Thursday, April 28, 2005

Listen to the Citizens, Not Just the Developers

Just what is it that Supervisor Linda Q. Smyth (D-Providence) and board Chairman Gerald E. Connolly (D) do not understand about the word "no"? ["Rep. Davis Intervenes on Growth in Fairfax," Metro, April 21].

For months they have disregarded their constituents' opposition to the size of the Fairlee-MetroWest development project at the Vienna Metro station, only one of many re-development projects being driven through in long-established neighborhoods in Fairfax County. The only people they are listening to is the developers. Suddenly building and zoning codes in these long-established neighborhoods are being rewritten in favor of the developers and not the existing neighborhoods. Hmm, wonder why?

If you take the time to attend a meeting of the Board of Supervisors, you will see that the greatest number in attendance are the lawyers and the developers. This is no longer a process for Fairfax citizens. It takes a lot of money and political clout to participate in this high-stakes game.

There are a growing number of people in Fairfax who have decided that we want our county back. On April 20, a large town-hall-style meeting was held to discuss these and other area development issues with elected officials in the auditorium at Oakton High School. Chairman Connolly and Supervisor Smyth were both invited and neither bothered to attend, choosing instead to send staff. What could possibly have been more important than a meeting with 500 of your constituents? It was a real eye-opener.

To those who did attend, thank you. To Supervisor Smyth and Chairman Connolly: We're tired of our tax assessments going up with no end in sight. We're tired of seeing our neighborhoods stripped of the trees in order to accommodate higher-density development. We're tired of being forced to deal with increased water runoff in order to accommodate higher-density development. We're tired of the unbelievable traffic, and we're tired of the overcrowded schools caused by higher-density development.

And we are tired of our voices not being heard anymore. This is our county and we want control of it back. And we will do that with or without you.

Linda Hansen

Fairfax

Davis Deserves Praise For Addressing Development

Bravo to U.S. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) for defending his constituents' interests against Supervisors Gerald E. Connolly (D), T. Dana Kauffman (D-Lee), Linda Q. Smyth (D-Providence) and real estate developer Pulte Homes.

The supervisors' Fairlee-MetroWest scheme with Pulte to drop thousands more residences amid non-urban neighborhoods, besides overrunning those neighborhoods, would wipe out hundreds of existing Metrorail parking spaces used now by Fairfax commuters.

These citizens have seen their commute times to Metro doubled by the incumbent supervisors' consistent approval of up-zoning, which has wedged thousands of townhomes and condos into Fairfax's Route 29/Interstate 66 corridor beyond what these routes can bear.

Even commuters who public-mindedly sacrifice time to take a bus instead of driving alone from western Fairfax to the Vienna Metro will see those buses further mired in the gridlock already surrounding the Vienna station. Davis is right to throw a wrench into this plan.

The supervisors' rationale? Apparently, a one-time cash boost from selling off Metro land on which the parking lot sits. That's a stated reason. For unstated reasons, explore the ties between supervisors' election campaign finances and developers.

If Fairfax's supervisors could keep expenditures in line with inflation and population growth, they'd have no need for such gambits, given budget windfalls from soaring property values.

But they habitually have outspent, by a wide margin, even Fairfax homeowners' considerable income growth during the past decade, and they should not be allowed to add insult to injury by foisting more traffic onto a place that already suffers from too much, and longer commutes (just to reach a Metro station) onto longtime county residents.

Matthew Edwards

Centreville

School Spending Should Yield Better Results

The article "Property Owners' Burden Rising; Area Home Taxes Foot Bigger Share of Government Costs" [Page A1, April 12] claimed that the reason why area school spending is rising is "complicated." In fact, it is a predictable outcome of management without oversight.

In Fairfax County, for example, school central office administrative staffing rose 59 percent between 1998 and 2003, while student enrollment rose only 9 percent. A larger problem for taxpayers and students is a failed central office curriculum. Over $180 million each year, or 12 percent of the Fairfax school budget, is spent on programs to treat reading difficulties. Despite this massive spending, among the 10 Virginia districts with the largest black enrollments, Fairfax County's black students ranked 10th on seven out of eight elementary grade Standards of Learning (SOL) tests in 2004. Wealthy Fairfax finished behind not just other suburban districts but also Norfolk, Newport News, Hampton and Richmond on nearly every test.

Why these astonishing and dismaying results? Other Virginia districts applied for and received federal funding of up to $1 million a school to implement science-based reading reforms at high-poverty schools, and their minority test scores soared. Fairfax administrators complained about the cost of reforms but refused to even apply for federal reading funds at six out of the seven eligible schools in Fairfax. Local administrators continue to maintain that reading programs they have written do not need reform despite the SOL results.

School leaders have not answered questions about these issues because public officials who fund schools have not asked. The effect of computer-drawn state and local election districts that are "safe" for incumbents has been to silence the public debate that a two-party system once provided. In the past 30 years in Fairfax, independent institutions promoting civic involvement have gone the way of the single-income family.

To be effective and efficient, bureaucracy requires oversight. In changing times, new mechanisms are needed to protect the interest of the public in local government, and the children in public schools.

Rick Nelson

Falls Church

[Nelson is a former president of the Fairfax County Federation of Teachers]

Raise Driving Age, Lower the Risks

In the article "Forum to Address Teen Driving Peril" [Fairfax Extra, April 7], Board of Supervisors Chairman Gerald E. Connolly stated: "I have yet to meet a teenager who thinks driver's education is worthwhile."

Considering that some insurance companies give no discount whatsoever for driver education, those teenagers may be right. The high risks associated with young drivers are largely a function of immaturity, something no training program can correct.

Why not reduce risk by raising the driving age? Age 17 for a learner's permit and 18 for a license seems reasonable. Our roads will be safer and -- since 18-year-olds don't need driver education -- we can drop it from the curriculum.

James A. Metcalf

Professor, George Mason University