Miles Grant - Greater Greater Washington

Shocking rhetoric from John Townsend and AAA

Thu, 18 Apr 2013 15:02:00 EDT

by Dan Malouff, Ken Archer, David Edmondson, Ben Ross, Aimee Custis, Dan Reed, Geoff Hatchard, Rahul Mereand-Sinha, Jaime Fearer, Topher Mathews, Matt Johnson, Michael Perkins, Martin Moulton, Steven Glazerman, Tracey Johnstone, Tim Krepp, Steven Yates, Sandra Moscoso, Nick Casey, Joe Weedon, Canaan Merchant, Bradley Heard, Jereme Altendorf, Jacques Arsenault, Brent Bolin, Abigail Zenner, John Muller, Brian McEntee, Ben Harris, Sarah Lewis, Sally Hobaugh, Ryan Sigworth, Darren Buck, Mark Jordan, Miles Grant, Jessica Christy, Laura Dallas McSorley, Nolan Treadway, and Stewart Schwartz

This week's Washington City Paper cover story quoted AAA Mid-Atlantic spokesman John Townsend calling Greater Greater Washington editor David Alpert "retarded" and a "ninny," and comparing Greater Greater Washington to the Ku Klux Klan.

Many other reporters, people on Twitter, and residents generally have clearly stated in response what should of course go without saying, that such personal attacks are beyond the pale.

Some may get the sense that there is personal animosity between Townsend and the team here at Greater Greater Washington. At least on our end, nothing could be further from the truth. We simply disagree with many of his policy positions and his incendiary rhetoric.

Spirited argument is important in public policy, but it should not cross into insults. When it does, that has a chilling effect on open discourse. Fostering an inclusive conversation about the shape of our region is the purpose of this site, but discourse must be civil to be truly open. That's why our comment policy here on Greater Greater Washington prohibits invective like this. In our articles, we try hard to avoid crossing this line, and are disappointed when we or others do, intentionally or inadvertently.

The "war on cars" frame unnecessarily pits drivers against cyclists and pedestrians instead of working together for positive solutions. The City Paper article, by Aaron Wiener, does a good job of debunking that, and is worth reading for much more than the insults it quotes.

When pressed, Townsend told Wiener he wants to back away from the "war on cars."

"I regret the rhetoric sometimes," he says. "Because I think that when you use that type of language, it shuts down communication with people who disagree."

We hope Townsend, his colleagues, and their superiors also regret the things he said about David and Greater Greater Washington. We look forward to the day when AAA ceases using antagonistic language and begins working toward safety, mobility, and harmony among all road users.

In the meantime, residents do have a choice when purchasing towing, insurance, and travel discounts. Better World Club is one company that offers many of the same benefits as AAA, but without the disdain.

289 comments

Live chat with Matt Yglesias

Wed, 23 May 2012 11:50:00 EDT

by Miles Grant

Please welcome Matt Yglesias, Slate Moneybox economics blogger, author of The Rent Is Too Damn High, and frequent commentator about how regulations limiting development affect cities.

View the chat transcript

28 comments

Live chat: Matt Yglesias, Wednesday at noon (May 18, 2012)
Vancouver's Larry Beasley talks DC's Height Act in forum Tuesday, live chat Wednesday (May 17, 2010)
Live chat with Larry Beasley on DC's height limit (May 19, 2010)
Live chat: Kwame Brown, DC Councilmember at-large (Mar 27, 2009)
Live chat: Jim Graham, Wednesday at noon (Mar 23, 2009)

Live chat: Matt Yglesias, Wednesday at noon

Fri, 18 May 2012 10:29:00 EDT

by Miles Grant

Are the very policies intended to sustain neighborhoods and preserve affordable housing paradoxically the same ones pushing rents up and families out to the suburbs? That's case Slate Moneybox economics writer Matt Yglesias makes in his e-book, The Rent is Too Damn High.

Photo by SusanAstray on Flickr.

On Wednesday at noon, Matt will join us to discuss the book and we hope you'll help us get things started with your questions in the comments.

"High rent is not a fact of nature," writes Yglesias. "It's a result of bad policy." Height limits, historic preservation and density caps intended to keep neighborhoods quaint, whether imposed overtly by official policy or subtly by zoning officials, act as supply caps driving up prices and imposing gentrification.

