View more videos at: http://nbcwashington.com.
Reston Spring
Reston Spring
Friday, September 7, 2012
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Commentary: The 23-Story Office Tower and Reston's Downtown, Colin Mills, President, RCA, Reston Patch, September 5, 2012
| A rendering of RTC Partnership’s planned 23-story, 418,000 GSF, project at 1760 Reston Parkway in Reston. |
When I wrote last month about the importance of Reston organizations working together, I didn't realize how much togetherness we were in for.
At RCA's marathon meeting in August, one of the documents we ratified was a statement regarding the proposed 23-story office tower on the site of the former Reston Times building, sometimes known as the "Town Center Office Building." Our resolution endorsed the position that Reston 2020 took back in March, which called the proposed tower "the wrong building in the wrong place."
But we didn't just pass our resolution and call it a day. We reached out to other community groups that had expressed opposition to the tower, specifically the Reston Association and the Association of Reston Clusters and Homeowners (ARCH). Last weekend, leaders from our three organizations met and agreed on a common position.
And this week, for the first time, RCA, RA and ARCH will have a joint meeting with our Supervisor, Cathy Hudgins, in which we will speak with a united voice about this issue, as well as others like the Reston National golf course. This is a huge step forward for Reston: rather than fighting over turf, our organizations are joining together to support our shared vision of Reston's future.
As ARCH President Jerry Volloy joked at our weekend gathering, "We've got to stop meeting like this. People will think we're a community."
In opposing the planned tower, we are supporting the Fairfax County planning staff, which recommended rejection of the application. The staff's report noted that the tower was much taller than the planned development around it, that it adds too much non-residential development for the location, and that it would worsen our traffic situation. When we meet with Supervisor Hudgins, we will urge her to stand with her County staff.
In addition to the flaws pointed out by the staff, the tower would fly in the face of the plans that the Reston Master Plan Task Force is developing for the Town Center area. The Task Force's Town Center Committee has developed a vision based on the principles of transit-oriented development (TOD), which is designed to maximize the value we get out of the Silver Line. One key TOD principle is that the tallest and most intense development should be located as close as possible to the transit station, with development stepping down as you move away from the station.
If the proposed tower were located in the shadow of the station, it might fit with that vision. But in fact, it's over a half-mile away from the station. (Commonly-accepted planning wisdom holds that people generally will not walk more than a quarter-mile from transit to their destination.) The vast majority of people who would work at this tower would not use Metro to get there. (Indeed, the building's planners anticipate this, as they are including a parking garage with over 1,000 spaces.) Rather than encouraging the use of the Metro, this tower will just add more cars to Reston's already-clogged streets. With all the money we are investing in the Silver Line, why would we want to undermine that investment with a poorly-planned building?
The Town Center Committee's vision for the area around the tower calls for a mix of uses, with residential and office components sharing buildings. But the proposed tower is all office space (with a smattering of retail), with no residential component. Again, this will only lead to more traffic on our roads.
These are some of the points that our three organizations will make at our meeting. I think we make a strong case, and I think it's that much stronger when we're all making it together. I believe this heralds a new and powerful era of collaboration among our community organizations, and Reston can only benefit from the collaboration.
When RCA, RA, and ARCH meet with Supervisor Hudgins to dicuss the tower, we will ask her to stand up for her staff. We will ask her to stand up for the vision of the Task Force she created. And we will ask her to stand with our organizations, which represent the opinions of a broad swath of Restonians. The tower makes for a pretty-looking rendering, but in order to do right by Reston, it needs to go back to the drawing board.
At RCA's marathon meeting in August, one of the documents we ratified was a statement regarding the proposed 23-story office tower on the site of the former Reston Times building, sometimes known as the "Town Center Office Building." Our resolution endorsed the position that Reston 2020 took back in March, which called the proposed tower "the wrong building in the wrong place."
But we didn't just pass our resolution and call it a day. We reached out to other community groups that had expressed opposition to the tower, specifically the Reston Association and the Association of Reston Clusters and Homeowners (ARCH). Last weekend, leaders from our three organizations met and agreed on a common position.
And this week, for the first time, RCA, RA and ARCH will have a joint meeting with our Supervisor, Cathy Hudgins, in which we will speak with a united voice about this issue, as well as others like the Reston National golf course. This is a huge step forward for Reston: rather than fighting over turf, our organizations are joining together to support our shared vision of Reston's future.
As ARCH President Jerry Volloy joked at our weekend gathering, "We've got to stop meeting like this. People will think we're a community."
