Big Tysons Landowners Fear Billions in Windfall Profits May Be In Peril

Yet another special interest group has emerged in the political wrangling over the Rail-to-Dulles heavy rail project: Tysons Tomorrow, a consortium of some 20 landowners “poised to develop a new city of high-rises around the four Metro stops planned for Tysons,” reports Amy Gardner with the Washington Post.

In contrast to the Tysonstunnel.org group, which recently filed to block federal funding of the project unless it ran the rail line underneath Tysons Corner, Tysons Tomorrow’s priority is to get the project built one way or the other — even if it means routing the rail above-ground. The business coalition is seeking to end the pressure from tunnel advocates, Gardner writes, because it fears the push could cause further delays and scuttle the project.

Tysons Tomorrow does not yet have a website (although I would expect to see one any day), and Gardener provides only a few tantalizing details of who is underwriting it. She notes that backers includes huge property owners like Lerner Enterprises and the Macerich Group, owners of two Tysons Corner malls, as well as “mom and pop” owners of scattered, smaller parcels.

Gardner hints at the underlying motivation of this group: Jonathan Cherner, whose family owns the Cherner Automotive Group on Rt. 7, and other Tysons landowners, she writes, “have remained quiet through much of the tunnel vs. aerial debate, in part to avoid calling attention to the handsome profits likely to result if the rail line is built. “

Bingo! Give the woman a prize. Construction of the Metro, whether above ground or below, would create massive profits for the lucky landowners whose property happens to lie along its route. Combined with the increased density that would be permitted around the Metro stations, Tysons landowners collectively stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars — potentially billions of dollars — while paying only a modest fraction of the cost of the rail project. (Property owners would be assessed a tax to cover Fairfax County’s share of the project, but the tax district encompasses a broad swath of territory that spreads the burden to many landowners who would benefit only marginally.)

What someone needs to do is to research (a) who are the property owners around the proposed Metro stations, (b) how much is their property worth now, and (c) how much would that land be worth after increased density and construction of the Metro stations? Would extending Metro to Tysons Corner increase property values by $1 billion? $2 billion? $5 billion?

If property values would increase only $1 billion, it would not be reasonable to ask property owners to foot more than, say, $500 million to $900 million of the bill. But if property values would increase by $5 billion, and property owners would be paying less than one quarter of that amount in taxes, reaping multi-billions in windfall profits, why are we asking the federal government, outlying landowners and commuters along the Dulles Toll Road to pay the balance?

This information is basic, but no one seems to be asking for it. If the Rail to Dulles project creates as much value as its backers say it does — and I think there is a possibility that it does — then it should be possible to finance the project without stiffing the taxpayers of the United States and toll-road commuters who will never use it, and still allow property owners to make a handsome profit. As it stands right now, however, the project is shaping up — if it ever happens — as the biggest undisguised transfer of wealth in Virginia since the tobacco planters were lording it over the slaves.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

61 responses to “Big Tysons Landowners Fear Billions in Windfall Profits May Be In Peril”

  1. Anonymous Avatar

    Tysons Corner landowners are more interested in getting any rail, even ugly elevated rail, approved and making sure that Dulles Toll Road users and that taxpayers foot most of the bill!

    As Gomer Pyle would have said: “Surprise, Surprise, Surprise.”

    Dulles Rail has been, is, and will continue to be about land use and transportation. Both the Lerner and Macerich rezonings (which have been contingently approved) require federal funding of rail to become effective. Moreover, all of the 20-plus plan amendments are contingent upon federal funding of rail.

    There are, of course, some landowners who want to build at higher densities. But many simply want to sell their properties, which they believe will have higher value with a rail-triggered higher FAR. Is not surprising, therefore, that these landowners would accept any type of rail that triggers increased density?

    I suspect that, if the Fairfax County Planning Commission and BoS could be persuaded to call it “rail,” most of the landowners would support laying rusted track in the middle of Routes 7 and 123 that could be serviced by old cattle cars, pulled by mules!

    The public interest be damned; this is, after all, Fairfax County government.

    TooManyTaxes

  2. Not Ed Risse Avatar
    Not Ed Risse

    This is really an issue of location variable costs.

    In order to re-develop at higher densities in Tysons Corner, there needs to be an extremely costly transportation infrastructure retrofit.

    To do this in an already urban area like Tysons is far more expensive than building new roads on vacant farmland in Loudoun County.

    Imagine what kind of outer Beltway $5 billion could build.

    Why not add jobs in Loudoun instead of forcing them to pay exorbitant tolls and commute to Tysons?

    This is why we need a true free market in both transportation and land use.

    I agree completely with Jim Bacon. Let the Tysons landowners pay the entire cost for the rail line and stations in Tysons.

    Tysons Tunnel wants to bid the rail line. Why not auction off station locations to the landowners willing to pay the highest price?

  3. Anonymous Avatar

    Tysons land owners stand to make a suprisingly small amount from the extension of the metro. What they really benefit from is what anyone else who works in Tysons will benefit from; a better transportation system that allows people to get to and from their jobs in the least amount of time.

    The prices of property in Tysons have been rising for several years in antcipation that Metro would be built. This results in higher entry costs for most owners, resulting in less profits when the metro does get built. Not to mention construction costs that have skyrocketed, leaving many who invested in Tysons to be anticipating much smaller returns then they would have liked.

    There is an economic benefit, without a doubt that is driving the support of many for this metro extension. But this economic benefit is only a byproduct of the value that the consumer will reap from the metro. Building metro and turning tysons into an urban downtown is a much better alternative then to paving over Loudoun and Prince William Counties because traffic is too awful in tysons and surronding areas.

  4. Anonymous Avatar

    6:36 Your comments are plain false. The evidence clearly demonstrates that spending this huge sum of money will NOT improve transportation in and out of Tysons Corner. See Table 6.2-2 of the December 2004 Final EIS for Dulles Rail. There is no measurable improvement in any traffic congestion in any of the major roads in and around Tysons Corner. Not a single supporter of this taxpayer and DTR user boondoggle has ever been willing to address Table 6.2-2. Rather, they string together adjectives instead.

    Moreover, even assuming rail is wildly successful, 6-to-8 of every new trip to and from Tysons Corner will be by automobile. How does putting more automobile traffic on Routes 7, 123, the Beltway, etc. make things better for the average resident of Fairfax County? It doesn’t. Redeveloping Tysons Corner on these terms and conditions will only further degrade the quality of life for the average Fairfax County resident and Tysons Corner workers. This is just taxpayer and commuter-paid welfare for a few well-connected landowners.

