News-Press Editorial

Psychologists know the phenomenon. A common layman term for it is "potency reaction." Someone does something very brave or strong and successful, and a common reaction is to go through a subsequent period of intense self-doubt, denial and insecurity.

With all due respect, the Falls Church City Council appears to have a certain penchant for this. Twice in the last year and a half, the Council has received a clear mandate from the citizens of the City to push ahead with large scale mixed-use development in its commercial corridors. In November 2002, by a two-thirds margin Falls Church voters rejected a referendum against such development. Then, just last week, three City Council candidates running on a platform of continuing the pursuit of such "smart growth" mixed-use projects against three candidates opposed to it, won solid victories.

In both cases, however, the immediate reaction of the Council was to come down especially hard on the unsuspecting developer who had the misfortune of being the next to walk through the door.

In November 2002, it was shortly after the referendum vote that the Council sent the KSI firm packing, rejecting flat-out its proposal to develop the 4.7-acre duckpin bowling alley site.

Now, this Monday, the Council once again did not respond like a body that had received a robust vote of confidence in the election last week. Quite the opposite, it almost killed the latest plan for development of the same site, this one proposed by Atlantic Realty (see story, Page 1 of this edition).

What's going on here? Will someone please tell the Council it's really OK to do what the voters have asked them to do?

The Council heard from a tiny handful of neighbors to the proposed project, and that was enough to send them scurrying from what had been expected as a harmless vote to send the plan to City boards and commissions for further review prior to any final vote. Instead, they voted to "continue" the matter until the next meeting. That is, to stall, to bide time, to punt. And they voted to do it unanimously.

Council members discounted the fact that the professional staff of the City had signed off on the plan after wringing very substantial concessions and proffers from the developer. Perhaps they need some more positive reinforcement from the Chamber of Commerce or some other authoritative source. They shouldn't need it, but maybe they do.

In all seriousness, we share the Council concern to give every separate project full consideration on its own merits, and to make sure the numbers work for net revenues, density and so forth. But in this case, inching forward with this plan would not have sold anyone out. It would only have set some wider government deliberation in motion.