In opposing the planned tower, we are supporting the Fairfax County planning staff, which recommended rejection of the application. The staff's report noted that the tower was much taller than the planned development around it, that it adds too much non-residential development for the location, and that it would worsen our traffic situation. When we meet with Supervisor Hudgins, we will urge her to stand with her County staff.
In addition to the flaws pointed out by the staff, the tower would fly in the face of the plans that the Reston Master Plan Task Force is developing for the Town Center area. The Task Force's Town Center Committee has developed a vision based on the principles of transit-oriented development (TOD), which is designed to maximize the value we get out of the Silver Line. One key TOD principle is that the tallest and most intense development should be located as close as possible to the transit station, with development stepping down as you move away from the station.
If the proposed tower were located in the shadow of the station, it might fit with that vision. But in fact, it's over a half-mile away from the station. (Commonly-accepted planning wisdom holds that people generally will not walk more than a quarter-mile from transit to their destination.) The vast majority of people who would work at this tower would not use Metro to get there. (Indeed, the building's planners anticipate this, as they are including a parking garage with over 1,000 spaces.) Rather than encouraging the use of the Metro, this tower will just add more cars to Reston's already-clogged streets. With all the money we are investing in the Silver Line, why would we want to undermine that investment with a poorly-planned building?
The Town Center Committee's vision for the area around the tower calls for a mix of uses, with residential and office components sharing buildings. But the proposed tower is all office space (with a smattering of retail), with no residential component. Again, this will only lead to more traffic on our roads.
These are some of the points that our three organizations will make at our meeting. I think we make a strong case, and I think it's that much stronger when we're all making it together. I believe this heralds a new and powerful era of collaboration among our community organizations, and Reston can only benefit from the collaboration.
When RCA, RA, and ARCH meet with Supervisor Hudgins to dicuss the tower, we will ask her to stand up for her staff. We will ask her to stand up for the vision of the Task Force she created. And we will ask her to stand with our organizations, which represent the opinions of a broad swath of Restonians. The tower makes for a pretty-looking rendering, but in order to do right by Reston, it needs to go back to the drawing board.
Future of Golf Course Up for Grabs? Reston Connection, September 5, 2012
 |
| The owners of the Reston National Golf Course have inquired of Fairfax County which development would be possible on the property, which has raised concerns in the local community. |
Reston Association, Reston Citizens Association speak out, Rescue Reston group formed.
By Alex McVeigh
Reston — While Reston National Golf Course is a destination throughout the region and recognized around the country for its Nike Golf Learning Center, its future has become a topic of concern for local residents. The owners of the course, RN Golf Management, requested information from Fairfax County earlier this year on the exact zoning regulations for the property on which the 166-acre course sits.
On April 20, Mark Looney of Cooley, LLP, which is representing RN Golf Management, requested the information, asking for regulations, as well as "confirmation of the process one must follow under the Zoning Ordinance in order to establish uses other than a golf course on all or a portion of the subject property."
Cathy Belgin, senior assistant to the zoning administrator with Fairfax County, responded June 20.
"The property is shown as a resource in the category of ‘major open space, parks, golf course, nature center,’" Belgin wrote in her report. "Any alternative development of the property that cannot be construed as open space, parks, golf course or nature center would require an amendment to the Fairfax County Comprehensive Plan."
IN RESPONSE, RN Golf Management has filed an appeal . . . .Click here to read the rest of this comprehensive and timely article on the dispute over the future of Reston National Golf Course.
The outcome of this dispute will determine whether Reston is a planned community or just another bunch of sub-divisions for developer exploitation.
"Distance Pricing" Talks for Greenway Fail; Need to be an MWAA Priority for DTR
In a comprehensive article in a recent Leesburg Today entitled "Another Greenway Toll Compromise Stalls," Erika Jacobson Moore writes about the breakdown in discussions between Loudoun legislators and Greenway management to institute "distance pricing" for tolls there.
"Distance pricing" is simply paying for what you use when taking a toll road. Toll road users don't have it on the Greenway, and we don't have it on the Dulles Toll Road. It is the only fair way to charge tolls, but toll road managers, including MWAA for the DTR don't care.
So what is the first priority of the MWAA Board in terms of tolling changes (besides, of course, hiking tolls in multiples over the next 40 years): It's peak period pricing. That is, MWAA is exploring the idea of increasing the tolls even further during the busiest periods of the day--morning and afternoon rush hours. They want to do that because they don't have to modify their current toll collection structure (other than changing the toll charged) and they will end up with greater revenues! It's a true win for MWAA and, yes, once again, a huge loss for most Dulles Toll Road users.
Toll road users, the Boards of Supervisors in Loudoun and Fairfax counties, and our state legislators must all push MWAA (and, for that matter, the TRIP II partnership that runs the Greenway) to adopt distance pricing to assure toll road users are treated fairly. And that would be a change!