    TMT

  5. Anonymous Avatar

    TMT you are right that it is not about improving traffic into Tysons. It’s about adding overall transportation capacity into Tysons so as to continue building up in the area. Currently there is little additional commercial building that can be added since rush hour is nearly maxed out. I’m not sure the landowners are so much looking to add much higher density as to build out the existing parcels within Tysons at similar to existing densities.

    “Why not add jobs in Loudoun instead of forcing them to pay exorbitant tolls and commute to Tysons? This is why we need a true free market in both transportation and land use.”

    Jobs don’t locate out in Loudoun because of free markets decisions by companies not to locate there. As has been reported recently in the news a number of commercial buildings have been built up near Dulles on spec that have no tenants and few prospects. This while commercial rents there are much cheaper than Tysons or Arlington. Companies still largely prefer to be located in dense commercial centers as opposed to far outlying areas.

    Putting all the blame on the Tysons landowners profits oversimplifies the whole issue. What the property values will be is difficult to speculate as you must look out pretty far, 20-30 years, based on how Tysons and the tollroad develops. There will be a lot more winners than just Tysons owners when it comes to property values, not to mention the benefits MD and DC commuters will have not having to use the beltway to get to Tysons.

    BTW I’m not a big supporter of Tysons rail without a comprehensive land use and surface road plan for Tysons that dictates how they will realistically grow the area. If Tysons will be the new downtown Fairfax, I think we need to see a L’Enfant type plan of some sort.

    ZS

  6. Anonymous Avatar

    ZS
    Is this a new moniker for “Anon Zeus” who is known to be E M Risse?

  7. Not Ed Risse Avatar
    Not Ed Risse

    The free market has already spoken.

    The center of development for office space has moved west to Dulles Airport.

    There is now far more Class A office space in Reston and Herndon than in Tysons.

    This enables Loudoun commuters to avoid the Tysons traffic nightmare.

    Even with the rail subsidy, developers in the know predict Tysons will never catch up.

    Eat your heart out density subsidy socialists.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    there is a bit of dichotomy though.

    Why would landowners in that area expect to increase their profits – if there would not be an increase in demand for their properties?

    In other words.. if the place is made worse by densification, then it would seem the outcome would be the opposite. There would be LESS demand because of the degradation – right?

    Obviously, it’s in the eyes of the beholders but clearly some folks think that more density will result in more people, more commerce and more profits.

  9. Anonymous Avatar

    “To do this in an already urban area like Tysons is far more expensive than building new roads on vacant farmland in Loudoun County.

    ……………………

    Why not add jobs in Loudoun instead of forcing them to pay exorbitant tolls and commute to Tysons?”

    Gee, Ed, that sounds like something I would say.

    RH

  10. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    does this mean that you’re opposed to subsidies?

  11. Anonymous Avatar

    ZS – A couple of comments.

    The plans for Tysons Corner would go well beyond building out to existing densities. Much of Tysons is at FARs of 1.0 to 1.5. I’ve been told by a county supervisor that there are desires to go to as high as 10.0. Now I don’t think that would happen, but I could see FARs of 6.0 & 7.0, all with an inadequate transportation network.

    The data in support of Dulles Rail show a new rider gain of 16,000 daily, in 30 years. FARs of 6 & 7 would produce many more new commuters and residents than 16K.

    Tysons Corner is not like Rosslyn-Ballston or Bethesda. Those areas are relatively porous and have many roads to and from them. But Tysons is ringed by the DTR, the Beltway and Route 7. Does anyone really believe that those roads can handle more traffic, even assuming an additional 16 K metro riders?

    Also, I respectfully contest your statement that “MD and DC commuters will have not having to use the beltway to get to Tysons.” Keep in mind that we have a hub and spoke architecture for Metrorail. That means everyone in D.C. & Maryland would have to ride Metro downtown D.C. and then transfer to the Silver Line. That’s a good hour trip. Most people will continue to drive. The data show that, of every ten new trips to Tysons, six to eight will be made with personal cars. That means driving Routes 7, 123, the DTR or the Beltway.

    For this we should pay billions of dollars in new taxes and high road tolls! This is a landowner rip off that should be prevented.

    Let the landowners build the Silver Line and the road improvements or live with today’s FARs.

    TMT

  12. Anonymous Avatar

    Much of my arguments have already been said just one more quick example of the ridiulousness of this whole project.

    There are two pieces to this puzzle.

    The tysons redevelopment committee is tasked with adjusting the development and density issues surrounding Tysons

    At the same times the Metro Line is being developed

    The interesting thing to note is how much they need each other

    The redevelopment committee is using metro as an excuse to increase development and metro is using the new development as justification for metro. All the while neither side knows exactly what is going to happen.

    Can you say circular logic or maybe blind leading the blind is better

    NMM

  13. Anonymous Avatar

    TMT, You’re right about the FARs in Tysons; I usually forget how large the lots are there that have the taller buildings. What I’m getting at is that the lots that already have a 20 floor bldg with a parking garage are unlikely to be able to do much with it even with a FAR increase. The costs of tearing down and building new probably doesn’t make sense, though I believe Tysons mall does have plans to add residential. I’m largely referring to density increase on the low rise buildings, auto lots, strip malls, etc. which will probably fill in much of Tysons with more tall buildings.

    I agree that Tysons isn’t accessible like Rossyln, Bethesda, but I don’t see how building another Tysons in Loudoun is going to improve anything. Most the building I see there is along the same sprawl model of Tysons. All we’ll be doing is repeating the same exercise in 15 years out there and have commuters from Warren, Frederick and WV making the same argument as those from Loudoun now make.

    “They are not entitleld to a dme from the rest of Fairfax, the rest of the NOVA transportation consortium, or people who live in North Dakota, thanks to the Feds.”

    Why shouldn’t more than just Tysons landowners chip in as there are more beneficiaries than just them. How about every homeowner along the new line who will see there home prices increase relative to other areas. All those people in ND who come to Dulles for business or pleasure can save renting on a car or an expensive taxi. If the rest of Fairfax benefits from additional commercial tax money and more jobs and a better marketplace, shouldn’t they chip in. Like I mentioned before DC and MD commuters will benefit from being able to get there faster than the gridlocked beltway. I’m not saying the payment balance is perfect, but the idea that just one beneficiary should pay is ridiculous.

