Post #276: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on Sunrise, 5/15/2019

Sunrise assisted living would like to put a (roughly) 100-bed assisted living facility at the corner of Maple and Center.  Assisted living is a “conditional use” under MAC zoning, which means that Sunrise had to ask for a conditional use permit (CUP) from the Vienna Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).  The BZA heard that request from Sunrise last night, along with testimony from a couple of citizens. The BZA approved the CUP.  So this now goes to the Town Council for a public hearing on June 3.

There are few noteworthy things about this meeting.  More for the process issues than for the content.  I think it was a foregone conclusion that the CUP would be issued.  But how it was issued was, unusual, even in the context of MAC zoning.

You can download or listen to my audio recording of the MAC-related portion of this meeting at this Google Drive link.  Look for “2019-05-15 …”.

 

Continue reading Post #276: Board of Zoning Appeals meeting on Sunrise, 5/15/2019

Post #275: This ‘n’ that

Just a collection of a few items that I did not want to pass unnoticed.

Board of Supervisors Debate:  Tonight, 5/15/2019, from 6 PM to 9 PM, in the Community Center, come see the five Democratic candidates for Board of Supervisors member from the Hunter Mill District.  Odds are good that one of these people is going to be our next representative on the Board of Supervisors.  They will be asked a series of questions about how they would treat the Town of Vienna if elected.  Go to Post #271  to see my writeup, and go to this Facebook page to see an invitation for the event.

Wawa’s hours remain unknown — but not really. At last Monday’s Town Council meeting, Councilman Noble asked Planning and Zoning what the hours were going to be, for the new Wawa.  I thought it was good of him to be concerned.  But nobody knew.  I didn’t know.  But I now see that every Wawa in the DC area is open 24 hours a day.  As are both 7-11s in Vienna.  It’s a good bet, then, that the Wawa will be open 24 hours a day.

Projections of Town tax revenues under MAC — can we please have someone put down, in writing, exactly what you want? As an economist by trade, I can tell you, it’s not that simple and there’s no one right answer.

Some tax projections were presented at the last Planning Commission meeting, for the Sunrise assisted living facility.  They were criticized as being “not right”.  The issue isn’t the projected tax take from the new building (the Town’s numbers were similar to what I had guessed in this post (search BPOL), some months ago).  The issue is, what’s the correct baseline for comparison, so that you can figure out the additional revenue (or cost) from this new development?

And for that one, there is no one right answer.  And so it’s not reasonable to throw this question at the Town’s finance department without clear guidance as to what you want.

In my opinion, you need to see two or three different baselines to understand what the likely benefit or harm to the Town’s revenues would be from accepting any one particular project.

First, obviously the Town should show the expected revenues from the new project.  If there are retail sales of goods, or meals, some estimate of the Town’s share of local sales tax and the meals tax revenues should be included in that.

Next, I think the Town should show plausible revenues from the existing commercial (“by-right”), construction, which should have two parts.  Part 1, what was literally the tax take from this property, last year.  This disregards (e.g.) that the businesses may have shut down.  Part 2, what was the historical tax take from this property back when the businesses were healthy?  That might be defined empirically as the maximum tax take in any year in the past decade, inflated up to the current year using (most likely) the average annual increase in Town tax revenues (or similar) between the “healthy business” year and the current year.

This estimate might require the cooperation of Fairfax tax authorities, because Fairfax is the entity that collects the “income tax return”-type information from the property owners.  So, e.g., Fairfax may know more than we do about the revenues generated by those properties in the past.

Note that, up to this point, this is all reasonably objective data.  Plus or minus some judgment as to when the businesses on that land were last “healthy”, these are all things that can either be directly looked up, or estimated using some standard set of methods and assumptions.

But in addition, I think there should be one more scenario: Revenues under the best economically-viable “by-right” redevelopment of the property.   I.e., what would the tax take be under the best likely use of the land if there is no MAC redevelopment.

