Falls Church - Say no to Sunrise signs?

[Anonymous]

Daily traffic, staff, visitors, deliveries, supplies, food, etc and not needed. Other facilities within 3 miles available and not at anywhere near capacity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Daily traffic, staff, visitors, deliveries, supplies, food, etc and not needed. Other facilities within 3 miles available and not at anywhere near capacity

Actually, they are near capacity and one is restricted. The increase in traffic will be less than the two housing developments that are most vociferously fighting this and far less than the MS and HS cause. This neighborhood just fights any development on the lot - they have to come to fact that unless they are wiling to purchase the lot themselves, something will be development and horrifying as it may be - there will be change. Personally, I think the area need affordable housing and would gladly welcome it on that spot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily traffic, staff, visitors, deliveries, supplies, food, etc and not needed. Other facilities within 3 miles available and not at anywhere near capacity

Actually, they are near capacity and one is restricted. The increase in traffic will be less than the two housing developments that are most vociferously fighting this and far less than the MS and HS cause. This neighborhood just fights any development on the lot - they have to come to fact that unless they are wiling to purchase the lot themselves, something will be development and horrifying as it may be - there will be change. Personally, I think the area need affordable housing and would gladly welcome it on that spot.

It's the incremental and total traffic that is relevant here, not the comparative traffic generated by different communities, and in any event others with kids at the MS/HS oppose this as well. You don't seem to speak for anyone other than yourself and Sunrise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very good. I hope that is the case. I understood a church wanting to do something good with the property, but Sunrise is just as gredy as a home developer. My parents moved to McLean in 1972, and my mom passed away two years ago. Before that we looked at retirement facilities, and no one in the family could afford Sunrise pricing. Connect a virtual straw from a retirement account to Sunrise's and they will suck out all the money from the elderly as possible. Its simply not true that everyone in McLean is a millionaire and can afford assisted living in McLean. My friend's parents, sold their McLean home and are loving life at Ashby Ponds in Asburn. Their heirs will be given the full cost of the condo upon their passing. Wow, no wonder they are expanding that facility out in Asburn.

A large percentage of people who are in there senior homes have major mobility issues or dementia like diseases. Do you know how much full time home care costs?

I am not a fan of ALFs has most are now simply management compnaies that try to take every dollar from retirees. Problem is, the alternative is just as expensive or moreso depending on condition.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily traffic, staff, visitors, deliveries, supplies, food, etc and not needed. Other facilities within 3 miles available and not at anywhere near capacity

Actually, they are near capacity and one is restricted. The increase in traffic will be less than the two housing developments that are most vociferously fighting this and far less than the MS and HS cause. This neighborhood just fights any development on the lot - they have to come to fact that unless they are wiling to purchase the lot themselves, something will be development and horrifying as it may be - there will be change. Personally, I think the area need affordable housing and would gladly welcome it on that spot.

It's the incremental and total traffic that is relevant here, not the comparative traffic generated by different communities, and in any event others with kids at the MS/HS oppose this as well. You don't seem to speak for anyone other than yourself and Sunrise.

I would rather affordable housing not Sunrise. I would rather the site be developed then left in the limbo it has been in for the past 10 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily traffic, staff, visitors, deliveries, supplies, food, etc and not needed. Other facilities within 3 miles available and not at anywhere near capacity

Actually, they are near capacity and one is restricted. The increase in traffic will be less than the two housing developments that are most vociferously fighting this and far less than the MS and HS cause. This neighborhood just fights any development on the lot - they have to come to fact that unless they are wiling to purchase the lot themselves, something will be development and horrifying as it may be - there will be change. Personally, I think the area need affordable housing and would gladly welcome it on that spot.

+1

It's like saying you don't want new builds in your neighborhood. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Daily traffic, staff, visitors, deliveries, supplies, food, etc and not needed. Other facilities within 3 miles available and not at anywhere near capacity

Clearly, you have no idea how many old people there are in McLean. Those who could afford it when they could are not leaving, unless it is feet first. There will be more and more of them, not less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily traffic, staff, visitors, deliveries, supplies, food, etc and not needed. Other facilities within 3 miles available and not at anywhere near capacity

Actually, they are near capacity and one is restricted. The increase in traffic will be less than the two housing developments that are most vociferously fighting this and far less than the MS and HS cause. This neighborhood just fights any development on the lot - they have to come to fact that unless they are wiling to purchase the lot themselves, something will be development and horrifying as it may be - there will be change. Personally, I think the area need affordable housing and would gladly welcome it on that spot.

