This is Part V of a series, starting this summer with development pressures on Chesapeake Bay tributary streams in Fairfax County Virginia,
Part I, and chronicling the genesis of a grassroots citizens' movement that is starting to make waves in Fairfax, Parts
II,
III and
IV. The series has been front-paged in recent months at
ePluribus Media. This chapter highlights the injection of our issues into Virginia state election politics.
In the last installment, I documented how citizen groups concerned about development pressures in Fairfax County have come together recently through
www.FairGrowthNetwork.org, to identify cross-county issues of concern and coordinate joint action to address both the serious issues facing our County and the apparent unwillingness of our elected officials to engage with citizens in planning our future. On October 14, 2005, The Washington Post covered our growing movement on the
front page of its paper, and on October 26, 2005, ran an
editorial addressing growth issues in Fairfax. Unfortunately, the Post is still getting two things wrong: 1) this is not an "anti-development" movement; and 2) "smart growth" only works if you plan it well, addressing infrastructure needs before simply packing people in around transit hubs. (Several
letters to the editor sought to set the record straight). But still, it's a start.... and the coverage included a
quote from a local developer saying that they had bought certain property for development in our area "with an understanding" that allowable density would be increased, something citizens have suspected for some time.
So it was no surprise when, on October 17, 2005, over 400 people showed up at a public meeting to address that specific proposed development, which would pack 1800 homes into a highly valued "green-belt" area between two urban centers. The local press covered it well, in an article entitled Open mic at open house brings forth open hostility about 'open process':
One speaker characterized the development proposal as "a stupendously bad idea" and said the review process was designed "so they can say that they consulted us before they screwed us. This is about money and politics," he said. . . . For three hours. . . citizens queued up at an open microphone, many of them angry about the way three nominations for changes to the county's Comprehensive Plan are being handled.
I even got quoted:
"There is something happening in Fairfax County," Deborah Reyher said. "It's like a new species of concrete kudzu. We need to look at the commonalities that unite us. It's not simply a local issue."
"We get railroaded with disrespect," Reyher said. "All of us are waking up."
Another example of such disrespect is also coincidentally coming to a head. It involves the County's granting of the exclusive use of a public park to a local college soccer team, without going through the special permit procedures that would have allowed the public to weigh in. Citizens sued and won; the County appealed and ended up losing due to a unanimous ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that their appeal was untimely. The County nevertheless filed a futile petition for rehearing and fast-tracked a proposed change in the zoning ordinance that would allow this non-public practice to continue. Another local paper covered it well on October 19th: "Sour Grapes on a Soccer Field." At the October 27th hearing on this issue, the Fairfax Planning Commission seemed to realize itself that our Board of Supervisor this time had really gone too far. See articles here and here.
Then on November 1st, federal power spurred by citizen activism forced the Washington Metro Transportation Authority ("WMATA") to hold its first-ever public hearing on the proposed sale of public land at a terminus Metro station in Fairfax County to a developer who plans to install 2,250 homes without any impact studies or plans for improving local infrastructure (roads, schools, parks, sewers). Three hundred citizens showed up for that event, including Congressman Tom Davis, State Senator Jeanne Marie Devlolites-Davis, State Delegate Steve Shannon (whose district includes Vienna, the #4 best small town in America soon due to be squeezed out by runaway development), and Shannon's challenger, Jim Hyland.
Just three months ago, both Shannon and Hyland signed a statement mutually calling for the "significant reduction" of the density proposed for this large development, but development issues never claimed center stage in the election, as the candidates battled back and forth primarily over taxes and transportation. Shannon for the past two years has been a champion of our local W&OD Trail, a 100 foot wide, 45-mile park through Fairfax County, as well as on the stream protection issues that have been my personal mission, and protecting the right of the Town of Vienna to have its serious concerns about dense developments on either end of the Town addressed seriously by our County leaders. His endorsement by our local press as well as the Post in my opinion is well-deserved. But Hyland has similar views on these issues, which, like Shannon's are largely in accord with citizens' concern that infrastructure planning and citizen input are being ignored. Even two weeks ago, the candidates' debate was civilized and largely devoid of development discussion.
But the critical mass of citizens now bringing development issues into the limelight in the last weeks of the election apparently has generated a last-ditch effort by Jim Hyland (who has never held elected office) to try to tap into the voting power of this invigorated bloc by attacking Delegate Shannon, calling him soft on development issues and challenging him on the question of accepting campaign contributions from developers. The day after the local papers published their last edition before next week's election, and with Hyland 27 points down in the polls, the astonishingly negative mailings (Halloween-black glossy brochures no less) and phone blitzes began.
As an aside, both candidates' campaigns have taken developer and developer-related money - that is just a reality here in Northern Virginia. According to Virginia Public Access Project, Shannon has accepted $2,500 from the Affordable Housing PAC which appears to be a front for N.Va. builders; Home Builders Assn of VA; Nova Building Industry Assn; Va Auto Dealers Assn (who stand to profit big-time from Dulles rail); VA Assn of Realtors; Odin Feldman & Pittleman (land use attorneys); and even $2,500 from the company that's been making a mint declassifying Chesapeake tributaries. But Hyland's top three donors--the House Republican Campaign Committee, Friends of Howell, and Dominion Leadership Trust, have together given Hyland $34,850 ($12,600, $12,500, and $9,775 respectively) out of $79,450 received by them from the construction industry ($34,750, $16,700, $28,000 respectively). Hyland also received over $18,000 directly from the construction industry, and three more major Hyland donors gave him $6,500 (Callahan for Delegate, Michael Frey, and Virginians for Responsible Gov't), which received $118,793 from the development industry ($46,500, $54,192, and $18,101 respectively). In sum, it seems that about half of the money Hyland has raised is either directly or indirectly from the development industry.
But whether or not the math (or the backlash from the incredibly negative ads) catches up with Hyland, there are two lessons to carry away from this late-breaking nastiness: developer money is rampant in Northern Virginia politics; a candidate probably cannot win at all without it. Such contributions at a minimum need to be more transparent to the public. But the second point - and my personal favorite - is that the critical mass of citizens and their sustained outcry against the gaming of the system in Fairfax when it comes to development is now a juicy enough electoral target to generate this sort of desperate appeal. I don't like the tactics, or the timing (which seems designed to avoid press radar), but I'm glad to see the power of the citizenry riled up over these issues being acknowledged. It's about time.