Akridge Insists It's a Player

Responding to an article in last week's News-Press about its stalled negotiations with the City of Falls Church to consummate a contract as the City's "master developer" for the construction of a new city center, a representative of The Akridge Company of Washington, D.C., wrote the News-Press yesterday that, "We remain extremely confident, committed and actively engaged in the transformation of downtown Falls Church into a distinctive, vibrant, mixed-use community center."

The letter characterized the News-Press article's notion that "Akridge and the City may be ready to go separate ways" as "inaccurate and counterproductive." The complete text of the letter, from Akridge Vice-President Joseph Svatos, is printed on Page 2 of this edition.

At the request of Falls Church City Manager Dan McKeever, who is spearheading the negotiations with Akridge on behalf of the City, the first meeting of the volunteer Falls Church City Center Task Force was convened in a closed session last Wednesday night. This came as the McKeever was on the verge of seeking a third extension of the City Council's time limit for completing the negotiations.

McKeever made his frustrations with the process public at a Council meeting last month, noting that it has turned out to be far more complicated and fraught with detail than originally expected. Following a bid and interview process conducted by the City Center Task Force last fall, Akridge was selected as the prime candidate for "master developer" of the project in January, and negotiations toward a contract began right away.

While expressing no problems with last week's News-Press article, City Center Task Force chair Dr. Steve Rogers told the News-Press following the closed meeting that talks with Akridge will continue. He said that he was concerned, however, that comments this week to a regional business publication by at least one City official not part of the negotiations could create a wrong impression.

In his letter to the News-Press, Svatos explained that "the first order of business was to formalize a detailed development plan for the designated four-block area. The details therein would affect changes to zoning, usage overlays, traffic patterns and design guidelines. Not until these details, including specific heights, density and uses are agreed upon, can fair market value for those affected land parcels be established. Additionally, though a wide array of options has been identified, it would be premature to discuss specific acquisition strategies and/or necessary municipal actions without an approved development plan."

To the attentive reader, however, phrases in the letter concerning the establishment of "fair market value" taken in conjunction with "acquisition strategies and/or necessary municipal actions" suggest that exercise of the City's powers of eminent domain might be a condition of the negotiations. That's what the News-Press reported last week is or will be a source of conflict in the talks.