The developer (Clark Construction /Edgemoor Real Estate Services) has made a number of claims regarding the development that are without merit. Listed below are some assertions that Edgemoor Real Estate Services made in their proposal.
Claim: No impact on local schools
Developer’s Proposal: “Any increase in population carries with it an increase in demand for schools, fire and safety, roads and other public facilities. The size mix of the apartment units is such that most residents will not have children, reducing the impact on schools.”
Truth: We have no demographic evidence that most of the residents will not have children. We are not aware of any restrictions on the age or domestic status of potential residents.
Claim: Provides a significant level of County-owned workforce housing units integrated into the surrounding residential community.
Developer’s Proposal: “The intent of the project is to provide attractive, convenient housing to the teachers, fire fighters, policemen and other critical county staff.”
Truth: The number of units reserved for workforce housing is extremely small. Many of the units are expected to be high-priced. It is unclear whether these units will remain reserved for workforce housing. Supervisor Cathy Hudgins at the December 6th, 2006, meeting at Fox Mill Elementary School admitted that there were no “exclusive use” restrictions that required the residents of the affordable housing subsidized unit be County employees. They only must meet the income requirements.
Claim: Provides enhanced trail connections from existing neighborhoods to recreation and shopping facilities.
Developer’s Proposal: “With improved trail connections to surrounding homes, shopping and recreation, this development creates activity on the streets and interactions among neighbors within the community.”
Truth: The trail system that Clark Construction wants to utilize is Reston Association (RA) property and paid with RA dues. Clark Construction is attempting to leverage RA goodwill for residents with no contributions to the care and maintenance of these trails. Nearby neighbors are concerned about neighborhood security with the proposed “trail connections” to homes.
Claim: Provides safe covered parking in excess of existing surface parking capacity.
Developer’s Proposal: “Surface parking will be replaced with a safer and more comfortable structured parking facility.”
Truth: County residents who currently use the South Reston Park and Ride facilities will likely lose access once the property is developed. While the developer's proposal states that parking will be available to commuters, it remains unclear how that would happen and how much parking will be available to commuters.
Claim: Relieves a current transit bottleneck through realignment of Lawyers Road and Fox Mill Road.
Developer’s Proposal: “This proposal completes the Department of Transportation’s plan to realign Lawyers Road in order to remove a sharp bend that currently exists. Additionally, we offer to provide a traffic signal (if warranted) in this same location to ease congestion at the troubled intersection with Fox Mill road.”
Truth: Modifications to the intersection along the back side of the South Reston Park and Ride facilities will likely increase the amount of congestion. The developer admits that traffic is already a major problem at this intersection. Adding additional cross-traffic and signal delays will only make the situation worse. There are already two signals within very close proximity, and a third one would just be a recipe for gridlock.
Claim: Easier access to local amenities.
Developer’s Proposal: “With quick access to bus and rail transit, residents may choose to leave their cars behind. Residents are also able to walk or bike to the Fox Mill Center and many of Reston’s community recreational amenities.”
Truth: With this development, there will be fewer commuter parking spaces available.
Claim: The proposal has been vetted by the Board of Supervisors and senior County staff.
Developer’s Proposal: “In order to best meet the County’s needs, Edgemoor has met with Board members as well as senior County Staff members. Through these meetings we have gained an understanding of both the transit and housing needs of the County, its expectations from a public-private partnership, and the political constraints of the project. We feel that this proposal respects the concerns of the County and its agencies, while delivering upon two of its most pressing initiatives – transportation and housing.”
Truth: Contrary to the claims by the County, the proposal sounds like a “solicited” proposal. While the proposal may respect the concerns of the County and its agencies, it surely does not respect the concerns of the neighboring communities.
Claim: The development would enhance the appearance of the community.
Developer’s Proposal: “Our proposal seeks to replace the existing functional but architecturally bleak facilities with a cluster of homes and amenities that neighbors would find both an aesthetic and functional improvement to their community.”
Truth: A four story parking garage and apartments or town homes which tower over the neighboring single family homes is not an “aesthetic and functional improvement to the community.”
Claim: They care about the impact on the community.
Developer’s Proposal: “We understand that any development may raise local neighborhood concerns regarding construction impacts, traffic congestion, overall design character, appropriateness of scale and any number of other very legitimate issues.”
Truth: They are not concerned about the concerns of neighboring communities.
Claim: The developer tries to keep the community up-to-date on the progress of their developments.
Developer’s Proposal: “The Edgemoor team has enjoyed success using a project website to keep stakeholders informed as to the status of the project. Progress updates, press releases, and other valuable information will be available for all stakeholders to review.”
Truth: Visit the Clark Realty site: http://www.clarkrealty.com/ and view their “Sample Portfolios” to see if you find any project that even remotely belongs at this site.
The Fairfax County Board of Supervisors is seriously considering a proposal by