now.