Letters to the Editor
Some West Enders Do Not Support Building In a ParkI am not a politician, but I know now what it feels like to have words wrongly ascribed to me. In the last edition of the News-Press a letter writer claims that the West End residents say we support affordable living "but not on my street, not on this parcel, not here, not there". Well, let's be very clear. What we are saying is we do not support a five story structure with a 15,000 square ft footprint in A PARK! A very small park. The only park in the increasingly developed West End. We do not support a structure that will tower over the landmark footbridge, obliterate the open view of Broad St, cast year-round shadows in the small piece of remaining park, and add significantly to traffic & parking problems.Let's also look at who, besides the neighbors, opposes this: Falls Church City Planning Commission, the Economic Development Authority, The Tree Commission, in addition to the current Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations. The developers of this property have gone out of their way to appear accommodating to all concerned, but they have yet to make a single modification that was not dictated by zoning and physical barriers. While the number of residences may have been reduced, the size of the building actually increased. They claim they will "give" back to the City land the City has already purchased. They claim 80% of the remaining park will be usable, which would be true if you could throw a ball while smashed up against their exterior windows. Let's support the City in its goal of supplying affordable housing, maintaining parkland and keeping structures to a manageable scale. That means finding an alternative location for the FCHC building.
City Should Keep Commitment To Open SpaceBoth park land and affordable housing are precious commodities, as the current debate over West End Park illustrates. Why, then, is the Falls Church City Council considering donating park land to affordable housing for seniors when taxpayers have already purchased the park land? I urge the City to keep its commitment to maintain open spaces and protect park land while also providing affordable housing. A potential winning compromise would allow the Falls Church Volunteer Fire Department to sell its share of the property in question for development as senior housing, while the City retains its share as park land. I urge the City Council members and the Falls Church community to endorse this compromise which protects park land and allows for affordable housing for seniors.In 1998, the City of Falls Church spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayers' dollars on fire house improvements in return for property to be added to West End Park. Now the City Council is considering releasing its interest in the property to allow the Volunteer Fire Department to sell the entire property to the West End View Partners for development as a 5-story, 60-70 unit senior housing project with approximately 10,000 square feet of commercial space. The developers claim that they will return some of the land to park use, but both the amount of land and its usability as a park need to be reviewed closely. In the mean time, why is the City giving away any park land? Most of this property is currently zoned for residential housing, not commercial or mixed use. Moreover, the City's Comprehensive Plan designates the property as open space, and notes that the entire parcel should be added to West End Park. A winning compromise would keep the share of the open space that the City already owns as part of West End Park and allow for rezoning of the remainder for development as affordable housing for seniors.
Diener Tract Approval Was ‘Good Practice’The approval of the project on the Diener Tract was good practice for the City Center and helps accomplish our three goals: taxes down, schools up, build community. On community, Diener will be a good place: small pedestrian square, modest destination (arts space), shops and restaurants at street level, Virginia architecture, Maple Avenue lined with maples going scarlet and gold in autumn; and compatible with the neighborhood. It needs a name with a real connection to the site; not a plastic, patronizing name like Spectrum or Byron. The City Center should be a great place: pedestrian squares and walkways; Destinations such as live theater district, year-round farmers market, community meeting hall; shops and restaurants at street level; Virginia architecture; real names. Instead, we hear (unofficially) that the City Center will have a supermarket and movie theaters. Hmm. Has anyone noticed real 'community' springing up around the Merrifield cinemas? Any supermarket? How would that compare with the Street-Works proposal, which had so much citizen input? Why no report from city staff to Council on the content of City Center?
Looking Forward To 1st Night Game at MasonThank you for your coverage of the stadium lighting project at the George Mason High School. We are very grateful to you and to the citizens and officials of Falls Church for supporting this endeavor. The lights will enhance our sports programs at George Mason as well as function as a more convenient venue for community gatherings. In the interests of clarity, several additional points should be emphasized.First, we have raised approximately $186,000 to cover the costs of buying the lights, installing them, and paying for fund-raising expenses. Second, the installation of the lights will take considerably more than one day, though we anticipate that the lights should still be erected and operational in advance of the first home varsity football game. Finally, the individuals shown in the check presentation picture included Tom Horn (George Mason High School Athletic Director) and Gregg Wright, Treasurer of the Boosters. Although they have been extremely active in this project, David Mowbray, Bob Penland (Booster President 2003-04), and Leslie Rye (Booster President 2004-05) were not able to be present for the picture. We look forward to the first outdoor night game at George Mason and to seeing many of you at that time.