    ZS

  14. Anonymous Avatar

    “If the rest of Fairfax benefits from additional commercial tax money and more jobs and a better marketplace, shouldn’t they chip in. “

    I agree that the costs should be spread out among the true beneficiaries. And you have identified some likely benefits.

    But, “If the rest of FAirfax benefits” is a big if, and not one we really know how to measure very well.

    All those people fromn ND who come to visit is still a fraction of the people in ND. Then again, of all the Federal tax ND pays, a tiney fraction of it goes up paying for METRO, so maybe it is a wash.

    It is gong to be a shame if METRO to Dulles gets sunk by METRO to Tysons.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar

    ZS — Just a few data points. Today, Tysons is built at about 46 million square feet. Keep in mind how well today’s Tysons Corner functions, or drive it several mornings and evenings.

    The existing Comprehensive Plan, adjusted for a fourth rail station, would permit around 73 million square feet. (But it assume many road improvements that have not been made.)

    The three test scenarios that were surfaced this summer would increase development to 100 million, 101 million and 135.7 million square feet from smallest to largest. Thus, the most expansive scenario would have almost tripled the size of Tysons Corner development.

    Most have now agreed that 135.7 million is just too big, but there are still proponents of increases to as large as 120 million square feet.

    The thing to do is to drive from one end of Tysons Corner to the other during an evening rush hour(s) period and then think about multiplying the number of cars by at least two. How can Routes 7, 123, the Beltway and the DTR handle at least double today’s volume?

    Cannot be done — rail or no rail.

    TMT

  16. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    well.. would this be worse or better?

    RTD land grab raises hackles
    Owners riled by idea of seizures for development

    Galen Foster’s home and business of 23 years is supposed to make way for parking for the Wadsworth Boulevard light-rail station in Lakewood.

    But what chaps Foster’s hide is that there already are conceptual plans showing his property being used not for transit parking, but for a five-story commercial office building.

    While government’s right of condemnation, more politely called eminent domain, has been recognized for centuries, the Regional Transportation District is entering an untested area that includes economic development in its efforts to build the FasTracks West Corridor line.

    While there is little room to challenge RTD’s acquisition of land for tracks, stations and parking lots, the policy of “transit-oriented development” could put a new property-rights law to the test.

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2007/dec/03/rtd-raises-hackles/

  17. Groveton Avatar

    TMT

    I basically think you are right about Tyson’s Corner. It may be too broken to fix or at least too broken to expand. However, I have one nagging question. It seems that Manhattan accomodates a whole lot more density, office space, commuters, etc. than Tyson’s Corner would ever have to accomodate. And Manhattan is an old part of an old city. No way it was built with today’s population or commuting approach in mind. Yet it works. Sometimes in fits and starts but it works. When I lived there in the late 80s I was told that 1.6M people lived in Manhattan but over 10M people worked there. So, I guess 8.4M commuted in and out each day (minus a few who lived there but did not work there).

    How did NYC evolve Manhattan from the days of horses and houses to today’s world of subways, millions of cars and high rise buildings?

  18. E M Risse Avatar

    3 December 2007

    Ok Ok, Enough is enough!

    This is the first comment by E M Risse (EMR) on this string.*

    Jim Bacon’s original post is correct in the current context. A functional and sustainable future requires a Fundamental Change in that context. Answers to the questions Jim Bacon raises would be a step in the right direction. Do not count on anyone trying to answer them.

    TMT:

    I know you would like to believe the numbers you quote, however:

    The numbers on traffic in Tysons in the EIS and elsewhere (e.g. “the three scenarios”) are all based on assumptions of increased density in the Tysons traffic zones but little or no change in Balance and little change in mode-split because of the conditions in the sending zones.

    Business-As-Usual in all the non-Tysons traffic zones and more trips in the Tysons traffic zones yields chaos.

    Without explicit public policy to support Balance, traffic engineers have no choice but to create models that result in gridlock. If they point out the King has no clothes, the Agencies will hire someone else.

    Change the assumptions and the same amount of new development in the station areas could lower the existing traffic volumes.

    Groveton:

    The answer to your question is that Manhattan is served by many high capacity lines. Over time by hit and miss the New York system has evolved far more Balance in the station-areas than is envisioned in the assumptions that are being used in the Tysons “alternatives.”

    All:

    There is a win-win-win for METRO to Tysons with elevated tracks. See “All Aboard,” 16 April 2007.

    Land owners would pay for METRO from profits, a Balance of uses in the station areas would yield less traffic, and no new development outside R=20.

    In “All Aboard” we stated that everyone had to get on the same train and they have not.

    Without Balance everyone loses, even if some make a lot of money in the short haul.

    EMR

    *E M Risse / EMR is not part of and does not control the Z Team as stated in “Note of Clarification” which is the last comment on the 16 November post “Say Goodbye to the Old Power Grid…”

  19. Anonymous Avatar

    EMR — Good to hear from you.

    Isn’t affordable, workforce housing necessary for balance at Tysons Corner? Given the land costs and construction costs for high-rise buildings, I just don’t believe that there will be workforce housing in Tysons Corner at levels necessary to find balance. I suspect that, with a few affordable housing exceptions, it would be very hard to find any new housing at Tysons priced at less than $500 K — probably for a studio apt.

    Second, many people who will work at Tysons Corner probably wouldn’t want to live in a condo even if they could afford it. Most people still want an SFH with some grass. Indeed, most of the people I’ve known who work or did work in New York didn’t live in Manhattan, but rather, in Jersey, Connecticut, Westchester, or on Long Island. The same is probably true for Tysons Corner.

    Third, even if one wants a Tysons Corner condo, can afford one, and has a job in Tysons Corner, how likely is it that these three factors will still line up in four or five years? People change jobs and jobs change people. The Tysons Corner job may be gone and replaced by one in Ashburn or Silver Spring. Moreover, this is a community with many, many working spouses/significant others. What are the odds that the spouse/other also works in Tysons Corner?

    I suspect that there would be some balance with the urbanization of Tysons Corner, just as some people would start commuting by train. But the balance would likely be outweighed by the shear number of people who would still commute to and from Tysons Corner by auto.

    Cannot be done — rail or no rail.

    TMT

  20. Not Ed Risse Avatar
    Not Ed Risse

    So Risse is a Business As Usual density subsidy socialist supporting massively subsidized elevated rail through Tysons.

    What else is new?

    What a fraud when it comes to bearing the true locational costs of your decisions.

  21. Anonymous Avatar

    “Change the assumptions and the same amount of new development in the station areas could lower the existing traffic volumes. “

    Nonsense.