The conventional wisdom in community development is to preserve current buildings and fight redevelopment of existing low-cost rental units. But that's exactly what we've been doing for the last decade. Instead, the number of affordable units in DC has been cut in half since 2000. The low-cost housing that remains is often poor quality and far from public transit.

While much of the public debate about DC development policies today centers on the height limit, that's far from the only restriction on growth. Locals governments also impose mandated lot sizes, building setbacks, floor area ratios, and parking minimums that restrict the amount of housing and drive up the cost of building new development.

So what's the solution? Yglesias takes the economist's perspective, targeting supply and demand:

[W]e need to acknowledge that there are only two sustainable ways to reduce the price of housing. One is to lower demand by making a given place a worse place to live. Detroit features high crime, low-quality public services, and a bleak job market. The rent in Detroit is not high. [...] The other way is to increase housing supply.

Opponents of smart growth policies contend the suburbs have grown because of America's desire for a white picket fence and a two-car garage. Yglesias says that through policies that discourage additional housing units from being built in urban cores, we've given families little other choice but to turn their backs on urban cores in search of cheap housing. By easing restrictions on urban housing supply, some of those families could move closer to the core, cutting their commute times and reducing their carbon footprints.

Yglesias resists policy prescriptions, instead closing with a call for those on both ends of the political spectrum to let go of failed policies and take a fresh look at possible solutions. "Many on the Left—starting with my inspiration, Jimmy McMillan—are confused about the relationship between housing affordability, regulation, gentrification, and quality of life over the long term," writes Yglesias. "On the Right, the problem is one of myopia and identity-driven resentment." He also wants our public debate "to better distinguish between the price of land (a speculative investment commodity, like stocks or bonds) and the price of houses (a consumption good, like a car or a refrigerator)."

Yglesias has faced some pushback in urban development circles. In a reflection of how fast the online news cycle moves, we already have articles asking if the pro-density movement has gone too far, even though at last check DC's height limit remains alive and well.

At a time of political polarization, is it asking too much for liberals predisposed to distrust corporate developers and conservatives prone to distrust government solutions to come out of their corners? What processes in our systems of government and public debate could be better utilized to facilitate the discussion? Can a happy medium be found between opponents of DC's current development restrictions and the skyscrapers feared by their supporters?

Post your questions in the comments, and we'll try to ask as many as we can during the chat. And join us on Wednesday at noon for what should be a very informative discussion.

27 comments

Housing is more than supply and demand (Sep 21, 2011)
Vancouver's Larry Beasley talks DC's Height Act in forum Tuesday, live chat Wednesday (May 17, 2010)
Yglesias on urbanism (Jul 9, 2007)
Live chat: Jim Graham, Wednesday at noon (Mar 23, 2009)
As rents rise, Alexandria tackles affordable housing challenge (Mar 20, 2012)

Do Arlington candidates only like smart growth in theory?

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 14:28:00 EDT

by Miles Grant

Every Democratic candidate running for Arlington County Board claims to support smart growth. But when smart growth runs up against single-family homeowners' interests, are they willing to make tough choices? At a recent forum, statements from most candidates weren't promising.

The board has an open seat since Barbara Favola was elected to the state senate in November. Arlington Democrats will select a party nominee (who's almost certain to then win the official special election) at 2 caucuses on Thursday, January 19th and Saturday, January 21.

Wednesday night, the Arlington County Democratic Committee hosted a forum with the candidates. The forum spotlighted the paradoxical views of Arlington Democratic voters: They want candidates to express concern about things like smart growth, affordable housing, and transportation, but may be reluctant to support the density increases, transit projects or higher taxes to pay for affordable housing programs that may actually deliver it.

In opening and closing statements, transportation was either not mentioned at all or waved at in passing. Potential expansions of I-66 or I-395 and Arlington's efforts to fight them weren't mentioned at all. Candidates didn't talk about Metro funding, overcrowding, or congestion.

A question about the proposed Columbia Pike streetcar revealed only one full-fledged supporter in Melissa Bondi, while Peter Fallon, Libby Garvey, Kim Klingler, Terron Sims seemed to know much about the streetcar's price but little about its value.

None of the four spoke of the value of investing in the Pike, cost savings to residents in a car-free diet, high demand for housing on rail, air quality benefits, or the potential for new tax revenue from development encouraged by a streetcar.

But no issue brings out a refusal to make tough choices quite like affordable housing, and it's certainly not limited to this crop of County Board candidates. Arlington single-family homeowners say they're concerned about a lack of affordable housing, but they also would like to see the value of their own home inflate indefinitely. Some are also so concerned about keeping their neighborhood the same that even strip malls get the historic preservation treatment.

