Mowing Medians: Top Transportation Priority?t

Readers of Sunday's Post will have learned that Sharon Bulova's (Fairfax County Board Chairperson) top priority for expanded transportation spending would be mowing the medians. According to Bulova, many Fairfax County residents mistakenly believe that the County, not the state, is responsible for maintaining the County's roads. Many residents, according to Bulova, call the County to complain about how poorly the state mows the grass on the medians of Fairfax's major roads. If Fairfax could get more money from the state, Bulova said, Fairfax could do a better job.

So much for reducing traffic congestion, using less gasoline, improving air quality, or avoiding global warming!

Indoor Recreation Facility: Overkill?

RCC and RA's notion of an indoor recreation facility has several drawbacks. Most important, it should not be at the top of anyone's priorities for spending public money. When the County is slowly starving the schools of resources and refusing to fund public transportation, spending money on indoor tennis courts and a pool is inappropriate. Second, there is no reason why Reston, and not all of Fairfax County, should fund a new facility. Reston residents have helped pay for indoor facilities across the County and paid the entire cost of the RCC for many years. It's none too soon for Reston to get its fair share of County recreation facilities. Finally, RA and RCC have earned their reputation as untrustworthy and inept managers of the community's resources. No one should want them to take on another facility.

Nevertheless, it's hard to read the latest rant from the proposal's opponents (in this week's Connection), without wondering what they are thinking. The image that comes to mind is a six-year old pitching a fit at the grocery store and his mother admonishing "Listen to yourself!"

Yes, the consultant's study reflects RCC and RA's interest in building an indoor facility. Surely, that's not a surprise or a reason not to consider the study seriously. Yes, the consultants talked to various groups, all of whom represent some special interest. Again, that's shouldn't come as any surprise. And it's not as if the study tries to hide the fact that each of these groups claims to speak for some segment of the community, and not the community as a whole. The study calls them "stakeholders," which is what they are. It doesn't say that they represent the whole community

The latest screed tries to argue that there's insufficient demand for an indoor facility in Reston. The consultants think otherwise and they lay out all sorts of numbers to back up their claim. The most persuasive figures are, however, the overall population numbers for Reston and the surrounding area. It's more than plausible that a community of more than 60,000, with many thousands in the surrounding area, can support an indoor facility. Whether the community wants a facility and whether a facility is the right priority now are different questions.

The letter to the Connection claims that the consultants admitted that they had not spoken with operators of existing facilities. What the consultants said was that they spoke to the operators but did not expect to get, and did not get, detailed information about current usage. The consultants did say that they believed that the new indoor facility would not compete with the existing facilities. Each of the current facilities, they said, had its own clientele and the indoor facility would appeal to other groups. Anyone who has used Worldgate and the YMCA can testify that their clienteles are very different. Perhaps some folks who use the YMCA might be attracted to the new facility, but the fitness fanatics who populate Worldgate probably would not. The YMCA's biggest programs are its day care and summer camp programs, which would seem unaffected by a new indoor facility.

This week's letter goes on to claim that the current private facilities are all operating significantly below capacity. One has to wonder where the writer got this information, which most business owners would treat as proprietary and therefore confidential. One also has to remember that when the YMCA announced that it would build a facility in Reston, the private facilities all cried foul and claimed that they would go out of business. None of that happened. And, if the private facilities are operating below capacity, why are they still in business? And is it the community's responsibility to guarantee them full houses before building a public facility?

The proposal's opponents continue to misunderstand the choices involved in paying for a new facility. Simply put, the more non-residents who use the facility, the smaller the burden for Reston residents. If the facility is restricted to Reston residents, then they will pay for the all the costs, either thru user fees or property taxes. If the facility is open to non-residents, their user fees will reduce the cost to Reston residents. Now, it would help if the fees charged to non-residents were significantly higher than the fees charged to residents and if the facility could make sure that non-residents paid the proper fee -- neither of which is true of RCC's current operation. It is silly, however, to complain that outsiders will use the facility and, at the same time, complain about the additional tax burden a facility would represent for Reston residents. If you want to reduce the tax burden, make sure that user fees cover a substantial portion of the costs, not the 16 percent RCC currently covers, and open the facility to non-Reston residents.

If none of this persuasive, consider the claim that all the groups the consultants talked to were "biased." Really? If you don't agree with us, you are biased! Listen to yourselves.

A Vision Problem?

