Project looming in our neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: Rather than sell the land to someone who can afford it, the church imposed its values upon everyone else. The County got itself involved too through work with the nonprofit developer, thinking that somehow getting affordable units a block from the Metro is more important than a neighborhood's longstanding character.

Thanks, this was pretty entertaining. Very subtle, but very funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: Rather than sell the land to someone who can afford it, the church imposed its values upon everyone else. The County got itself involved too through work with the nonprofit developer, thinking that somehow getting affordable units a block from the Metro is more important than a neighborhood's longstanding character.

Thanks, this was pretty entertaining. Very subtle, but very funny.

Agree - you are talented.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is when the neighborhood gets swamped. For example, in Lyon Village in Arlington a block from the Clarendon Metro there's a mixed-income apartment property being built ON TOP of a CHURCH. Rather than sell the land to someone who can afford it, the church imposed its values upon everyone else. The County got itself involved too through work with the nonprofit developer, thinking that somehow getting affordable units a block from the Metro is more important than a neighborhood's longstanding character.

Since 2004 there have been truly valiant efforts by the Lyon Village neighbors to stop this monstrosity. A handful of neighbors have served as plaintiffs on multiple rounds of lawsuits to derail this project. The plaintiffs include a civil rights attorney at DOJ, a respected financial planner, and others who regularly donate their time to PTA and other causes. Their efforts have been absolutely heroic, as the development and litigation costs have risen so much that at times it appeared the project would collapse.

Unfortunately, despite one more lawsuit that hasn't been fully heard yet, it appears construction is proceeding. Obviously, we all hope legal action can continue long enough so that some tax credit expires and the project fails. Nevertheless, I hope this doesn't discourage Orlando or those others who want only the best for their neighbors and their children. Boys and girls should be able to plant tomatoes in their gardens without having to adjust for a different level of sunlight. Neighbors should be able to walk home from Whole Foods or Cheesecake Factory in peace, without worrying that a teacher rushing out of her "affordable" apartment to her school play doesn't startle said neighbors. Parents shouldn't have to worry about the type of kids police officers host as Big Brothers in the apartment building's new party room.

I weep for the neighbors of this development. But fear not, residents of Lyon Village. We must push forward for the sake of the neighborhood. Remember that the work begins anew, the hope continues, and the dream lives on.

I moved into the neighborhood in 1990. It no longer has its longstanding character.

[Anonymous]

Any place's "character" changes over time, even if you manage to make and enforce some historic preservation/ design review rules. That's the way things work. At the moment, metropolitan areas need to resolve social problems like sprawl, traffic, and affordable housing. This will necessarily drive development decisions. Frankly, planners are recognizing that low-density neighborhoods yield suburban sprawl-related social problems and are looking at plans for remaking all these communities. Increasing density around Metro stations is key. OP's community's "character" is that of a dinosaur, or at least a terrible mistake that now needs to be fixed.

[Anonymous]

Don't expect a park if the alternative is a 10 story building. Seriously. That doesn't happen in a city very often. If you want to live next to a park, move to Greenbelt.

I don't know if the OP would like this option as all of Old Greenbelt is "Mixed Income".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Any place's "character" changes over time, even if you manage to make and enforce some historic preservation/ design review rules. That's the way things work. At the moment, metropolitan areas need to resolve social problems like sprawl, traffic, and affordable housing. This will necessarily drive development decisions. Frankly, planners are recognizing that low-density neighborhoods yield suburban sprawl-related social problems and are looking at plans for remaking all these communities. Increasing density around Metro stations is key. OP's community's "character" is that of a dinosaur, or at least a terrible mistake that now needs to be fixed.

Let's take sprawl, traffic and "affordable housing" with respect to Lyon Village.

Sprawl: Why would Lyon Village care whether people wind up settling in Falls Church, Vienna, or Manassas? Don't the residents of Lyon Village have responsibility for making the best decisions for, well, Lyon Village?

Traffic: If you have lower-density occupancy in Lyon Village, then you're going to have less traffic in Lyon Village. Again, cars commuting in on 66 or people taking the Metro does not affect whether your driver is able to take you to work on K Street.

"Affordable Housing": The best way to reduce what people have to pay for housing is to, well, not take so much money from them. The only candidates who actually do something about affordable housing are those who demand reduced property taxes. By reducing property taxes, you take the people's dollars and put them in the people's pockets. You're then pumping money into the pockets of people who can actually afford to spend in Arlington and keep the local economy afloat. So if you oppose projects like the ones mentioned above, the government doesn't waste its money subsidizing the units. You're able to cut property taxes and keep the right type of people living in your community.

One final note--this notion that you can't hire police officers, firefighters and teachers without some sort of "affordable housing" program is a canard. On every show I watch, police officers like to drive. They're going to enjoy getting an hour or two on each end of their commute where they can listen to their portable XM radio instead of having to listen to the police radio bark all day.

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I got cut off. As far as firefighters, they actually get to live inside a firehouse. I know this because I take my children there regularly to visit. They always ask me why the firefighters get to live in such a cool house and eat sloppy joes every day. I tell them that rent-free housing and meals are one of the perks that comes from being a public employee.

Finally, do you really think any teachers would actually WANT to live near their students? Where their students can drive to their houses to press them on grades? What about when a high school kid wants to take his date to dinner at someplace like Bear Rock Cafe, and his teacher turns out to be the waitperson? The kid not only feels weird to have the teacher imposing on his social life, but he also wonders about how the teacher will put on a good multimedia show in the next class if s/he's wasting time on a second or third job.