Every candidate at the forum professed support for affordable housing, yet every candidate also expressed at least some skepticism about increasing existing density or adding new density in historically low-density areas.

Given that these candidates face an electorate that skews older and single-family homeowner in a low turnout January caucus and March 27 special election, candidates may be downplaying their commitment to smart growth policies now as a matter of politics. But as dense, transit-oriented development moves into new neighborhoods, from the Pike to East Falls Church to Lee Highway, it's disappointing so many County Board candidates appear to be taking the low road.

17 comments

Arlington explains Smart Growth (Sep 12, 2010)
Arlington candidates discuss streetcars and Crystal City (Jan 10, 2012)
Hear from the District 4 candidates (Mar 16, 2009)
Arlington's Smart Growth Journey: Neighborhoods (Jun 12, 2009)
What would you ask the at-large candidates? (Jan 3, 2011)

Columbia Pike streetcar is a bargain versus new highways

Wed, 14 Dec 2011 10:15:00 EDT

by Miles Grant

The mainstream press holds transit projects to a higher cost-effectiveness standard than highways, as recent coverage of the proposed Columbia Pike streetcar demonstrates.

Artist's conception of Columbia Pike Streetcar (via ColumbiaPikeVA.us)

In reality, the streetcar is a relative bargain purely on the basis of direct cost per estimated user, not even including the external costs of sprawl and pollution that new and improved highways engender.

Last week, Arlington County raised the streetcar's cost estimate to between $242 million and $261 million, citing "inflation, an increase in the scope of the proposed project, additional engineering requirements, and federal requirements for higher contingency funding and escalation."

The Post, true to form, reported only the higher figure, saying the cost had "jumped." ArlNow.com broke out the caps lock: "DEVELOPING—Pike Streetcar Cost Soars."

But focusing only on the cost increase obscures that, on a per-mile or per-user basis, the streetcar still costs much less than other projects:

Beltway HOT lanes: $1.4 billion for 14 miles and estimated 66,000 users per day
Maryland Intercounty Connector: $2.6 billion for 18 miles and estimated 30,000 users per day

These simple figures don't even include the huge cost to road users of buying, fueling, maintaining, and insuring a car. They also omit the massive air quality, public health, climate change and other costs of vehicle pollution, and the strains on open space and government services that come from the sprawling development this highway building enables.

The streetcar's mere $261 million price tag, by contrast, covers a 5-mile segment to be used by an estimated 26,000 riders per day.

Instead of further straining public resources by feeding sprawl, the Columbia Pike Streetcar is expected to help revive an existing commercial corridor, contributing positively to Arlington County's balance sheet over time as new development produces tax revenue while adding minimal costs to county services. "County officials believe that by 2040, 3,900 residences and 2.2 million square feet of commercial development, with 7,000 new jobs, will be added," reports the Post.

Yes, $261 million is a heavy lift at a time of economic uncertainty, but a generation ago, so was Metrorail. "Lots of people were vehemently against an infrastructure investment of that magnitude at that time—especially when the decision was made to move it off I-66 and put it underground, which cost that much more," Arlington County Board Member Jay Fisette told me in an interview. "If any community should be able to point to a historical experience of why this kind of investment is worth it for economic impact, quality of life and community planning value, it's Arlington."

More broadly, the Columbia Pike Streetcar is part of the region's next generation of transportation, along with Maryland's Purple Line and a mix of new and revived DC lines. Streetcars are cheaper and have a smaller footprint than Metro's existing heavy rail, while enticing more riders than buses.

County officials say they're hoping to get word on a federal funding commitment to the streetcar in 2012, which would put it on pace for a 2014 groundbreaking and a 2016 opening. From there, extensions to Falls Church or Alexandria are possible.

"The community has endorsed this for years," said Fisette. "As we continue to refine this project and bring it towards the finish line, I'm confident it will be good for Columbia Pike, our economy, our quality of life, and for beginning the next generation of regional rail."

68 comments

ICC overrun more than entire Columbia Pike streetcar (Sep 4, 2008)
Stimulus draft released; $30B for highways vs. $10B for transit (Jan 15, 2009)
Lee Highway: Arlington's other Columbia Pike (Dec 30, 2008)
Metro isn't always the best option for transit expansion (Sep 21, 2010)
Streetcar timing, funding, spacing, bidding (Oct 27, 2009)

Will VDOT be creative with the I-66 corridor?

