Falls Church - Say no to Sunrise signs?

[Anonymous]

Sunrise would also mean sidewalks on the Westmoreland side, between Kirby and Lemon. More loss of tree cover and disruption similar to that on Old Dominion for the last year would follow. It is in the plan. Please don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously has any of you gone to visit a Sunrise??? It will not generate traffic, that's ridiculous. Really there are so many worse things that could take that spot I don't see how this is such a big issue.

The traffic at the ones in Arlington off Glebe and Wilson is a PITA. I can see why people who live near the McLean site in a more residential area don't want the land rezoned.

What are you talking about? I live across the street from the one on Glebe and there is NO traffic issue. For the one on Wilson, the traffic is because of the school.

I can understand why people don't want the type of traffic there is on Glebe. Or the panhandlers either, for that matter, although they presumably aren't Sunrise residents.

The traffic on Glebe has zero to do with Sunrise. It has to do with being a major north/south thoroughfare in Arlington. There are no backups coming into or out of that street - the only backups are across Glebe, because Woodstock is the end of the road that starts at Spout Run and becomes Lorcom. Kirby is also already busy because it's a cut through from McLean to 7. Sunrise will not make that better or worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously has any of you gone to visit a Sunrise??? It will not generate traffic, that's ridiculous. Really there are so many worse things that could take that spot I don't see how this is such a big issue.

The traffic at the ones in Arlington off Glebe and Wilson is a PITA. I can see why people who live near the McLean site in a more residential area don't want the land rezoned.

What are you talking about? I live across the street from the one on Glebe and there is NO traffic issue. For the one on Wilson, the traffic is because of the school.

I can understand why people don't want the type of traffic there is on Glebe. Or the panhandlers either, for that matter, although they presumably aren't Sunrise residents.

The traffic on Glebe has zero to do with Sunrise. It has to do with being a major north/south thoroughfare in Arlington. There are no backups coming into or out of that street - the only backups are across Glebe, because Woodstock is the end of the road that starts at Spout Run and becomes Lorcom. Kirby is also already busy because it's a cut through from McLean to 7. Sunrise will not make that better or worse.

Of course it does, and of course it would. It aggravates the traffic in a crowded part of Arlington. If people in McLean and Falls Church wanted to live in Arlington, they would live there instead. It's pretty obvious the agenda of those advocating for a Sunrise in this nice residential area is just to diminish its appeal. Go away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sunrise would also mean sidewalks on the Westmoreland side, between Kirby and Lemon. More loss of tree cover and disruption similar to that on Old Dominion for the last year would follow. It is in the plan. Please don't.

+1000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was driving through Falls Church today and saw signs saying: Fairfax County say no to Sunrise and something about congestion, traffic and costs I think. Anyone know what this is about? A Google search didn't turn up anything. I'm curious what the big deal is if there may be a Sunrise. There is already Powhatan nursing home and Vinson Hall. Thanks!

Anyone know of an update?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously has any of you gone to visit a Sunrise??? It will not generate traffic, that's ridiculous. Really there are so many worse things that could take that spot I don't see how this is such a big issue.

The traffic at the ones in Arlington off Glebe and Wilson is a PITA. I can see why people who live near the McLean site in a more residential area don't want the land rezoned.

What are you talking about? I live across the street from the one on Glebe and there is NO traffic issue. For the one on Wilson, the traffic is because of the school.

I can understand why people don't want the type of traffic there is on Glebe. Or the panhandlers either, for that matter, although they presumably aren't Sunrise residents.

The traffic on Glebe has zero to do with Sunrise. It has to do with being a major north/south thoroughfare in Arlington. There are no backups coming into or out of that street - the only backups are across Glebe, because Woodstock is the end of the road that starts at Spout Run and becomes Lorcom. Kirby is also already busy because it's a cut through from McLean to 7. Sunrise will not make that better or worse.

Of course it does, and of course it would. It aggravates the traffic in a crowded part of Arlington. If people in McLean and Falls Church wanted to live in Arlington, they would live there instead. It's pretty obvious the agenda of those advocating for a Sunrise in this nice residential area is just to diminish its appeal. Go away.