+1

It's like saying you don't want new builds in your neighborhood. Good luck with that.

No. It's like saying we don't want Sunrise in the neighborhood. Others seem to get that. Too bad you don't.

[Anonymous]

Yes, it will be developed. It is zoned r-3, meaning 3 homes per acre. That's how it should be developed -- as it is zoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Daily traffic, staff, visitors, deliveries, supplies, food, etc and not needed. Other facilities within 3 miles available and not at anywhere near capacity

Actually, they are near capacity and one is restricted. The increase in traffic will be less than the two housing developments that are most vociferously fighting this and far less than the MS and HS cause. This neighborhood just fights any development on the lot - they have to come to fact that unless they are wiling to purchase the lot themselves, something will be development and horrifying as it may be - there will be change. Personally, I think the area need affordable housing and would gladly welcome it on that spot.

+1

It's like saying you don't want new builds in your neighborhood. Good luck with that.

No. It's like saying we don't want Sunrise in the neighborhood. Others seem to get that. Too bad you don't.

Why did the neighborhood fight the prior proposals too?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it will be developed. It is zoned r-3, meaning 3 homes per acre. That's how it should be developed -- as it is zoned.

I love the irony of the communities who want this- whose communities would not exist if R-3 had been followed for their developments. Most of the area is R4 or greater already. Just this one little parcel is R-3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it will be developed. It is zoned r-3, meaning 3 homes per acre. That's how it should be developed -- as it is zoned.

I love the irony of the communities who want this- whose communities would not exist if R-3 had been followed for their developments. Most of the area is R4 or greater already. Just this one little parcel is R-3.

But why have zoning on the books if you aren't going to abide by the designations? I live nearby and I honestly wouldn't ordinarily mind something higher density like town homes but the traffic issues at that intersection are real and significant. It's one of the main objections to the Sunrise facility. If you don't drive through that area 3 plus times a day at peak hours like I do you don't know the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it will be developed. It is zoned r-3, meaning 3 homes per acre. That's how it should be developed -- as it is zoned.

I love the irony of the communities who want this- whose communities would not exist if R-3 had been followed for their developments. Most of the area is R4 or greater already. Just this one little parcel is R-3.

But why have zoning on the books if you aren't going to abide by the designations? I live nearby and I honestly wouldn't ordinarily mind something higher density like town homes but the traffic issues at that intersection are real and significant. It's one of the main objections to the Sunrise facility. If you don't drive through that area 3 plus times a day at peak hours like I do you don't know the situation.

Actually, I drive by about 6-10 times a day, sometimes more and have done so for almost 20 years. I also regularly [/i]gasp[i] walk by the site in question. I am looking forward to the additional sidewalk. My children attended Longfellow and now McLean. Zonings change all the time. R-3 is not usual for the area anyway. We don't need anymore oversized houses shoehorned into a lot like that. I would much rather have Sunrise. But even better would be smaller sized townhouses or affordable housing. This area need more affordable and moderate housing- not track McMansions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it will be developed. It is zoned r-3, meaning 3 homes per acre. That's how it should be developed -- as it is zoned.

I love the irony of the communities who want this- whose communities would not exist if R-3 had been followed for their developments. Most of the area is R4 or greater already. Just this one little parcel is R-3.

But why have zoning on the books if you aren't going to abide by the designations? I live nearby and I honestly wouldn't ordinarily mind something higher density like town homes but the traffic issues at that intersection are real and significant. It's one of the main objections to the Sunrise facility. If you don't drive through that area 3 plus times a day at peak hours like I do you don't know the situation.

Based on the traffic analysis, you'd probably see one extra car at one of your 3 plus visits.

I at least respect the honesty of the folks that simply admit their aversion to an old folks home. But the traffic campaigners either have not actually looked at the traffic analysis or are simply delusional.

[Anonymous]

Drove by there this evening and there are now giant pro-Sunrise signs, but only on the parcel that the Korean church wants to sell to Sunrise. The surrounding neighborhoods are full of signs against rezoning the R-3 parcel to allow Sunrise to built a nursing home there.

If the county gives Sunrise a zoning exemption, I expect to see all the county Democrats lose their seats in the next election. This is an area that regularly gives the Democrats a majority in McLean/Falls Church, and if they see Foust et al giving breaks to developers against their wishes, they'll just vote Republican next time. At least that way they'll get lower taxes.