Fri, 09 Dec 2011 12:42:00 EDT

by Miles Grant

The Virginia Department of Transportation is currently studying transportation in the I-66 corridor inside the Beltway. A public hearing in Arlington on Wednesday will be a critical chance to weigh in on the smartest investments.

Photo by M.V. Jantzen on Flickr.

This study could lead to just about any mobility improvement: light rail on Route 50, tolls, bus lanes, changes to the HOV structure, or more Capital Bikeshare stations.

But especially given Governor McDonnell's heavy emphasis on in new and wider roads, smart growth advocates should be keeping a particularly close eye on the results, as it could set the stage for a new push to widen I-66 through Arlington.

The whole reason VDOT is doing this study comes from a battle in early 2009. VDOT wanted to widen I-66 in some places, but advocates argued they needed to analyze other options instead of just assuming widening was the answer. Arlington and Fairfax members of the TPB briefly blocked the project, and agreed to let it proceed on the condition VDOT do this study.

Will they truly be open to more creative multimodal options, or simply got through the motions only to reach a predetermined conclusion that more road capacity is the only answer?

Map from VDOT defining the I-66 corridor inside the Beltway.

The study's mission is to "identify a range of multimodal and corridor management solutions (operational, transit, bike, pedestrian, and highway) that can be implemented to reduce highway and transit congestion and improve overall mobility within the I-66 corridor, between I-495 and the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge."

One thing that jumps out on the map is that while the corridor has three major east-west roadways, it has just one dedicated bike trail. VDOT doesn't step outside its of its roads-first mentality too often, so Wednesday's meeting will be a good opportunity to send them a message.

I-66 Multimodal Study Open House & Presentation
Wednesday, Dec. 14, 2011
6-8 pm (presentation begins at 6:30 pm)
Arlington County Board Room
2100 Clarendon Blvd, Arlington

If you can't make the meeting, you can still read about the study and send comments to info@I66multimodalstudy.com.

67 comments

Zimmerman aces TPB, blocks I-66 widening (Feb 19, 2009)
I-66 "spot improvements" underway (Aug 31, 2010)
VDOT widening I-66 in Arlington, sweeping environmental impact under the rug (Oct 2, 2008)
The zombie outer beltway returns (Aug 5, 2011)
Submit your comments against I-66 widening (Nov 11, 2008)

Can Falls Church ban parties endorsing local candidates?

Mon, 28 Nov 2011 14:44:00 EDT

by Miles Grant

Virginia state law prohibits ballots from listing partisan affiliation for local elections. The Falls Church City Council wants to go a step further, banning political parties from endorsing candidates in city races altogether. Can they do this, and with extremely limited public input?

Photo by yakfur on Flickr.

In the wake of two major shakeups to Falls Church city politics, the City Council is set to vote tonight on amendments to the city charter that were just drawn up at the council work session a week ago.

Under the amendments, candidates for the city who are nominated by political party primary or convention will not be listed at all on the ballot. Candidates can only be nominated by petition, the way non-party candidates get on the ballot today.

The amendments warn against not just the evils of partisan elections, but of partisan candidates.

Why the rush to change the charter? Under Virginia's Dillon's Rule system, the changes need Virginia General Assembly approval, so the city council wants to get the amendments into its legislative package in time for the next General Assembly session in January.

Unfortunately, it seems the City Council is putting that deadline ahead of opportunity for public input. This is an especially unfortunate move after voters just dealt the council a harsh rebuke in this month's election.

Voters rejected City Council efforts to keep city elections in May, passing a referendum to move city elections to November by a stunningly large 2-to-1 margin. Referendum opponents warned voters a move to November could make city elections more partisan, but voters ignored those arguments.

Then, just days later, the civic organization Citizens for a Better City (CBC) announced it would no longer endorse local political candidates. As the Falls Church News-Press editorialized, the changes left a sudden void:

So now, there is a flattened and broadened political landscape: no direction and twice the voters. One could call that a more "purely democratic" environment, but it may advisable to revisit Plato's "The Republic" for a poignant critique of the shortcomings, or, better, short livelihood, of "pure democracies."
The CBC may have thought it could dictate by its action a newly-leveled political environment, but its withdrawal will likely encourage other groups, or the formation of other groups, to fill the vacuum. No wish to mandate that future elections be non-partisan, for example, can prevent the exercise of First Amendment rights to the contrary.