County Executive Griffin and the County Board have floated the notion that Fairfax County should become a city. As imagined by the County Executive, a city of Fairfax would take responsibilities for at least its secondary roads, now a state responsibility, and perhaps for major roads like route 50. Griffin seems to believe that Fairfax can get more money from the states for transportation if it were a city. A city, under Virginia law, has more taxing power than a county. Griffin suggests that, as a city, Fairfax could also raise more money to maintain its roads.

First, the phrase "unintended consequences" looms into mind. Hopefully Griffin and the County Board will consider carefully what other changes becoming a city might entail. Since the state legislature would have to approve the change and would write the new city's charter, almost everything would be on the table. Unlike cities in other states, cities in Virginia don't come with a fixed set of powers and authorities. Be careful what you wish for!

Second, Griffin is naive to believe that changing Fairfax's legal status is going to pry more money out of Richmond for transportation. The legislature has had decades to fund transportation properly and has failed to do so. Murmuring from the Fairfax County Board is hardly likely to make a difference. (Electing different senators and delegates -- Democrats as well as Republicans -- might!) Moreover, Fairfax is the wealthiest county in the state. Griffin is naive if he thinks the rest of the state is going to subsidize Fairfax's transportation system. The best Fairfax can hope for is gaining the authority to tax itself to pay for transportation.

Third, the Washington Post, at least, suggested that Fairfax would rely on nuisance taxes, like a hotel or restaurant tax, to fund road repairs and the like. Without a sense of how much money Griffin is looking for, it is hard to evaluate this idea. Nevertheless, it sounds like another press release from the "free lunch" party. "We can pay for road repairs and you won't have to pay a cent." Almost certainly not true.

Finally and most important, the "let's become a city so that we can repair our roads" notion reveals the lack of vision that afflicts Fairfax County government. First, it is more than clear that the current tax structure, at both county and state levels, is inadequate to provide reasonable public services in the County. A county that can not pay its employees cost of living increases or their scheduled seniority increments will not be able provide decent services over the middle and long term.. and so on. Griffin and the County Board need to confront reality: Fairfax taxes are too low to maintain the kind of services County residents deserve. Second, a County that is content merely to keep the current roads in repair will fail to meet its residents' transportation needs in the near future. Of course, we need to repair the roads, but we also need to vastly expand public transportation. We need to get people out of their cars and into buses and trains. And the County has, again, to confront the reality that most of the costs of doing so will fall on County residents. Until and unless Griffin and his political bosses stop thinking that it is still 1965, the quality of life in the County will continue to decline.

Did Anyone Read the Consultant's Report?

At the several meetings about the proposed indoor recreation facility, more than a few residents have denounced the consultant's report. The consultant's report, it has been argued, is inaccurate and misleading. Reston residents don't want an indoor facility and the consultant's report says, it has been alleged, that they do. At the latest meeting, several folks reported angrily that they had not been asked their opinion about a new facility. Others demanded that RCC and RA provide the "raw data" behind the "survey" that, it was alleged, the consultants conducted.

The principal problem with all this is that they consultant's report does not claim that Reston residents want a new facility and the consultants did not survey Reston residents. The consultant's report claims to demonstrate that a new facility is feasible. (After all, the report is labelled a "Marketing and Feasibility Study.") The consultants looked at Reston's population and the population of the surrounding areas. They also looked at the number and type of recreation facilities. Based on the data collected, the consultants concluded that Reston could support another indoor facility. They also looked at the long history of failed attempts to secure another facility and talked to various interested parties (stakeholders is the jargon) and concluded that some people in Reston were, in fact, interested in a recreation facility.

This last point has somehow morphed inside opponents' heads into a claim that most people in Reston want a new facility. Only the consultants didn't say that. They have said that they see the current process of district meetings as a way to determine what the community wants. And, if that were not enough, at least one referendum will be necessary before a facility will be built. So for all the failings of local government in Reston, there's no question that the general public will get its say before the issue is resolved.

Some might say that there's nothing new here. Public discussions of controversial issues in our community are usually characterized by a disregard for the facts and a deep distrust of anything produced by a governmental body. Anyone who has been to a school boundary meeting can testify to that.

Nevertheless, recreation facilities are one of the few public services where the Reston community has some say. And the long term future of Reston depends to a large extent on the community's ability to adjust to changing circumstances. In this case, the population has grown greatly since the Reston Community Center was built. A discussion of an indoor facility is probably long past due. The proposal dreamed up by RCC and RA poses more than a few problems, but that doesn't mean that the community should not conduct a reasoned discussion of the issue. A good place to start a sensible discussion would be to consider what the consultants' have written and how the community should react to it.