Let's be fair, now ... I think it's a little paranoid to think that the 'agenda' of anyone is to willfully hurt any community. Reasonable people can disagree on the pro/con debate, but the agenda of those supporting it is economic development and enhanced tax revenue, which would ostensibly be used to enhance county programs or impede the upward march of taxes. Whether there's enough upside to offset some potential legitimate drawbacks (traffic isn't one, loss of aesthetic appeal is), is a debatable question.

But, I think the McClean Citizens Association loses credibility when it throws out 'everyone is out to get us' style conspiracy theories or asserts that all development at any cost will diminish the area's appeal. There needs to be some balance here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was driving through Falls Church today and saw signs saying: Fairfax County say no to Sunrise and something about congestion, traffic and costs I think. Anyone know what this is about? A Google search didn't turn up anything. I'm curious what the big deal is if there may be a Sunrise. There is already Powhatan nursing home and Vinson Hall. Thanks!

Anyone know of an update?

It goes to the Fairfax County Planning Commission in late July.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously has any of you gone to visit a Sunrise??? It will not generate traffic, that's ridiculous. Really there are so many worse things that could take that spot I don't see how this is such a big issue.

The traffic at the ones in Arlington off Glebe and Wilson is a PITA. I can see why people who live near the McLean site in a more residential area don't want the land rezoned.

What are you talking about? I live across the street from the one on Glebe and there is NO traffic issue. For the one on Wilson, the traffic is because of the school.

I can understand why people don't want the type of traffic there is on Glebe. Or the panhandlers either, for that matter, although they presumably aren't Sunrise residents.

The traffic on Glebe has zero to do with Sunrise. It has to do with being a major north/south thoroughfare in Arlington. There are no backups coming into or out of that street - the only backups are across Glebe, because Woodstock is the end of the road that starts at Spout Run and becomes Lorcom. Kirby is also already busy because it's a cut through from McLean to 7. Sunrise will not make that better or worse.

Of course it does, and of course it would. It aggravates the traffic in a crowded part of Arlington. If people in McLean and Falls Church wanted to live in Arlington, they would live there instead. It's pretty obvious the agenda of those advocating for a Sunrise in this nice residential area is just to diminish its appeal. Go away.

Let's be fair, now ... I think it's a little paranoid to think that the 'agenda' of anyone is to willfully hurt any community. Reasonable people can disagree on the pro/con debate, but the agenda of those supporting it is economic development and enhanced tax revenue, which would ostensibly be used to enhance county programs or impede the upward march of taxes. Whether there's enough upside to offset some potential legitimate drawbacks (traffic isn't one, loss of aesthetic appeal is), is a debatable question.

But, I think the McClean Citizens Association loses credibility when it throws out 'everyone is out to get us' style conspiracy theories or asserts that all development at any cost will diminish the area's appeal. There needs to be some balance here.

Indeed. Why put yet another assisted living facility in an area that already has several, and in a lot that is zoned residential?

The many signs near Westmoreland and Kirby opposing Sunrise at that location were printed by the local residents, not the MCA.

[Anonymous]

When has a senior living facility ever caused a traffic jam? We have two near us and they don't affect traffic at all unless an ambulance is entering or leaving, but that can happen anywhere and we live by a fire station.

[Anonymous]

Isn't a senior living facility a residence for the seniors living there, and therefore residential?

[Anonymous]

WTH happened to the brick wall at that intersection today (diagonal from proposed Sunrise location)? Clearly someone drove through it. Will Sunrise residents be driving, by chance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WTH happened to the brick wall at that intersection today (diagonal from proposed Sunrise location)? Clearly someone drove through it. Will Sunrise residents be driving, by chance?

I was wondering about that too on the way to the baseball game. That's kind of a crazy angle for an accident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn't a senior living facility a residence for the seniors living there, and therefore residential?

Not to be facetious, but that's like calling a college dorm residential. Also I'm guessing, but these seniors don't pay individual property taxes right? I guess the building does but if those same 24 seniors owned 24 homes the taxes would end up being more than having them in one building together. Not that I'm advocating for the center, just wondering.

[Anonymous]

A six story multi -bed facility is simply inappropriate for the residential neighborhood of 1 and 2 level homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:... I'm guessing, but these seniors don't pay individual property taxes right? I guess the building does but if those same 24 seniors owned 24 homes the taxes would end up being more than having them in one building together. Not that I'm advocating for the center, just wondering.

As oppose to the church that likely didn't pay any taxes?