A new dictate seems precisely what the city council is proposing. Rather than regrouping, reassessing, and gathering public input, leaders are rushing ahead under deadline pressure on proposed amendments that may or may not reflect the desires of current voters, never mind future ones.

What's more, it's not clear if any of the proposed amendments are either constitutional or enforceable. Can the City Council decide which groups of voters can or cannot publicly endorse political candidates? What if a party doesn't formally endorse, but does a mailing without a candidate's approval or knowledge? Would that candidate be thrown off the ballot anyway?

What about donations? Many city council and school board members have donated to political candidates. For example, Council Member Lawrence Webb, whose name is on the amendments, donated $100 to Democratic Delegate Charniele Herring's campaign in 2009. Under the amendments, would it be enough for Webb to swear off Democratic references on campaign literature? Or would he have to swear off all Democratic affiliations and donations for the duration of his term?

Just weeks after voters settled Falls Church's biggest electoral controversy, will the City Council open a new one? We may find out tonight.

7 comments

Nov. elections would strengthen Falls Church's democracy (Oct 13, 2011)
DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)
Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
Finding good candidates shouldn't be waiting for Superman (Nov 9, 2011)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)

Nationals Park falling behind in green standings

Fri, 18 Nov 2011 10:24:00 EDT

by Miles Grant

When Nationals Park opened, it was the first LEED-certified ballpark in Major League Baseball, achieving the "Silver" standard. Four seasons later, the once-groundbreaking green ballpark is in danger of being bumped out of the top tier of sports venues.

Photo by The Ardvaark on Flickr.

With Ryan Zimmerman, Stephen Strasburg and Jordan Zimmermann on the field and Bryce Harper on the way, the Nationals have dramatically upgraded their on-field product. Nats Park amenities have been spruced up as well, with an expanded scoreboard pavilion and new food stands like Shake Shack.

But in a new video by CSN Washington, the Nats are touting the same green features as when the park opened in 2008:

From green roofs to efficient lighting to water filtration to the bicycle valet, the Nationals' efforts are all valuable—but they're no longer cutting edge. In the years since Nats Park opened, the Minnesota Twins have opened Target Field, also LEED Silver certified. Then the Pittsburgh Penguins raised the bar further, opening a LEED Gold certified arena.

And all of those stadiums have been outdone by a college facility. The University of Florida's Heavener Football Complex is LEED platinum-certified, the highest possible rating.

So how can the Nats get back to a leadership position?

Renewable energy. If the Boston Red Sox can put solar panels on Fenway Park, there's no reason why the Nats can't have some as well. Even the Washington Redskins, whose owner is no friend of the environment and who manage to screw up almost everything else, have installed a sizable solar array at FedEx Field.

Put the players out front. Nationals pitcher Collin Balester is part of Players for the Planet, speaking out on the need for recycling & climate action. Why not include him in these clips along with the front office staff?

Tear down the awful parking garages. Not only are they eyesores that block views of the Capitol, not only do they sit empty most of the time, but they encourage driving to a park that's next to one Metro stop and a 15 minute walk from several others. Imagine how much revenue the Nats could recapture from The Bullpen across the street by turning the garage space into an inviting area to eat, drink, shop and socialize. Yes, DC paid tens of millions of dollars to build the garages—but letting the mistake stand won't get that money back.

Get serious about reducing fans' trash. Nats Park only recycles plastic bottles and aluminum cans, while the District's municipal recycling service takes all kinds of plastics, as well as glass, aluminum and paper. The red-helmeted recycle bins aren't marked well enough as such, and trash is often discarded in them. The Nats should also require their vendors to use only biodegradable food packaging.

Stop selling ads on everything to polluters. It's not quite in the same league as Pittsburgh's "green" arena selling its naming rights to a polluting coal company. But the Exxon Mobil-sponsored left field wall billboard, Exxon Mobil-sponsored 7th inning stretch, Exxon Mobil-sponsored organic cotton hat, and Exxon Mobil-sponsored stadium replica really distract from the Nats' efforts to show they care about the environment & public health.

Finally, how's this for a headline: "Nationals Sign Local Environmental Blogger as Left-Handed Reliever"! Think about it, Mike Rizzo.

34 comments

Are you ready for some Metro? (Nov 3, 2008)
Soccer stadium won't stimulate the economy (May 29, 2008)
Designing sustainable communities with LEED-ND (Nov 18, 2008)
Youth sports and the automobile (Aug 4, 2009)
"Excitement" not worth $1B stadium (Oct 14, 2008)

Is Falls Church going in circles on transit?