For more on the exorbitant price per mile paid by Reston toll road users, please click on "DTR Fact Sheet #4: Exorbitant Reston Toll Cost per Mile."
"Distance pricing" is simply paying for what you use when taking a toll road. Toll road users don't have it on the Greenway, and we don't have it on the Dulles Toll Road. It is the only fair way to charge tolls, but toll road managers, including MWAA for the DTR don't care.
- There nominal complaint about distance pricing--and the one they're using on the Greenway--is that it would cost a lot to install the new equipment. Dulles Greenway management puts that cost at $6-8 million.
- The REAL issue, however, is that distance pricing would mean lower toll revenues as people using less than the whole toll road would pay less than a full toll. In turn, that would mean toll road managers would have to raise the tolls on the toll road to meet their revenue requirements, primarily paying off debt.
- Also, they find it unattractive because they would have to raise the base toll rate--probably by a third or more--to make up for the lost tolls from partial length toll road users.
So what is the first priority of the MWAA Board in terms of tolling changes (besides, of course, hiking tolls in multiples over the next 40 years): It's peak period pricing. That is, MWAA is exploring the idea of increasing the tolls even further during the busiest periods of the day--morning and afternoon rush hours. They want to do that because they don't have to modify their current toll collection structure (other than changing the toll charged) and they will end up with greater revenues! It's a true win for MWAA and, yes, once again, a huge loss for most Dulles Toll Road users.
Toll road users, the Boards of Supervisors in Loudoun and Fairfax counties, and our state legislators must all push MWAA (and, for that matter, the TRIP II partnership that runs the Greenway) to adopt distance pricing to assure toll road users are treated fairly. And that would be a change!
For more on the exorbitant price per mile paid by Reston toll road users, please click on "DTR Fact Sheet #4: Exorbitant Reston Toll Cost per Mile."
Commentary: Fairfax Fumbles Master Plan, Reston Future-Part 2, John Lovaas, Reston Connection, September 5, 2012
As the Progressive reported last time, Fairfax Supervisor Cathy Hudgins’ Reston Master Plan Task Force has stalled, failing to complete Phase 1 of its work—i.e., plans for development in the rail corridor. With the train arriving next year and no plan in sight, the County caved and is now telling developers not to worry about a plan, just bring in their plans so construction can proceed. If you wondered why Reston should become a self-governing town, watch as the County turns planning as well as building over to developers.
What about Phase 2 of the task force’s work—revising the master plan for village center neighborhoods and all of Reston outside the rail station areas? This, too, has been set back two years so far by the stalled Phase 1. A couple of weeks ago, Master Plan Task Force Chair Patty Nicoson suggested to me that she might indeed try to move the task force immediately into Phase 2, leaving it to County staff to decide when/if they would actually complete Phase 1.
Ms. Nicoson’s idea seemed timely. But already events, namely the fearsome "free market" with developers firmly in the saddle, have overtaken the dawdling task force. . . .Click here to read the rest of John Lovaas' critique of the Reston Task Force.
To see Part One of his critique, click here.
Airport Board Seeks Credibility With Its ‘Sponsoring Bodies,’ Makes No Mention of Local Citizens, Fairfax News, September 5, 2012
By: James R. Hood
The Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board of Directors today adopted a new travel policy, as it tries to restore the confidence of top federal, state and local officials who have criticized the authority for lax spending and oversight policies. In its official release announcing the changes, the board made no mention of winning the confidence of taxpayers who have been critical of its actions.
“As we meet here today, my fellow board members and I are acutely aware that a bright light of scrutiny has been focused on this organization,” chairman Michael A. Curto told a specially-called meeting of the directors. “Our sponsoring bodies have questioned whether we are doing all that we can do to ensure the professionalism, integrity and cost effectiveness of MWAA.”
The authority is an oddly-constituted interstate compact, a public body that is not directly answerable to taxpayers and voters. Its members are appointed by elected officials from Virginia, Maryland, D.C. and elsewhere but the citizens whose tax dollars and airport and toll road usage support its operations have no say in its operation and are seldom mentioned, even in passing, by board members.
“All these little towns, they all have their own little issues,” a former board member told this reporter derisively several years ago. “We don’t care about that. We’ve got to get people to the airport!” . . . .And that pretty much says it all, although you can read the rest of this article here.
The MWAA Board of Directors wants to get the authorities who control their posh jobs off their back and apparently they will grovel as low as they must to make that happen. On the other hand, they care not a whit about the public they are suppose to be serving.