    Change the assumptions all you want. At the end of the day you need to change the facts.

    How do you propose to chnage the “sending zones”?

    Wouldn;t it be a lot easier and cheaper to change the “receiving zones”?

    RH

  22. Anonymous Avatar

    “New York system has evolved far more Balance in the station-areas…”

    This is an outright falsehood.

    Anyway, New york is unique. Nothing about New York is likely to be repeated, not even in other megalopolises.

    There is no point in dwelling on such anomalies: the rest of the workd is a lot bigger, and a lot different.

    RH

  23. Anonymous Avatar

    “…a Balance of uses in the station areas would yield less traffic, and no new development outside R=20…..”

    This is simply dreaming.

    We should focus on what will probably happen, instead of what could conceivably happen – with the help of a handful of miracles.

    RH

  24. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I thought those who are concerned about the cost of Metro would appreciate this about Denvers light rail:

    …”when crews start building the 12-mile light-rail West Corridor line through diverse and history-rich neighborhoods from downtown to Golden.

    All eyes are on this first line, as it will set the tone for the nine other corridors to be built in the massive $6 billion transit system approved by voters in 2004.”

    key words: 6 BILLION dollars
    key phrase: approved by voters

    what’s NOT in their discussion –

    “this is an expensive subsidized boondoggle”

  25. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: Tysons is unique and can never be a place like Manhattan…

    really?

    how many places exist that:

    1 – have urban densities similiar to Manhattan?

    2. – are “hemmed” in by roads?

    3. – has gridlocked traffic, much more traffic than street capacity

    4. – have light & heavy rail?

    5. – long ago.. probably looked like Tysons does today?

    I’m not discounting the possible, involvement of greedy developers, possible ethics issues with elected and perhaps the wishes of folks who already live there that DON’T want it to become like Manhattan..

    .. but shouldn’t we be honest with ourselves about whether or not Tysons .. COULD become more LIKE dozens of urbanized areas in the US?

    Isn’t this issue really about the merits of Tysons becoming a more urbanized area or not – as opposed to the logistics and a mindset that cites those logistics as reasons it cannot happen – when those very same logistics already exist in other urbanized areas?

    I don’t think Manhanntan is unique nor do I think Tysons is.

    and I presume folks realize that roads can move at most about 2000 vehicles per hour per lane whereas light rail can move 10,20,30 even 40 thousand people per hour – on one track.

    The way that Manhattan “works” is the same way that dozens, hundreds of urbanized cities worldwide “work”. Virtually all of them have hub/spoke transit that can and does move ten times as many people on rail than can be moved on road..

    This is obviously not the vision of some who have made Tysons their home for most of their life – but it is, in fact, an achievable vision. There are countless examples of places that have done this and others in the process – such as Denver as I posted just previous to this…

  26. Anonymous Avatar

    Spoke & Hub. That’s generally the type of transit system required for central business districts & transit to work well together.

    But —

    Tysons will be on a spur line.

    If it would cost a minimum of $5-6 B to build the spur line, what would it cost to build spoke & hub transit to Tysons?

    Even if we could afford to build spoke & hub to Tysons, is that the right place to build it? Job growth is moving west — Herndon/Reston/Dulles have more jobs than Tysons Corner. Then there is BRAC. What happens if we build it and they come elsewhere?

    This simply cannot be done. Tysons cannot absorb the traffic if they do come and if we build it and they go elsewhere, what about the sunk costs?

    Tysons Corner is like the child who will never have the intelligence or drive to make it through college. We’d be better off finding some training for that child that doesn’t involve college, rather than waste money and harm the kid by pushing college. Find some solutions that make Tysons more tolerable and then concentrate on keeping Reston-Herndon-Dulles-Ashburn-South County from becoming another Tysons Corner.

    TMT

  27. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    interesting…

    I see Tysons as a spoke to the Metro DC hub

    and TMT see’s it as a spur…

    I don’t see Tysons as a hub but rather a node – a large node – but a node.

    It’s pretty clearly established that development WILL occur wherever you build transit – right?

    All up and down the existing VRE rail line – development is accelerating… actually to the point where it will overwhelm the capacity of VRE.

  28. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Purple Line Could Draw 47,000 Riders a Year, Officials Say

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/03/AR2007120301813.html?hpid=moreheadlines

    deja vu all over again – not withstanding the fact that the WaPo reporter doesn’t know the difference between a day and a year.

  29. Anonymous Avatar

    Isn’t this issue really about the merits of Tysons becoming a more urbanized area or not – as opposed to the logistics and a mindset that cites those logistics as reasons it cannot happen – when those very same logistics already exist in other urbanized areas?

    Exactly Larry

    There is a major problem with this vision

    As TMT and others have noted the percentage of people that would actually use transit to get to Tysons is around 10-25% max. The other people are going to have to drive and the road network is in gridlock during rushour already. People can’t seem to understand that adding density without adding additional road capcity is just going to create more gridlock you can’t just rely on mass transit.

    If the goal is really to urbanize Tysons it will create a massive amount of resources including the silver line, an additional metro line running along the beltway and numerous road improvements.

    However there are many NIMBY forces at work that dont want an urbanized Tysons.

    So instead we get the “compromise” approach. Doing it halfway doesn’t help anyone and actually does more harm than leaving the staus quo.

    NMM

    2.

  30. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    WHERE is that same road capacity for urban places like New York, Chicago, LA, London, etc?

    Are we saying that all of those areas have MORE urban road capacity than Tysons and that if Tysons is going to grow to be like those areas that it needs more road capacity?

    Manhattan is ringed by water with very limited road options – yet it is high density and it “works” even with limited road capacity.

    why is that?

  31. Anonymous Avatar

    New York has a massive and robust mass transit service that services all five boroughs plus commuter rail in all directions

    Los Angeles has a massive road network and no bodies of water to worry about crossing :-p

    Don’t know as much about Chicago and London

    IMHO the optimal and most cost effective solution is a hybrid to the New York City and LA approach. I think we can all agree it would be to expensive to duplicate the massive transit or road network that is in New York and LA respectivelly.

    There needs to be more metrics saying for every mile of metro it will cost x and allow y people to use it. Similarily for every new lane of road. Only then can we actually design and build the most efficient and effective transit solution.

    P.S. for the road thing. The HOT lanes are coming on I-95 and the Beltway. This means more road capacity is needed. Can you imagine the nightmare of 7 highway lanes dumping into Tysons without more road improvements. We cant even handle the current 4 adequately.