The “by-right” scenario has been so mis-used in the analysis of MAC so far (once for scare tactics on traffic for 444 Maple West, once for scare tactics on building size for 380 Maple West) that I hesitate even to bring it up. So, if the Town is going to continue to see that as merely an opportunity for scoring points, then forget it.

But, plausibly, this could be used as a way to rein in the “by-right” scenario by making it conform to some set of rules.

If nothing else, you could just average up all of Maple commercial property on a per-acre basis, multiply by the number of acres in question, and present that under the assumption that, hey, on average, new “by-right” would do about the same as existing “by-right”.  Likely, that understates what new construction should be able to generate (you’d create something to match current demand, not something that worked well decades ago).  My only solid point here is that a complete analysis of the economic benefits should include, if possible, a thoughtful and well-reasoned analysis of the best economically-feasible by-right development.

Finally, because the MAC projects include a housing component, a proper analysis ought to include both other revenue impacts (e.g., water and sewer bills, less the Town’s cost for the water), and some estimate of additional costs that the new residents might impose on the Town.  My guess is that these will likely be either too small to worry about, or too nebulous to pin down.  And so, those should be presented in a separate set of figures.  That said, if we are looking at the potential for (e.g.) 7000 new residents (70 out the 100+ MAC acres redeveloped at an average of 100 persons per acre), in the long run, you have to include some consideration of additional costs in serving that additional population.

FWIW, if you look at Falls Church’s economic analysis of tax revenues per acre, from various types of development, assisted living is very close to dead last.  I believe that’s because Falls Church collects all of the local sales tax revenue, and there is no sales tax on services.  I’m not sure how that would work out for Town of Vienna.

If you want to see some data on assisted living in Fairfax County, see Post #205.

Post #274: The 5/13/2019 Town Council meeting — updated 5:30 PM 5/14/2019

Last night, the Town Council had (what turns out to be) just the second part of its public hearing on the proposed 380 Maple West development (39 condos plus retail, corner of Wade Hampton and Maple.   The audience more-or-less filled Town Council chambers.  Town Council took public comment, and had a bit of discussion, but that was about all.   They’ll have yet a third session of the public hearing on this on June 3.  Read below to understand why that third session of  the public hearing has nothing to do with wanting to hear from the public.

As usual, my recording and Excel “index” file are posted at this link on Google Drive.  Look for the .mp3 and .xls files “2019-05-13 Town Council …”.  Use the index to find passages you want to listen to, then go to the indicated offset in the audio file to listen to them.  The Town will eventually post the video for this, which you should be able to find via the link that says “video” on the Town’s website home page.

My overall impression:  Based on the near-silence from the pro-MAC Town Council members, I think it’s a foregone conclusion that this one is marching toward being passed.  As it turns out, the Town did not follow required legal processes, there’s going to have to be a third session of the public hearing so they can pretend to have followed the law, the written proffers were missing and/or handed to the Mayor at the last minute, the depiction of truck access was wrong for the third or fourth time,  the whole undergrounding-the-utilities-thing is still up in the air, there’s a basic misunderstanding about what counts as “pervious surface”, and so on.

To me, all of this sloppiness seems consistent with the actual decisionmaking:  The pro-MAC Town Council members are going to vote for this under any circumstances.  So it doesn’t really matter whether they’ve followed the law, or what state the application is in.  Or that two of the “yes” votes are lame ducks — something which Fairfax County explicitly bars in its deliberations.  The only thing they can’t be sloppy about is the timing of the vote.  They have to have that occur before the new Town Council members are seated.  And it certainly appears that they are doing everything to ensure that happens.

So, in terms of what matters — getting it done before the new Town Council members are seated — this process is tight as as drum.  In terms of everything else, not so much.

Detail will follow.  I will be adding to this throughout the day.

Continue reading Post #274: The 5/13/2019 Town Council meeting — updated 5:30 PM 5/14/2019

Post #273: More detailed followup to the last Planning Commission meeting

The Planning Commission met last week to discuss the proposed Sunrise Assisted Living facility at Maple and Center (and other issues).  My initial posting, with link to audio recording, is Post #269. There were a handful of things about the discussion that confused me, and I’d like to bring those to light.