The More Things Change, The More...I'm just now back from a too-brief summer sojourn, and find that nothing has changed in Falls Church:Long-term FC resident and respected civic activist Lou Mauro (Hey, Ed., isn't this a more accurately descriptive, less biased description than your preferred derogation, "failed candidate for office"), obtained the signatures of 457 thoughtful, well-informed, interested citizens -- many of them residents of the immediate neighborhood -- on a petition opposing the proposed "500 Maple Avenue" development, for no less than 9 express and specific reasons. Thus, Lou and the petition signers attempted to give the Mayor and City Council valuable information about the legitimate concerns of a large group of citizens. Moreover, theirs is not a new concern -- many in the City have sincere and well-founded concerns about the development approach this Council has taken. Mayor Gardner noticed that Lou and the 457 signers did not share his opinion of the "500 Maple Avenue" project, and apparently found such dissent excessively nervy and intolerable. Thus, he had a very public, Cheney-esque, hissy fit. In the rudest, most arrogant, and undemocratic terms, Gardner denigrated both Lou, and the 457 petitioner/automatons under Lou's evil spell, as too ill-informed to recognize a dandy development when they see one. And it felt so good that he did it again the next week! Defying, yet again, his own purported editorial policy, the News-Press Ed. parroted Gardner with a heart-felt, partisan, "Me, too! Me, too!!," and the usual misquotes, biased characterizations, and editing snafus. And did Ed. print the petition language or Lou's remarks, when asked to, and let readers judge the merits of the petition for themselves? Of course not -- that would challenge the preferred orthodoxy. And, as is always the case in the News-Press, reinforcements were on the way... ...that is, David Chavern (Ed., if you wanted to be fair, you could describe Chavern as "the election candidate who won by a mere +/- 5% more of the vote than Mauro, even though Chavern had the backing of the City political machine), who echoed Gardner's slur against Lou and the 457 purportedly uninformed and cowed petitioners. Chavern explained further that the petition language was also too "broad" to be of any value to the Council. How silly. Even so, could he really fault us for that? After all, it is a broad concept, this idea that it bodes ill for an improved community to favor hyper-dense, socio-economically restrictive, residential development over broad commercial expansion. Keep up the good work guys! In a volatile and uncertain world, it's comforting to know that there are some things we can count on!
Unhappy With Ebert’s Review Of ‘White Castle’My younger sister looked at me and told me she wanted to make the world a better place. I smiled at her sincere intentions, but my grin was soon diminished as she expanded on that, stating that she intended on improving our world by becoming a famous Hollywood actress. I didn't have the heart to tell her how quixotic her notions were.My lingering suspicions about the quality of the film industry lately were only reinforced by perusing the Thursday, July 29th issue of the Falls Church News-Press, and studying Roger Ebert's movie reviews. Although this acclaimed movie critic has been relatively justified in his commentaries, it appears that he has gone off track. The box office this past summer has brought atom-bombs of flicks to the silver screen, plot-less cinematic train wrecks, aimed directly at the increasingly visual society of my teenage generation. My fellow fifteen year olds have sacrificed their desire for depth and morals in movies, in lieu of instant gratification in the form of aesthetic pleasures projected onto a thirty foot screen. Thought provocative rhetoric has been traded for torrential chuckles, and brooding, angst heartthrobs. Despite the fact that these movies, utter insults to film aficionados everywhere, were relatively lucrative, Ebert has remained steadfast in his beliefs that these movies were, well, what they were- better left as fragmented scenes on the cutting room floor. However, not until now. I was literally nauseated upon hearing Ebert hail the slapstick comedy, "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle." From the director of "Dude, Where's My Car?" a film decrying the intellect of human nature as a whole, Ebert acted as if "Harold and Kumar"… actually had some dignified comedy, not a grand farce intended for the entertainment of summertime boredom-induced comatose teenagers. Especially affronting was that Ebert appraised this film with three stars- when masterpieces like "Maria Full of Grace" and "The Manchurian Candidate" were only awarded with three and half, and three stars, respectively. In addition, I began to question Ebert's long time credibility when he entitled creative genius M. Night Shyamalan's most recent thriller, "The Village" with a single, puny star, when many others have dubbed its worth far beyond that. In conclusion, I'm distressed. I fear that in the years to come, we may be reduced to drooling idiots with our eyeballs glazed in front of a movie screen, finding satisfaction only in meandering one liners and bodily function jokes. Films with actual morals will be regarded the way today's youth regard Aesop's Fables when they have a copy of their latest glossy covered teenybopper magazine at hand.
|