Mon, 14 Nov 2011 11:20:00 EDT

by Miles Grant

Falls Church will discuss the possibility of building a streetcar on Tuesday. But this same city recently canceled its bus service, GEORGE, for lack of ridership. Why would a streetcar succeed where the bus failed?

GEORGE routes. Image from City of Falls Church.

City leaders now seem ready to up the ante on transit without facing the lessons of GEORGE. It didn't fail because Falls Church doesn't need transit; rather, its routing didn't efficiently serve the areas where the most likely riders live or work. Nor are city leaders willing to focus more development in those areas to build the ridership to support transit.

Falls Church ran the GEORGE bus from 2002-2010 in two long loops anchored at the East and West Falls Church Metro stations (neither of which is actually located within the boundaries of Falls Church). The winding paths looked more like scenic tour bus paths than quick transit routes.

For example, GEORGE riders rightly wondered why the trip from EFC to the State Theater—only a 15 minute walk—involved a leisurely 14-minute loop through Falls Church neighborhoods. This was GEORGE's fatal flaw. Its routes were designed to serve political purposes.

GEORGE wasn't primarily designed to get the most commuters to Metro as fast as possible or to deliver customers to downtown businesses. Instead, it meandered down the streets of as many Falls Church homeowners as possible to convince them their tax dollars were being well spent, whether or not those streets wanted or needed transit.

One omission is particularly revealing. During peak hours, the EFC loop didn't go all the way to Wilson Boulevard, instead turning right on the residential road of Roosevelt Street. That forced an extra walk to the retail shops at Eden Center and the large apartment and condo buildings of The Madison and Roosevelt Towers, whose patrons and residents were GEORGE's ideal customers.

By targeting low-density, car-reliant neighborhoods, GEORGE was also competing against Falls Church's heavily-subsidized incentives to drive. Falls Church and its neighbors have made big investments of land and infrastructure to provide taxpayer-underwritten parking at both EFC and WFC. Why wait for and pay for the bus if there's free or discount parking waiting at the Metro stop?

Rather than facing up to GEORGE's issues and seeking to streamline service, city leaders pulled the plug.

"Nobody did the market research to see if it was viable," Charles Langalis, a member of the city's Citizens Advisory Committee on Transportation told TBD last year. "It was recommended that the city go to work on a marketing plan, some promotional work for GEORGE, but that never materialized, either."

Now with neighboring Arlington moving forward with plans to build a streetcar down Columbia Pike, a discussion on Tuesday will ask whether Falls Church should make a similar move:

The Falls Church Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters of Falls Church will co-sponsor a luncheon discussion Tuesday November 15 on proposals for developing trolley-car transportation in the city. The event will occur from 11:30 am to 1:30 pm at the Italian Café, 7161 Lee Highway.
Panelists will include Steven Del Giudice, chief of the Arlington County ~~Transportation~~ Transit Bureau, Falls Church Vice Mayor David Snyder and former Falls Church City Council Member Dan Maller. Panelists will review basic information about trolley plans as well as routing options and potential benefits to the city.

Even though they're neighbors who even share a court system, Arlington and Falls Church couldn't be more different when it comes to development and transportation choices. Arlington's population has grown 36% since 1980 by focusing dense residential development around transit, and several new developments have already sprung up down Columbia Pike in advance of the streetcar.

But Falls Church's firm opposition to development has limited its population growth to just 18% since 1980. Even near its neighboring Metro stations, single-family homes and low buildings with large surface parking lots remain the dominant features. On Broad Street downtown, apartments are rare and one-floor retail dominates. Exactly where is there enough density for a trolley?

And even if new density were to spring up tomorrow, would Falls Church's single-family homeowners be willing to let their leaders invest tax dollars to help apartment and condo dwellers? After all, if Falls Church residents would rather sit alone in their cars, angry that traffic remains so bad but happy their tax dollars aren't being wasted on that stupid bus anymore, how are those same people going to be convinced to back a more expensive trolley?

It's loopy.