Continue reading Post #273: More detailed followup to the last Planning Commission meeting

Post #272: A followup to the Town election

On these items, I don’t really know whether to laugh or cry about them.  But I think I’ll get them down, in black and white, before the memory of the election fades.   And I’ll preface this by saying how much I hate social media.


The Virginia Campaign Finance Disclosure Act (CFDA).

There are no laws governing campaign finance in Town of Vienna elections.  None whatsoever.  Anyone can give any amount of money to any candidate — and it doesn’t have to be reported anywhere. 

And I, for one, think that’s a problem. Particularly given (what I estimate to be) hundreds of millions of dollars of land use decisions that are going to made under MAC zoning.  And so I did a little something about that.  But most of you are going to need a little background information first, so you can understand what I did, and why.

Now:

  1.  Nobody ever believes me, the first time I tell them that no campaign finance laws apply here.  So if you just went “nah, that can’t be right”, when you read the intro to this section — well, you have plenty of company.
  2. I only found this out after considerable digging.  You won’t find this out easily, because if you ask the Town government, as I did, you’ll be told that the Town complies with all applicable sections of Virginia law governing elections.
  3. Here’s what you have to dig to find out:  The law doesn’t apply to Towns of under 25,000 population.  Virginia law (the Campaign Finance Disclosure Act of 2006) specifically exempts them.  Here’s a quote from the first part of the CFDA:
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all elections held in Virginia, ... except nominations and elections for ... (iii) town office in a town with a population of less than 25,000, ....

There’s an interesting provision in the law, though.  A Town can voluntarily agree to be subject to the CFDA.  That provision is the following, from the same section of the law cited above:

The governing body of any town with a population of less than 25,000 may provide, by ordinance, that the provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to elections for town offices in the town.

This is exactly what the Town of Herndon, did, in 2011.  You can see that briefly mentioned at the next-to-last question on their election FAQ page.  And this .pdf of the actual ordinance shows how little it actually took for them to do that.

Herndon’s situation is different from the Town of Vienna, in that they were close to the 25,000 person threshold in the 2010 Census.  There was some sense that they would inevitably be subject to it after the 2020 Census.

You can read the Herndon Town Council’s discussion of the pros and cons of the e CFDA requirements around page 149 of this on-line document.  The reason I point to this is that you can be sure the exact same arguments will come up if this is ever debated in the Town of Vienna.

The main advantage is the law is transparency:  Everybody knows what’s spent, and where the money came from.  The main disadvantage is that it’s a pain to comply with it, because … you have to report what’s spent, and where the money came from.  And there are additional legal issues in that you have to acknowledge, in any campaign literature, where the money came from.

Which leads to my next section.


Political Action Committees (PACs)

PACs!  PACs, here in Vienna.  OMG, we’ve never seen PACs in Vienna before.  OMG, WE  HAVE PAC MONEY INFLUENCING OUR ELECTION!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, this is sarcasm.  Or very nearly.  Although, one of our elected officials did circulate this, as part of her get-out-the-vote effort:

"There are a few other websites, Facebook Pages, and blogs publicly available for this election, know that some are funded by a PAC that has also funded some of the candidates, so I would be a bit suspect on how balanced their information is. "

Here’s the joke:  I am the aforementioned PAC. As anyone who did even the slightest bit of homework on it would know.  Why would they know?  Because everything about every Virginia PAC is public information.

So, I am president, treasurer, chief cook and bottle washer for my own little PAC.   Now defunct.  Which is the PAC in question.  Total funding for that PAC was the whopping sum of $1000, which is the least it could be, and still be required to report as a PAC, under the Virginia CFDA.

