To the Editor:
Why I cannot vote for Bob Wood and Van van Fleet for council:
They are against the city’s Waterfront Plan. Alone, that is enough for me to not vote for Mr. Wood and Mr. van Fleet. But it goes deeper than that.
In relation to Mr. Wood and Mr. van Fleet’s position on the Waterfront Plan, two issues stand out in regards to their viewpoints. Both are on record as critical of the city’s debt load. In their opposition to the Waterfront Plan, both Mr. Wood and Mr. van Fleet supported CAAWP (Citizens for an Alternative Alexandria Waterfront Plan) which was the opposition’s alternative plan. Their plan called for the city to purchase the properties owned by the Washington Post/Cummings Turner. The CAAWP plan called for the city to purchase those properties and to make them into parks. Their estimate was a cost to taxpayers of about $100 million, city’s response more like $200 million. Either way, the city’s debt would have increased by a significant amount to satisfy their wishes. Given the cost, the availability of extensive parks in the area, and who the principal beneficiaries of this expenditure would be, this addition to the city’s debt was not in the interests of Alexandria’s citizens/taxpayers.
A second issue is also related to the Waterfront Plan. While I support the ability and rights of neighborhoods to react and protest any development that specifically affects them, there is a line where constructive criticism morphs into obstructionism. This is the case where the Friends of the Alexandria Waterfront appealed the decision of the BAR to demolish 226 Strand. Reviewing the city’s analysis of this property, it was clear that there was little to no reason to save the building, in whole or in part. An appeal petition presented by Friends of the Alexandria Waterfront included signatures of Mr. Wood and Mr. Van Fleet.
This appeal is not constructive criticism, but obstructionism. It costs taxpayers time and money as well as causing city staff to spend significant time in addressing these wasteful actions. These actions by Mr. Wood and Mr. van Fleet call into question how they would operate on council.
In sum, it appears to me that both Mr. Wood and Mr. van Fleet are, essentially Old Town-centric. Mr. Wood and Mr. van Fleet do not appear to be very concerned about the city as a whole, but place their desires about the development of the Alexandria Waterfront into their parochial view which dominates their perspectives. This does not speak well for their abilities to govern all of Alexandria, and therefore I cannot support their candidacies.
Dennis Auld
Alexandria