  32. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    “Don’t know as much about Chicago and London”

    Remember Chicago has that big lake on the North of it?

    Seattle, Portland, Houston, Phoenix, Stockholm, Singapore,

    want me to name more?

    NONE of them have sufficient highway capacity and yet they grow and they all build transit…

    Denver:

    FasTracks start building the 12-mile light-rail West Corridor the first of NINE corridors to be built in the massive $6 billion transit system approved by voters in 2004.

    The Purple Line in Maryland…

    Tysons is not unique folks.

    I think there can be a legitimate debate about whether or not Tysons should become more dense or not – but the idea that it cannot because of traffic and logistics????

    again.. what is it about Tysons that makes it different from hundreds of other places that have or are in the process of urbanizing with transit?

    Don’t get me wrong.

    I’m not arguing IN FAVOR of densification, but I am pointing out that the reasons given for what it cannot or should not – don’t hold up when you compare Tysons to other similar areas.

    I’m just trying to understand what some folks say – makes Tysons unique with respect to this issue.

  33. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry is right. Engineering -wise, we can make Tyson’s whatever we want. We can blast the whole thing to the moon, piecemeal if we choose.

    The questions is what makes economic sense, and to whom?

    RH

  34. Anonymous Avatar

    Does it make sense to spend $5billion up front and several more million a year to move 50,000 people a day into Tyson’s by rail if it means you ALSO have to move another 500,000 in by auto?

    If that is the case, then the additional roadway expense should also get charged to Metro, because it is Metro that needs the additional density to work.

    RH

  35. Anonymous Avatar

    I am not even sure what we are aruging about but I will try and answer your question Larry remember I’m just one person :-p

    To put it mildly during rush hours Tysons is currently a gridlocked disaster.

    I don’t believe that adding in a metro line will do much to reduce the gridlocked disaster.

    When people want to increase density and ONLY add the metro line that borders on stupidity IMHO.

    We can debate if the cost of fixing Tysons really worth it. Like I said above to really fix Tysons you need metro running along the beltway and at least some additional road capacity and city scape design.

    Bakc to reality however, the metro is coming and the HOT lanes are coming. As far as I can see there are no major plans to upgrade Route 7 or 123 or add/improve the crossroutes (This last part is key most major cities have a grid street pattern but Tysons does not).

    Based with these realities I have no choice but to lobby to reduce the amount of proposed density because until some of the issues above are addressed this is a no-win situation.

    I used to work in Tysons in the early-mid 2000s. Even then it usually took at least 15 minutes to move less than 2 miles on a good day. I cant imagine what its like today or even worse what it will look like when you double or triple the square footage in the area.

    Does anyone seriously think the metro line will handle all of these additional people?

    -NMM

  36. Anonymous Avatar

    Larry, with all due respect, Tysons Corner is, indeed, unique. The consultants to the County’s Tysons Corner Land Use Task Force have indicated that Tysons Corner is the largest land use case in the world. There has never been any area so large that has been studied for urbanization.

    Moreover, none of these other areas that have been, or are being, urbanized have so few access points by road as does Tysons.

    I think that Ray and NMM are right. We are spending good money on something that will not work correctly. Tysons simply is not college material, but we still are trying to force him to attend. Let’s spend less money; send Tysons to trade or tech school; make him more functional; and spend the extra money elsewhere.

    TMT

  37. Jim Bacon Avatar

    Tysons Corner may be impossible to salvage, but it’s too important to give up the effort. Here are the elements that I see could make it possible:

    (1) Make landowners pay for the Metro expansion as far as Tysons Corner, including its four Metro stations, by setting up Community Development Authorities around the Metro stops, floating bonds, and repaying the bonds through the increased value of the real estate. If this means increasing density, then increase density.

    (2) The Metro won’t cure Tysons’ traffic congestion, but *nothing* is likely to do that. It will increase the capacity to move people in and out of the region, however.

    (3) Establish a congestion toll in Tysons, similar to the tolls in London, Stockholm and Singapore… but with a difference. Instead of pocketing the money, swear on the grave of all of Gerry Connally’s ancestors that the proceeds from the toll will be reinvested in transportation improvements *within the cordoned area.* These improvements could include: bus rapid transit, road improvements, traffic light synchronization or any other idea that works.

    (4) The rezoning must include a substantial component of residential housing. Yes, there will be an affordability issue. But the main point is to get as many people as possible living as close to the places where they work and play. If the poor working stiffs can’t afford to live in Tysons, well, I’m sorry — they can’t afford to live there now. But the addition of 20,000 to 30,000 people living and working in Tysons could take a lot of people off the roads.

    There is no magic bullet to save Tysons. But a combination of approaches might work. The piece missing from the conversation so far is the congestion toll, which would generate a revenue stream for transportation improvements over and above the Metro itself.

  38. Anonymous Avatar

    Why create congestion, just so you can have a congestion toll?

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar

    Would you make the Bay dirtier, just so you can raise more money to clean it up?

    RH

  40. Jim Bacon Avatar

    The development has to go somewhere. If you want to put the housing and offices out in Loudoun or Stafford somewhere, you still have to create infrastructure for it. The idea is to steer the development in Tysons, closer to the urban core, where it will have more economic value. In the process of bringing in new development, the potential exists to re-develop the entire area so it works better for everyone, including the people who live and work there now.

  41. Anonymous Avatar

    I think we’ve had this conversation before but here it goes again :-p

    But what if the people that work and live there now dont want it

    The classic conundrum of the NIMBY perhaps…

    However, its the reality. Your column about growth said it perfectly. The recent results of the elections weren’t pro-“smart growth” they were “anti-growth”. (Also you can take all the comments on that article and repost them here the issues are always the same. Larry reread your comments thats what we are arguing in this thread)

    Also as you have argued previously the only “economic value” this project is bringing is to the existing landowners.

    Too bad for the suckers that actually live and work here

    NMM

  42. Anonymous Avatar

    How much infrastructure can you put in Loudon or Stafford for $5billion? It is still going to help landowners, but the difference is how many and how big.

    In the end, how do we know that steering the development closer to the urban core brings more value? We know it will cost more, and have a higher price in the end, but is it really more value?

    Is a billion apiece for 5 people really better than $500,000 apiece for 10,000 people?

    Since it was developed so badly the first time, what makes us think that we can do better the second time – especially if it means adding still more congestion. Oops, that’s right, we WANT the congestion (and the pollution it causes) because now we are going to charge for it.