So, in some sense, that sentence from the get-out-the-vote email is fair.  In the sense that I’ve certainly pointed out the bias in the Town’s information enough times.  So turnabout is fair play.  But the PAC scare tactics are just ill-informed or ill-intentioned or both.

Why did I bring the scourge of PACs to the Town of Vienna? Let me start by pointing to some of our neighboring Towns.

Take Leesburg, for example.  Nice little town.  Presumably they have an honest government.  But — look up the Mayor of Leesburg, and you will find — OMG, SHE HAS PAC!!!!!

But, take Herndon — surely our sister city to the west is free of that type of nonsense.  Let’s check out their mayor.  OMG, SHE HAS A PAC TOO!!!!!

Yes, that’s more sarcasm.  The fact is, PACs are how Virginia tracks campaign finances.  If you want to run for office, and you are subject to the CFDA, you have to form a PAC.  And you have to report where every donation (in excess of $200) comes from, and report every expense..  And even if you are not running for office, but want to spend money by directly trying to influence an election (as opposed to just giving a candidate money), then you, too, must form a PAC to do so.  And you must report every donation over $200, and every expense.

Because that’s how it works in Virginia. Under the CFDA, anyone can give anyone any amount of money as a campaign contribution, for a state or local (i.e., non-Federal) election.  There are absolutely no limits.  The only hitch is, it must all be rigorously tracked and reported, subject to severe penalties for mis-reporting.  And for those who independently seek to influence elections (“interest groups”), anything they publish has to note the name of the PAC of the interest group.  Once again, so that everybody knows where the money is coming from.

The reason we don’t have PACs in Vienna is that we’re not subject to the CFDA.  See the first part of this post.  And because of that — because  we’re not subject to it, and PACs are not required — nobody has the faintest real clue about sources and uses of campaign funds in Town elections.

I hope you get the drift here.  Anybody can give any amount to any state or local candidate in any Virginia election.  The only difference between Town of Vienna and other elections is that in the Town of Vienna, there’s no requirement to report any of that.

So, why did I form a PAC? The only real drawback of putting ourselves under the CFDA for Town elections, that I have seen mentioned, is that the requirement to form a PAC is burdensome.  I needed to know how burdensome it was, before I could make any sort of informed judgment. 

And my answer is, any fool can form a Virginia PAC.  And I’m proof of that.  It’s not burdensome.  The Commonwealth goes out of its way not to make it burdensome.  You don’t need a lawyer, you don’t need consultants.  All you have to do is go to the Virginia Department of Elections website and follow the directions.  Beyond a doubt, the hardest part of it was getting used to the logic of the Commonwealth’s COMET reporting system.

But I needed to know that, before I could write this post.  I needed to understand the burden issue before I could say, hey, I think we ought to put the Town under the Virginia CFDA.  Just for safety.  And now I know that PAC reporting burden is no big deal.  In fact, it’s easy enough that if the Town ever decides to put itself under the CFDA, I’ll volunteer to lead candidates through the process of forming a PAC.  It’s just not that hard.

All it takes is doing a little homework.

Post #271: This Wednesday, in Vienna: Talk to the Board of Supervisors candidates about schools and other issues.

Thanks to ViennaVotes (Shelley Ebert), this Wednesday (5/15/2019),  in the Vienna Community Center, from 6PM to about 9PM, you have the chance to meet the next Fairfax County Board of Supervisors member from the Hunter Mill District.  An invitation for this event is posted on this Facebook page.

All five Democratic candidates for County Board of Supervisors for the Hunter Mill district will be there.  Because Democrats dominate this seat, you should realize two things:

  1. One of these five people is likely to be your next representative on the County Board of Supervisors, and
  2. That’s likely to be determined in the June 11 Democratic primary, not in the general election.

There will probably be a Republican challenger to the Democratic candidate, but that challenger faces an uphill battle.  Democrats have held this seat in 11 of the past 13 elections.  Democrat Martha V. Pennino was the Board of Supervisors member from this district for 24 years prior to 1991.  In 1991, Republican Robert B. Dix Jr. narrowly defeated her, ran unopposed in 1995, and (after some scandals) was defeated by Democrat Catherine Hudgins in 1999.  Hudgins has held that seat since, winning by almost a 2-to-1 margin in 2003, and running unopposed in 2007, 2011, and 2015.