Missing the Financial Forest for the Trees?

Tuesday's meeting about the indoor recreation facility saw much harumphing about the proposal's finances. It would cost too much. It should pay for itself. RCC's estimates were phony...

Nevertheless, because most Tuesday's audience was convinced that the consultant's report was faulty, they missed some important information. The consultants state that recreation facilities normally cover 80-90% of the their costs from user fees. In fact, the estimates RCC refers to on its website states that RCC intends to cover 70-80% of the costs of new facility from user fees.

What no one seemed to catch is that this would represent an 180-degree turn for RCC. Today, RCC's policy is that user fees will cover no more than 25% of the operating costs. Today, RCC covers only 16% of its costs from user fees. Many of its fees have remained unchanged for many years. Its rates are low. It offers even lower rates to certain Reston groups that have been using the Hunters Woods facility since its opening. The taxpayers of Small Tax District No 5 pay 84% of the costs, rather than the 10-20% that the consultants consider normal.

Given the frugal sentiments expressed at most community meetings and especially at meetings about the indoor recreation facility, it is a wonder that no one has bothered to ask the RCC board why it continues to give its users a virtual free ride. The Herndon community center covers 65% of its operating costs from fees. The Fairfax Park Authority covers 45% of the costs of the county recreation centers with fees; the McLean Community Center covers 30%.

Open Space Untouchable?

Opponents of the indoor facility have rallied about a tree-hugging banner. More than a few folks at Tuesday's meeting repeated the slogan: "once you cut down a tree, you never get it back." the position seems to be that none of Reston's open space should be converted to other uses. Any new facilities must be replace existing facilities.

First, the basic premise seems overstated at best. Folks cut down trees and replace them with other trees. More to the point, it is not unheard for redevelopment projects, even in urban areas, to create more green space.

Second, this tree hugging position is also overstated given that Brown's Chapel Park represents a little over one percent of Reston's open space -- 22 acres out of 1,700 acres. Placing an indoor facility on part of Brown's Chapel hardly represents the end of green space as we know it.

Most important, a thoughtful decision about a new facility requires an attempt to balance the possible benefits of a facility against what diminution of green space that might occur. If the community needs a new facility, surely it's possible that the facility's potential benefits would outweigh any harm that might come from clearing part of 22 acres.

Indoor Recreation Facility: North Point Meeting

On Tuesday, several hundred Reston residents attended the North Point district meeting to discuss the indoor recreation facility. Larry Butler, from the Reston Association, described RA's various investigations of additional indoor facilities. The RCC staff provided only the statement that RCC expected to be able to fund a new facility within the existing tax rate, in part because it expected Small Tax District No. 5's tax base to grow significantly in the future. (The RCC website states that RCC expects significant growth beginning in 2013.) After Larry Butler's presentation, the attendees were assigned to one of 17 small groups. The groups discussed the issues and then reported their views to the entire group.

Overall, the meeting demonstrated deep distrust of RCC, RA, and of Fairfax County. The general sense was one or more of these institutions was trying to foist a facility on the community. People objected to the idea that Reston residents would have to pay for a facility that would be open to users from outside Reston. Some argued that no Reston Association should be turned over to Fairfax County under any circumstances. Others contended that, if a recreation facility were to be built, Fairfax County should pay for it and build it on Fairfax County land.

A majority of those present were opposed to the recreation facility as currently proposed. Brown's Chapel was the wrong location, they said. It was unwise to use any of the existing open space for a new building. It was not clear that a new facility was needed. It was not clear that a large facility was needed. Perhaps smaller, separate facilities would suffice. Perhaps covering one of the existing swimming pools and some of the existing tennis courts would be sufficient. It was inappropriate for the public sector to compete with the recreational facilities operated by private companies. Some asserted that the privately-owned facilities and the YMCA are under-utilized and are struggling to survive. A new facility would generate noise and traffic.

Nearly everyone was unhappy with the process RCC and RA had adopted. Some thought that RCC and RA should not have engaged a consultant without first gaining community approval. Many thought that the process, including the questionnaire distributed at the meeting, assumed that the community wanted a recreation facility. Many asserted that the consultant's report misrepresented the community's wishes. Several people demanded to see the raw data collected by the consultant.

Without any new financial information available, the comments about paying for a facility were somewhat confused. Some assumed that a facility should pay for itself. Others objected to non-Reston users having access to the facility. Few seemed to understand how RCC pays for the current facility at Hunters Woods. Several questioned RCC's assumption that the Small Tax District No 5 tax base would grow in the future.