    And of course, nobody wants the growth anywhere, apparently, so we are going to do more than steer it: we are going to cram it down someones throat.

    Too bad for the suckers that actually live and work there.

  43. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m still stuck on “Tysons is gridlocked and take it no mo”.

    Captain… Captain.. she can’t take no more.. she’s gonna blow”.

    Folks… is New York City gridlocked? how about Chicago, Houston, LA?

    Question: If Tysons is gridlocked why would anyone want to risk their money building more office space?

    If Tysons is gridlocked.. the cost of office space would plummet – right?

    We know that New York city is gridlocked and now is deserted because it is – gridlocked – right?

    come on guys.. Rodger Provo is yammering all the time about Fredericksburg being gridlocked…

    “gridlock” is the most overused word in our society today – methinks.

    True gridlock – means that companies and businesses do not, will not locate where that problem is.

    The fact that businesses are climbing all over each other to get in on the Tysons bonanza means somebody is wrong… and the folks that put their money down on office towers… don’t usually dummy up .. and lose their backsides….

    I’m actually trying to think of a place… that DID dry up and blow away… because of … congestion/gridlock.

    Anyone have an example?

    🙂

  44. Anonymous Avatar

    My question is why do all the far out suburbs want so much commercial growth. The major reason folks move to the suburbs is to get away from the congestion and noise. How can putting another Tysons in Loudoun, PWC, and Stafford accomplish anything but driving commuters further from the core and requiring more major infrastructure to support those new commercial centers.

    “And of course, nobody wants the growth anywhere, apparently, so we are going to do more than steer it: we are going to cram it down someones throat.”

    Most the core areas still largely support growth as there are established commercial districts that could be upzoned. If Tysons isn’t a solution to adding the needed office space, what is wrong with using areas like Crystal City/Potomac Yards, Rossyln, or Eisenhower Ave to add growth. All have established multi-modal transportation and none are “gridlocked”.

    ZS

  45. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    This is really comical.

    We are told down in Fredericksburg that our taxes are high because we don’t have enough tax-paying businesses.

    If we had all that stuff in Tysons, our taxes would go down… AND as a bonus.. we’d not have to commute to Tysons to work…

    oops.. I forgot.. the Fredericksburg Area roads are ALREADY gridlocked so we can’t do that….

    🙂

    Here’s the solution.

    We need to tax the living DOODAH out of RoVa and get those roads that Tysons and Stafford needs to get those office towers…

    🙂

  46. Anonymous Avatar

    “This is really comical.”

    It is comical. Last week the Fauquier Democrat had two pieces on the front page. In column six of the top peice was a statement from the commisioner saying that one reason the tax rate was going up was because we didn’t have enough new growth.

    In column six of the bottom piece (on conservation easements) was a statement saying easements keep your taxes down because they prevent growth.

    (My tax rate in Fauquier next year will be 25 or 30% HIGHER than my tax rate in Fairfax.)

    Same week in the Middleburg paper. After fighting the Salamandeer Inn tooth and nail for five years, the town budget was finally placed in good financial position by the first set of payments – from the Salamander Inn. You think maybe they could have had the money three years earlier if they worked WITH the inn instead of against it?

    ——————————–
    As for Larry’s comment

    Take all the assessed value of a place and divide that by 30. Then add in the annual cost of government for that place. Subtract out the environmental services it takes to keep the place running. Then take that sum and divide it by the gross product produced in that place.

    Then tell me what is efficient.

    Yes, New York still works, and people still make money there. Some make a LOT of money. I’m not convinced it is any better or more efficient than, say, New Bedford, or Edgartown, all things considered.

    Just because it CAN work, doesn’t mean it is desirable to do so, that it is a good idea, or that it is worth $5 billion in public investment.

    RH

  47. Groveton Avatar

    I question the accuracy of any urban planning. The idea of abandoning Tyson’s because it “can’t be made to work” assumes that you can find a new place to grow that “can be made to work”. It just doesn’t happen. Anybody ever been to Brasilia?

    Jim Bacon’s plan makes sense to me. With one addition – the whole Tyson’s area needs to be more pedestrian friendly. In Minneapolis they connect buildings with skywalks – partly because it’s freakin’ cold there in winter and partly to encourage pedestrian traffic without stopping vehicular traffic. In Manhattan, traffic police come into every major intersection during the morning and evening rush hours. They direct traffic to keep things flowing and slap big time tickets on those who “block the box”. When was the last time you saw a Fairfax County policeman directing traffic other than during a traffic light outage?

    Tyson’s can be made to work. Rt 7 is the big problem – road wise. Fine, widen it. Four lanes each way all the way to Leesburg. Four lanes the each way the other way – all the way to Alexandria. A straight line beltway. I am sure that many New Yorkers never expected to see 6th Avenue as wide as it it today.

    If we don’t make the places that already have density work we’ll just end up ruining everywhere else.

    Ray, NMM and TMT want ideal alternate plans for developing Dulles or Reston (or somewhere else). But those plans will have problems too. They will over-build, congest, need to be “fixed”, require mass transportation options that cost a lot of money, etc. etc.

    Growth doesn’t happen in a straight line. It isn’t clean or tidy. It isn’t neat or orderly. There are no perfect plans. I question whether there can even be any good plans beyond about a 5 year horizon.

    And abandoning growth (or anti-growth) is a pretty parochial concept. Parochial in time and place. Being anti-growth is popular right now. It will be less popular in the next recession. Being anti-growth is popular in the NIMBY counties (at least among the rich). It’s a whole lot less popular in Anacostia – part of DC’s inner city. Get good jobs and live with traffic jams? The people of Anacostia will make that trade all day every day. Funny how unimportant growth is until you don’t have it anymore.

    Congestion is a high class problem. It only becomes an earth shattering issue once you are well fed, safe and secure.

    Killing off Tyson’s is a walk in the wrong direction. This isn’t SimCity. You don’t just abandon places that have problems. Especially when they generate a torrent of tax money.

  48. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Then tell me what is efficient.

    Just because it CAN work, doesn’t mean it is desirable to do so

    well… you can’t FORCE a business to locate in NYC or Tysons – right?

    They can choose to locate where there is NOT 5 billion transit.. right?

    If the free market … chooses to locate in NYC or Tysons – then is that a “good idea”?

    Bonus Question: Would it be a good idea to tell a company that they cannot locate in Tysons because there is already too much congestion and the place is gridlocked?

    or would a better idea be to let them decide and if they do decide to locate there anyhow.. what does that mean?