37 comments

Plan would reconnect East Falls Church, fill empty spaces (Apr 29, 2010)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)
Residents sound off about East Falls Church redevelopment (May 5, 2010)
Great East Falls Church plan approaching the finish line (Apr 15, 2011)
Falls Church misses planning opportunity with BJ's (Sep 19, 2011)

Nov. elections would strengthen Falls Church's democracy

Thu, 13 Oct 2011 13:25:00 EDT

by Miles Grant

An outlier among Virginia cities and counties, Falls Church holds its local elections in May, but a referendum on this November's ballot would move them to November starting in 2013.

Photo by rhall2ur on Flickr.

Most other Virginia communities hold their local elections in November, and turnout for November elections is typically about double that of May elections. The move would also save about $18,000 per cycle in electoral administrative costs.

So why are some opposing the referendum? A closer look at arguments against moving city elections to November reveals an undemocratic undertone.

The Falls Church League of Women Voters compiled a list of pros and cons of May and November elections. Oddly, though, November gets only 3 bullets to make its case while May gets 5. Here are a few of the arguments against moving the elections to November:

"Voters who don't pay attention to local issues decide close City races." Since when is the goal of election dates to manipulate the composition of the electorate—especially in a deliberate, undemocratic attempt to drive down turnout? Falls Church has a long history of longtime homeowners battling newer residents and this makes the May election date sound like a way to keep power in the hands of a select group. Considering how often we hear pundits bemoaning low voter turnout, it's bizarre that May elections supporters would present a smaller electorate as a feature, not a bug.

"Longer, more complex ballot." You know how many competitive races for elected office there are on my ballot in Falls Church this November? Zero. Del. Jim Scott and Commonwealth's Attorney candidate Theo Stamos are unopposed. And State Sen. Dick Saslaw faces only token opposition. Even if there were a number of competitive races, residents of the Washington, DC region are some of the most (over?)educated people in the world. Two more choices to make on the November ballot are going to make their heads explode?

"Elections more partisan." Falls Church cherishes its nonpartisan elections and groups like Citizens for a Better City continue to work to find nonpartisan solutions to city problems. But if today's voters don't share the anti-partisan passion of previous generations and want to use political affiliation to help inform their decisions, should the law be used as a tool to stop them? This is another attempt to justify manipulating election dates to affect election results.

"Accountability for incumbents who approve budget." The City Council sets the annual budget in April, so May elections give voters the chance for instant feedback. But can't people still hold incumbents accountable in November? As Mayor Robin Gardner told the Washington Post in 2009, "I find it troubling that some people believe our citizens aren't going to remember how people handled the budget situation six months later."

We shouldn't ask voters to go to the polls any more often than necessary. In 2012, some Virginia voters may be asked to go to the polls 4 times: Presidential and local primaries on March 6; local elections on May 1; other primaries including Congressional races on June 12; and the general election on November 6. From work conflicts to travel plans, elections are easy enough to miss. Why voluntarily add election fatigue as an additional turnout reducer, and at such a high cost to taxpayers to boot?

Concerns have also been raised that the referendum text is unnecessarily long and could confuse voters. Judge for yourself via the Falls Church League of Women Voters:

Should the City of Falls Church amend Section 3.01 of its Charter to hold elections of members of City Council in the month of November rather than the month of May by deleting the current Section 3.01 in its entirety and replacing it with the following language:
Sec. 3.01 Election of councilmembers
In the regular municipal election to be held on the first Tuesday in November, 2013, and every four (4) years thereafter, four (4) councilmembers shall be elected for terms of four (4) years each, such terms of office to begin on the first day of January, 2014, and end on the last day of December, 2017; succeeding terms shall begin on the first day of January following the year of election and end on the last day of December, four (4) years thereafter. In the regular municipal election to be held on the first Tuesday in November, 2015, and every four (4) years thereafter, three (3) councilmembers shall be elected for terms of four (4) years each, such terms of office to begin on the first day of January, 2016, and end on the last day of December, 2019; succeeding terms shall begin on the first day of January following the year of election and end on the last day of December four (4) years thereafter. Councilmembers serving on council who were elected in May, 2010, and those members elected in May, 2012, shall have their term of office shortened by six months but shall continue in office until their successors have been elected at the November general election and have been qualified to serve.
Yes _____ No _____

What do you think? Should Falls Church voters approve the referendum to move local elections to November?

4 comments

Go vote! (Sep 14, 2010)
Hold DC's primary in November, not July (Feb 1, 2011)
DC primaries should be scrapped (Aug 26, 2010)
Race to replace Johnson will come down to organization (Sep 20, 2011)
Should East Falls Church have a waterfront? (Jun 11, 2010)