Their disdain for the public is most pronounced in dealing with the concerns of the more than 100,000 people who use the Dulles Toll Road daily. The sham "public hearings" that will begin today are the latest manifestation of that. They are declaring their legally required annual open house a "public hearing." The format is the same as it has been for years. There will be no public testimony or questioning. There will be no transcript, only a selective and heavily edited response to public comments submitted in writing to MWAA. And few--very few--MWAA Board members will even take the time to show up.
But--as the pitchman says--that's not all! In fact, based on the second worst rating earned by the Dulles International Airport in US News & World Report's latest ranking of airports for layovers (sandwiched between Newark and Los Angeles at #1 and #3), MWAA doesn't care much about its airline passengers either. Here's what USN&WR says:
Although Washington, D.C.'s international airport has improved its on-time departure performance since the beginning of 2011, Dulles continues to slow down flyers. Dulles has invested a lot of money in its infrastructure, building out an AeroTrain (an airport train system that connects passengers from the main terminal to A, B, and C gates), but unfortunately, the renovations don't appear to boost punctuality. Dulles' on-time arrival rating isn't much better than its on-time departure rating, with 79.9 percent of flights reaching the gate on time between January and June 2012.
The layover lowdown:There you have it: The MWAA Board doesn't care about either the flying or driving public, just protecting their perks. They want your money; they don't care about your concerns.
As far as poor customer satisfaction goes, Dulles takes the cake. This can be attributed to Dulles' limited selection of amenities, shops, and restaurants. Should you experience a long layover, your best bet is to sit back and savor a brew at an airport bar.
The whole Board structure, authorities, and membership of this unresponsive public organizations needs to be replaced to serve the public.
MWAA Presentations for Open Houses, AKA "Public Hearings"
Below are the briefing boards that MWAA will be using in its so-called "public hearings" to be held in the next week at three area high schools, including the South Lakes High School cafeteria at 5-8PM on September 12, 2012.
The viewgraphs are updated versions of virtually the identical viewgraphs MWAA has displayed over the last several years at what were then called "open houses." In those meetings, and probably in this one, blown up versions of these viewgraphs will be displayed around the cafeteria with an MWAA staffer or two standing near each of them to sell their work and try to answer questions or hear complaints. Possible exceptions to the general absence of Board members include Jack Potter, CEO, and maybe Tom Davis, Vice Chairman, who lives nearby.
Simply put, the MWAA Board is afraid to confront the public--although they are not afraid to take the public's money. It is meeting a legal obligation to present annually materials to the public. Now it is calling it a "public hearing." It is not. To call it a "public hearing" is a fraud.
MWAA Brief on Dulles Toll Road--Aug 2012
For those of you who want to get the "full monty" version of this MWAA propaganda effort, the following link takes you to a narrated presentation of these viewgraphs: http://mwaaopenhouse.net/
The only good thing about this narrated MWAA presentation is that it much more accurately characterizes the MWAA show as an "open house," which it is. Nothing in this narrative that suggests the upcoming shows will be hearings.
The viewgraphs are updated versions of virtually the identical viewgraphs MWAA has displayed over the last several years at what were then called "open houses." In those meetings, and probably in this one, blown up versions of these viewgraphs will be displayed around the cafeteria with an MWAA staffer or two standing near each of them to sell their work and try to answer questions or hear complaints. Possible exceptions to the general absence of Board members include Jack Potter, CEO, and maybe Tom Davis, Vice Chairman, who lives nearby.
Simply put, the MWAA Board is afraid to confront the public--although they are not afraid to take the public's money. It is meeting a legal obligation to present annually materials to the public. Now it is calling it a "public hearing." It is not. To call it a "public hearing" is a fraud.
- There will be no formal hearing or other formal proceedings if the MWAA press release is accurate.
- The Board will not be sitting to take testimony. Most will likely not be there. CEO Jack Potter and Tom Davis, Vice Chairman, who lives nearby, might be there.
- There is no opportunity for the public to testify in front of decision makers on matters that concern them related to the Dulles Toll Road.
- There will be no formal full text transcript. Questions, comments, and complaints will be edited to suit the message MWAA wishes to convey (without being too obvious).
- Since MWAA has stated repeatedly that it, and it alone, has the authority to set tolls, comments complaining about excessive toll increases (which might be documented) will be ignored in rate setting.
MWAA Brief on Dulles Toll Road--Aug 2012
For those of you who want to get the "full monty" version of this MWAA propaganda effort, the following link takes you to a narrated presentation of these viewgraphs: http://mwaaopenhouse.net/
The only good thing about this narrated MWAA presentation is that it much more accurately characterizes the MWAA show as an "open house," which it is. Nothing in this narrative that suggests the upcoming shows will be hearings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)