The Board of Supervisors controls a lot of things that directly affect qualify of life here in Fairfax County.  And, accordingly, this is likely to be a wide-ranging discussion.  So please understand, this is going to be about more than just (say) schools or taxes.  Development and growth have already come out as a key issues, particularly for the Reston area.  There, a proposal to increase allowable housing density was recently suspended.

This is advertised as an “informal debate”.  From 6:30 to 8:30, candidates will answer a series of questions about how they would treat Vienna if they were the next Board of Supervisors member.  In addition, some candidates will be present for a half-hour before (6 PM) and after (9 PM) to talk to Vienna citizens.  You won’t be able to ask questions during the debate portion of the event, but you should have the opportunity to talk to the candidates. Continue reading Post #271: This Wednesday, in Vienna: Talk to the Board of Supervisors candidates about schools and other issues.

Post #269: The 5/8/2019 Planning Commission meeting

This is a brief review of the 5/8/2019 Planning Commission meeting.

There were two items on the agenda:  Bear Branch Tavern — a new 250-seat restaurant planned for the first floor of 133 Maple Avenue East (tan office building next to the W&OD trail), and the proposed Sunrise assisted living facility at Maple and Center.

You can find my audio file at this Google Drive location (look for “2019-05-08 …”).  The Town’s sound system was acting oddly during most of the meeting so I am not sure how intelligible the recording is.  There is no separate index for this recording, but it starts at roughly 8 PM, and I note the times in my writeup here.  E.g., something that occurred at 9 PM will show up about one hour into the recording. Continue reading Post #269: The 5/8/2019 Planning Commission meeting

Post #268: HAWK light timing issue, fixed

In two earlier posts (Post #260, Post #225) I raised an issue about the timing of the new High-Intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) lights in Vienna.  These are the new lights located on Maple at Pleasant Street and at James Madison Drive.  Their purpose is to allow pedestrians to cross Maple safely at those locations.

The issue is the timing of the “walk” signal.  I thought there needed to be a longer delay between the red light, and the walk signal.  See the posts cited above if you want the full story.

This is not an issue.  I used the Pleasant Street HAWK light earlier this week, and there is a roughly 2.5 second delay between the red light and the walk signal.  So either I hallucinated the problem, or the Vienna Department of Public Works (DPW) already fixed it.  For purposes of this post, I’ll assume that I am sane and that DPW did, in fact, change it that fast.

A little more about HAWK lights follows — because I literally had to look it up to understand how you are supposed to deal with them.  The key point is that you should treat the flashing red lights like a stop sign.

Continue reading Post #268: HAWK light timing issue, fixed

Post #267: Note a slight change of plans: I’m going to take back your “Small Town Vienna” sign. Please.

Today — the day after the election — starts the period when all the candidates are supposed to go out and pick up their signs.  I am going to start picking up the surviving green “Support Small Town Vienna” signs.

You can keep your sign if you want to, but you’ll have to tell me you want to keep it. I (purposefully) allowed people to get signs anonymously, and I did not ask for an email address.  I have email addresses for some people who got signs, and I will be emailing them shortly.  Otherwise, if you want to KEEP your sign, please enter your name and address in the form below, to let me know that you want to KEEP your sign.

Change of plan.  The sign-pick-up crews are already out.  They’ll probably get your sign.  Let them, and if you sign in below, I’ll bring you back another sign, with new metal legs on.

I WANT TO KEEP MY SIGN!

And if I take your sign, and it turns out that you wanted to keep it, just email me here (savemaple.org@gmail.com) and I will return a sign to you, complete with new metal legs.

Continue reading Post #267: Note a slight change of plans: I’m going to take back your “Small Town Vienna” sign. Please.