With advances in modern technology, teachers can run their I-pod to play back their students' class presentations and verbal reports on the commute back and forth to school. They're able to use the time productively and serve their students the way we expect if we're going to compete in the global marketplace.

[Anonymous]

"Sprawl: Why would Lyon Village care whether people wind up settling in Falls Church, Vienna, or Manassas? Don't the residents of Lyon Village have responsibility for making the best decisions for, well, Lyon Village?"

Interesting posts. I feel obliged to agree that the residents of Lyon Village should indeed make their decisions with their own interests in mind... but it sounds like OP is concerned about decisions being made beyond the boundaries his/her "merrie" suburban enclave. Planners working for the best interests of cities and counties as a whole are profoundly influenced by current "new urbanist" ideas and believe (I think correctly) that low-density development in metropolitan areas should be put to rest with the dodos. Argue if you wish, but this is an issue much bigger than Lyon Village or any other too-precious hamlet for ideological throwbacks to the mid-late 20th century.

I'm not anti NIMBY-ism in particular, because people should try to shape their communities to their preferences, but OP's preferences belong to a time that has passed and reveal him/her to be a bit of a dodo... and this one is simply out of his hands.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Sprawl: Why would Lyon Village care whether people wind up settling in Falls Church, Vienna, or Manassas? Don't the residents of Lyon Village have responsibility for making the best decisions for, well, Lyon Village?"

Interesting posts. I feel obliged to agree that the residents of Lyon Village should indeed make their decisions with their own interests in mind... but it sounds like OP is concerned about decisions being made beyond the boundaries his/her "merrie" suburban enclave. Planners working for the best interests of cities and counties as a whole are profoundly influenced by current "new urbanist" ideas and believe (I think correctly) that low-density development in metropolitan areas should be put to rest with the dodos. Argue if you wish, but this is an issue much bigger than Lyon Village or any other too-precious hamlet for ideological throwbacks to the mid-late 20th century.

I'm not anti NIMBY-ism in particular, because people should try to shape their communities to their preferences, but OP's preferences belong to a time that has passed and reveal him/her to be a bit of a dodo... and this one is simply out of his hands.

Yes, our betters are going to force us into a higher-density lifestyle, whether we want it or not. Those of you who don't want this outcome had better start fighting now, because the train is pulling out of the station.

[Anonymous]

One other point, I just to get agitated about NIMBY opposition to projects. But now it has become clear to me that the people who make zoning and project siting decisions always seem to make sure that nothing bad goes into *their* backyards, so now I'm much more sympathetic.

[Anonymous]

<i> On every show I watch, police officers like to drive. They're going to enjoy getting an hour or two on each end of their commute where they can listen to their portable XM radio instead of having to listen to the police radio bark all day.</i>

I can't tell if you're having us on or not. Is this the same poster who showed the Swiftian gift for irony as above? If so, you should publish a 'zine. This stuff is great!

[Anonymous]

Sorry, I got cut off. As far as firefighters, they actually get to live inside a firehouse. I know this because I take my children there regularly to visit. They always ask me why the firefighters get to live in such a cool house and eat sloppy joes every day. I tell them that rent-free housing and meals are one of the perks that comes from being a public employee.

If you are a woman, I think I'm in love with your brain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Sprawl: Why would Lyon Village care whether people wind up settling in Falls Church, Vienna, or Manassas? Don't the residents of Lyon Village have responsibility for making the best decisions for, well, Lyon Village?"

Interesting posts. I feel obliged to agree that the residents of Lyon Village should indeed make their decisions with their own interests in mind... but it sounds like OP is concerned about decisions being made beyond the boundaries his/her "merrie" suburban enclave. Planners working for the best interests of cities and counties as a whole are profoundly influenced by current "new urbanist" ideas and believe (I think correctly) that low-density development in metropolitan areas should be put to rest with the dodos. Argue if you wish, but this is an issue much bigger than Lyon Village or any other too-precious hamlet for ideological throwbacks to the mid-late 20th century.

I'm not anti NIMBY-ism in particular, because people should try to shape their communities to their preferences, but OP's preferences belong to a time that has passed and reveal him/her to be a bit of a dodo... and this one is simply out of his hands.

Yes, our betters are going to force us into a higher-density lifestyle, whether we want it or not. Those of you who don't want this outcome had better start fighting now, because the train is pulling out of the station.

Indeed. Think of it as social Brussels sprouts-- we simply know better. You're welcome to carve out a low-density lifestyle farther from the city, where that sort of thing belongs.

[Anonymous]

Yes, our betters are going to force us into a higher-density lifestyle, whether we want it or not. Those of you who don't want this outcome had better start fighting now, because the train is pulling out of the station.

Well, actually, it's about allowing private property owners to maximize the value of their private property without meddling from socialistic NIMBYs who think they know best.

If a land owner has land and wants to build a ten-story apartment complex, what right do you have to tell them they can't? You people are worse than Stalin!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Yes, our betters are going to force us into a higher-density lifestyle, whether we want it or not. Those of you who don't want this outcome had better start fighting now, because the train is pulling out of the station.

Well, actually, it's about allowing private property owners to maximize the value of their private property without meddling from socialistic NIMBYs who think they know best.

If a land owner has land and wants to build a ten-story apartment complex, what right do you have to tell them they can't? You people are worse than Stalin!

You mean you wouldn't move heaven and earth to try to stop the project if you were the next-door neighbor of that proposed apartment complex? I find that hard to believe.