  49. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton – Many of the Tysons Corner landowners want to narrow Route 7 to make it a boulevard, not a highway. It’s part of the new urban design. VDOT strongly disagrees because 37% of Route 7’s traffic at Tysons Corner is through traffic. The figure for Route 123 is slightly higher, I believe.

    Jim’s proposals are not unreasonable, but would never see the light of day. Indeed, there is strong pressure from the landowners through certain Task Force members to downplay, if not ignore, transportation infrastructure issues beyond drawing pretty pictures of walkable streets without traffic jams.

    Why, because traffic is already unmanageable most of the time at Tysons. Rail will help some, but not much. There is talk about an additional intersection for Tysons both on the Beltway and on the DTR. But neither road has the lane capacity to handle what it has today, much less double the cars and trucks. Where would the rights-of-way for more lanes come from? What would be the cost of acquiring those rights-of-way and building more lanes on Routes 7, 123, the DTR and the Beltway? Fluor cannot afford to build Beltway HOT lanes without taxpayer help.

    Much of what’s going on at Tysons is pure land speculation. Properties are being flipped and current owners are looking for higher FARs to flip their properties for more.

    Tysons Corner is symptomatic of the growing segments of the economy that buy and sell on speculation, without actually producing anything of value. It’s not that much different than speculating on condos or oil or even tulip bulbs.

    Tysons Corner has little to do with planning for the future. It’s all about speculation on the backs of the taxpayers, DTR drivers, and nearby communities.

    TMT

  50. E M Risse Avatar

    Just returned from Tysons Corner. Had not been there for a while and it was good to drive around and walk around to refresh our memory.

    The thing to keep in mind about improving Mobility and Access in Greater Tysons Corners is this:

    So long as the majority of the land owners, building owners, employers, workers and residents believe that anyone can do anything to imporve Mobility and Access while they as individuals and collectively continue to do what they have done in the past the current trajectory will continue.

    Mobility and Access will continue to deteriorate.

    If it gets too bad — as Larry points out — prices and values will drop.

    So long as the rest of the National Capital Subregion continues to follow the same path, Tysons will keep its reletive competetive position.

    Pandering politicians who claim they can improve Mobility and Access without Fundamental Change in settlement patterns are merly supporting the Pivate Vehicle Mobility Myth.

    We hope to post a note on the Tysons Context tomorrow.

    EMR

  51. Anonymous Avatar

    At 8:31 PM, Not Ed Risse said…

    “The free market has already spoken.”

    True, but apparently it is difficult for some to understand what it has said.

    “The center of development for office space has moved west to Dulles Airport.”

    Geographic Illiteracy of this magnitude requires confinement.

    “There is now far more Class A office space in Reston and Herndon than in Tysons.”

    This is not true and both Reston and Herndon are east of Dulles Airport.

    The latest published CoStar data (Novemeber 12th of this year) puts the office development east of Dulles in the “Dulles Corridor” at 8.8 times the amount west of Dulles.

    “This enables Loudoun commuters to avoid the Tysons traffic nightmare.”

    How does this allow those in Tysons Corner (or in Herndon or Reston) to avoid the nightmare?

    “Even with the rail subsidy, developers in the know predict Tysons will never catch up.”

    Catch up with what?

    “Eat your heart out density subsidy socialists.”

    Feel better now?

    Bacon’s Rebellion deserves better than this.

    Anon Zeno

  52. Not Ed Risse Avatar
    Not Ed Risse

    So Ed Risse is now “Anon Zeno” dissembling nonsense to try to continue to confuse anyone who would dare oppose the Big Business as Usual crowd who Risse used to consult for.

    The center, stupid, is now Dulles Airport, not Tysons.

    Of course Reston and Herndon are “east” of Dulles, as a circle drawn around Dulles would include areas east of Dulles, not just west as “Anon Zeus” would imply.

    Why does Jim Bacon put up with Risse’s nonsense?

    Of course, commuting form Loudoun to Herndon or Reston completely avoids the Tysons gridlock nightmare, but that takes too much intelligence for Risse to understand.

    When you come back with something actually intelligent, I will consider reading this blog again, until then, may Til Hazel, your old boss, have a nice day.

  53. Anonymous Avatar

    “I question the accuracy of any urban planning.”

    Bingo.

    “You need to make all of Tysons more pedestrian friendly”

    I think this is an oxmoron. Pedestrian Friendly only makes sense in quarter to half mile increments. After that, you have to plan on vehicle friendly, and then you have to pan on integrating the two systems (skyways as you said). Nobody is going to walk all of Tysons. Ever.

    “you can’t FORCE a business to locate in NYC or Tysons “

    Why would you want to? A better idea would be to PROHIBIT them from going there. We can prohibit houses from where “we” don’t want them because they contribute to congestion, we can do the same with businesses.

    “The center of development for office space has moved west to Dulles Airport.” “This is not true and both Reston and Herndon are east of Dulles Airport.”

    I violently agree with you. Geographic (and other kinds of) illiteracy like this requires confinement. Are these two statements mutually exclusive? West TO and West OF dulles are different, I think.

    I think we can all agree by now that a lot of jobs have shifted west since EMR and I first argued this topic four years ago. I believe the locus continues to shift, and we might as well plan for that, rather than retroplan for Tysons.

    “Of course, commuting from Loudoun to Herndon or Reston completely avoids the Tysons gridlock nightmare…….”

    It probably helps alleviate the Tyson’s Gridlock too. And costs a lot less than $5 billion in public funds(maybe, for now). ‘Course, it doesn’t help the Tyson’s landowners any. Doesn’t require anything like the same level of engineering and complexity.

    By the way, commuting from Loudoun to Winchester also avoids the Tysons Gridlock, and I know more and more people doing that. So does commuting from Centreville to Centreville, Manassas to Manassas.

    For now. Eventually you have to deal with the Centreville gridlock and the Manassas Gridlock. Which you can avoid by PROHIBITING too many businesses from locating there. We control other point sources of pollution, congestion is just another form of pollution, all we have to do is recognize the facts, instead of inventing them.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar

    “Rail will help some, but not much. “

    I don’t see how, if rail requires additional density to make it work, it will bring in additional autos as well.

    We shold’nt confuse cogestion mitigation with economic development: they may be mutually exclusive. In that case we have to figure out how to assess the costs of congestion and balance it against the benefits of economic development. “Cap and trade” anyone?

