Letters to the Editor

Could Lighting Create a New Title IX Liability?

After reading several recent articles and letters published in the News-Press regarding the lighting of the football and baseball fields at George Mason High School, I have become concerned about this project and what it may mean for City taxpayers.

My concern is a potentially costly Title IX violation. A recent article in the New York Times (by Bill Pennington, entitled "Title XI Trickles Down to Girls of Generation Z," and published on June 27, 2004, starting on page C19) notes that high schools are where the Title IX action is at. It states: "While the most common Title IX complaint involves the disparity between the fields and facilities for softball and baseball, there are many other ways that schools' athletic departments can be in violation of Title IX." It continues: "Perhaps the most misunderstood factor is the use of money raised by booster groups. This money, often contributed by parents or local sponsors, is frequently used for a particular, high-profile sport like football, with some booster groups raising as much as $40,000 in a season. But for Title IX purposes, any money spent on any team, even by a private booster group, is treated as if it were public money appropriated by the school district. It is the obligation of the district to ensure that outside financing does not tip the balance, making the athletic experience inequitable for girls or boys."

Has the George Mason fields lighting project been reviewed by the City's attorney to ensure no Title IX violations will take place? I don't want to be a spoil sport, and I'm not one of those "angry-dads" referenced in the same article. I just don't want to see my tax bill rise because of a Title IX lawsuit/settlement that could have been avoided.

Dave Rifkin; Falls Church

Tranquil Nature Of West End Park Threatened

Scenario One: The developers' proposed five-story, 60-70 unit affordable housing structure, outfitted with 10,000 square ft. of office space, is plopped on the approximately 1.3 acre spit of land off Broad Street directly bordering the West End Park. Now, let's say those 70 units (and you know there will be 70 units, not 60 or 65 or even 68, but the maximum number possible, and that means 70) house an average of 1.5 people each. That makes 105 people living in the building. Now, figure about 20 or so people working in the 10,000 square ft. of office space. That makes 125 people (not including any Falls Church Housing Corporation employees or other building staff). With an extra 125 people accessing the West End Park (and I'm talking about a much smaller version of what currently passes for the park once the structure is completed) how long do you think it will take before West End Park is no longer tranquil and welcoming, but instead feels like the Mall on July 4th?

Scenario Two: Scenario One occurs, but the hulking five-story monstrosity, with its Big-Brother-is-Watching wall of windows facing the park, effectively blocks out most of the sun and casts shadows over the remaining bit of park that its huge footprint doesn't already occupy, thereby turning what remains of West End Park into a dark, inhospitable place that no one wants to visit.

I hope there is a Scenario Three. Under this scenario, the Falls Church Housing Corporation drops their ridiculous proposal for a five-story building in a tiny park, and instead works with the City to site their building in a location that would suit it much better.

Thomas Berg; Falls Church

Manipulation of National Security At Election Time

Teman Treadway; Falls Church