To the Editor:
Last week, I attended a meeting scheduled to discuss the current status of efforts to develop the North Hill property. An accurate summary of the history of the property to that date appeared in the Oct. 11, 2012 edition of the Gazette.
In essence, as we sit today, the county could develop 11 acres of the property by right for 66 or 67 affordable housing units which were proposed to be sold to those who would live there.
Several years ago when such a project was about to move forward, developers suggested other plans of development that would result in significantly larger numbers of dwelling units. Such proposals would require rezoning the property which creates the specter of public hearings where all the opponents of affordable housing will be able to testify against the project.
As we were told last week, the current proposal is to construct 195 townhomes which would be sold at fair market prices. Additionally, 278 rental units would be established in six separate multi-level buildings. The rental units would be available for rent by citizens qualifying for affordable housing. Currently, 22 acres of the property have been "master-planned" by the Park Authority for a park. The new proposal would reduce the park acreage to 18 acres.
What is not well-evident but a fact of life is that the remnants of the 500 trailers that existed on the property until the early 1980s remain there below the underbrush. These remnants include deteriorated asphalt roads and various pipes and other items that remain after the trailers themselves were removed. It will take a significant investment to remove this infrastructure. Without doing so, the 18 acres proposed for a park would not be safe for people to enter.
I have spoken with Park Authority officials who have explained that they have no money in their budget to render this proposed parkland habitable. It is currently owned by the County Department of Housing and Community Development. The Park Authority appears to be unwilling to receive ownership of the proposed park until the land is rendered habitable. Thus, there is an important question as to where the funding will come from to create a habitable park. There are only two choices: the Board of Supervisors or the developer.
A new state law limits the imposition of proffers to those reasonably related to the development in question. Thus, it is no longer possible to negotiate a proffer with someone far afield from the development in question. In this case, the proposed developer is the only one from whom such a proffer could be extracted. At last week's meeting, no mention was made of the need to invest serious money in the proposed parkland nor did the proposed developer make any offer in this regard.
One troubling aspect of the proposed development is that the developer made it clear the development would not go forward unless they succeed in obtaining tax credit financing from the government in a competitive process. They explained that they must apply for the tax credit by March 1, 2017 and if not approved, they would apply the following year. In other words, the project is going nowhere unless the developer can obtain the tax credit financing.
Supervisor Storck stated at the meeting that he would require the developer to seek the blessing of the Mount Vernon Council of Citizens' Associations (MVCCA) before the proposal is given consideration by the Planning Commission. The MVCCA currently represents 44 community associations (out of about 230 in the Mount Vernon District). As such, the weight to be accorded any decision by the MVCCA should be limited.
More importantly, as mandated by the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in the 2012 decision New Cingular Wireless PCS v. The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, the views of the most closely adjacent community to a proposed project are to be given the greatest weight in government decisions on development. That community is the adjacent Woodley Hills Estates Trailer Park. They have a community association that used to be a member of the MVCCA. The views of that association must be solicited and must be given the strongest weight in county decisions on this proposed project.
Summarizing, there are serious problems with the proposal: (1) The affordable housing dwellings will be rented rather than owned; (2) The proposal does not appear to finance necessary improvements for the proposed park; (3) The proposal relies too heavily upon possible approval of tax credit financing; and (4) The views of the most closely adjacent community have not apparently been solicited. Other issues such as impacts on transportation infrastructure and educational facilities also need to be addressed.
I strongly favor allowing the less fortunate in our community the opportunity to own a residence as a first step on the ladder to success. The proposed development does not permit such ownership and for that reason I am concerned about it. Responsible members of the community should pay close attention to the proposed project and not be shy about weighing in on its various aspects.
H. Jay Spiegel
Mount Vernon