    RH

  55. Anonymous Avatar

    “merely supporting the Private Vehicle Mobility Myth.”

    As opposed to what? The pedestrian mobility myth? The mass transit mobility myth?

    Does anyone really want the fire department and rescue squad to show up on foot, or wait for the bus?

    “Tysons Corner is symptomatic of the growing segments of the economy that buy and sell on speculation, without actually producing anything of value. It’s not that much different than speculating on condos or oil or even tulip bulbs. “

    Well OK, but let’s not forget that speculation does have a valuable place in the economy. Virtually all of us own shares of something ro another in our 401k. To the extent that we are not producing anything in buying those share, we are all speculators.

    I’d go a lttle farther and say that Tysons is also symptomatic of other segments of the economy taht don’t produce anything: advocacy groups, interference groups, and other special interests.

    If we think that we can’t fix or improve Tysons without fixing the entire capitol region, or if we think that fixing Tyson’s will cause externalized burdens on everyone else, we may as well give up now. I’m in favor of a systems approach, but you have to draw the boundary somewhere. After you get to the point of compaining about a fourth or fifth order effect, I’d say you have no standing.

    RH

  56. Groveton Avatar

    TMT –

    It would cost a lot of money to fix Tyson’s. And I agree with your assessment of higher density meaning more road capacity, not just rail capacity. We have a conceptual idea of what Tyson’s costs (and what it might cost to fix it). But what is it worth? How many dollars of taxes are generated for the Commonwealth by the businesses located in Tyson’s and the people who work at those businesses? And if Tyson’s is neglected – where will the businesses, the people and the tax money go? Elsewhere in Fairfax County? Elsewhere in Virginia? To Maryland? Back to DC? Some other place?

    However, the idea of narrowing Rt 7 is comical. VDOT has that one right. I guess you could build the subway above ground and then dig a tunnel under Tyson’s for the through traffic. Then you could make the above ground part of Rt 7 a boulevard. Crazy as that seems, it basically works in Chicago on Wacker Drive –

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wacker_Drive

    Lower Leesburg Pike?

    As for the speculation – you are right. People are betting that the value of the property will skyrocket with the new metro stops. Nothing wrong with that. However, these same people have figured out that it’s cheaper to pay for politicians than to pay for transportation. There’s a lot wrong with that.

    Ray –

    I see your point about pedestrian mobility and distance limitations. I doubt many more people would walk to work if there were decent sidewalks and cross walks. But they might walk to lunch from their jobs in Tyson’s or to shop or to a movie. Better sidewalks and cross walks seem like a pretty cheap improvement. Right now, if you want to go from place A to place B in Tyson’s you probably have to drive. EMR said he’d been walking around Tyson’s – I am glad to know he lived to tell about it.

  57. Anonymous Avatar

    I wouldn’t cross a street in Tyson’s to get lunch. It isn’t worth the risk and the restaurants aren’t that good.

    RH

  58. Anonymous Avatar

    Yes, there probably are some quarter mile and half mile increments in Tyson’s where better pedestrian access makes sense, and will pay.

    I just have a problem with blanket prescriptions that say we need better pedestrian access everywhere, costs be damned. I have a problem with the idea that even if we did that it would make a major dent in our auto use.

    For a place like Tyson’s it might very well be that the best answer is some better pedestrian access in some locations, more parking in some locations, and some kind of people mover like EMR’s PRT between those locations.

    Then, with PRT, you could have one metro stop and save a few billion.

    Instead we have the pre-programmed Metro solution looking for a problem to solve.

    RH

  59. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    Wash. Leads Metro Areas in Walkability

    .
    .
    .

    Leinberger calls rail transit a key factor in the success of walkable places. Roughly two-thirds of the 157 places he counted are served by rail, he said.

    Good planning also helped in the Washington region, particularly in Arlington, Leinberger said.
    .
    .
    But the chief factor, he said, is the success of the Metro. The 31-year-old rail system has transformed the region, shaping development and making the walkable urban model more viable.
    .
    .
    Walking among Ballston’s tall buildings recently, Leinberger praised the mix of commercial and residential spaces, the picturesque courtyards, and the use of underground parking instead of surface lots.

    http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jYu62ezibC6RaA4x4KABdRInsCPAD8TAKD981

  60. Anonymous Avatar

    Groveton — If Tysons Corner is, indeed, that critical to the Commonwealth’s Treasury, why don’t Governor Kaine and the General Assembly funding all, or at least most, of the transportation improvements necessary for Tysons to succeed?

    It’s as if my neighbor tells me that my driveway is critical for his access to his home, but won’t even help me shovel it when it snows.

    Fairfax County taxpayers are regularly “screwed” by Richmond. So why should we pay more taxes and tolls, while suffering density without infrastructure, to keep the tax subsidies flowing to the Richmond?

    The Golden Goose is not golden for many Fairfax County taxpayers. Why should we feed it so that it grows?

    TMT

  61. Groveton Avatar

    TMT:

    “Fairfax County taxpayers are regularly “screwed” by Richmond. So why should we pay more taxes and tolls, while suffering density without infrastructure, to keep the tax subsidies flowing to the Richmond?”.

    You are preaching to the choir.

    The best we can do is to convince the state legislature to remember the first rule of effective parasites:

    Don’t kill the host.

    In NoVA, we need to keep that same rule in mind with respect to the federal government.

    Yet even with the state legislature’s hands deeply in our pockets we have a pretty good standard of living here in NoVA (note: standard of living, not necessarily quality of life). If we’re going to keep improving the standard of living we going to have to keep growing. And, until the urban and urbanizing areas constitute a majority of Virginia’s population – we are going to have to keep paying our tithe to Richmond.

    The people who really get screwed in this whole scenario are the poor in Fairfax County. Many on this board will say that there are no poor in Fairfax County or that there are nearly no poor people.

    51,544 people living in Fairfax County are living below the federal poverty line. If you adjust this poverty line to reflect the high cost of living in Fairfax County you get a self-sufficiency line. 115,000 Fairfax County residents live below this self-sufficiency line.

    http://166.94.9.135/dfs/caab/PDF/state_of_the_poor.pdf

    There are more people living below the federal poverty line in Fairfax County than the entire population of 75 other Virginia counties.

    http://www.virginiaplaces.org/vacount/index.html

    What do you tell the poor in Fairfax County? We’ve given up because the state legislature is full of idiots?

    Having once been among the poor in Fairfax County I will never give up on education, economic opportunity and growth. I have 51,544 reasons to keep trying.

Leave a Reply