Who says Arlington needs more people?
Regarding the July 8 front-page article “Homeowners sue over zoning changes”:The article about Arlington County’s “missing middle” litigation clearly outlines two critical issues in the case. Did the county analyze whether its sweeping Expanded Housing Options (EHO) ordinance was the best way to create more reasonably priced housing units? And did it analyze how building more multifamily dwellings would affect Arlington’s infrastructure? In my view, these impacts have the potential to be devastating.The Post is technically correct that multifamily units must be “almost” identical in design standards. But this focus on aesthetics misses an important point: These EHO projects are allowed to build on a larger percentage of a lot than the single-family houses they replace. For many years before this policy was proposed, civic associations, environmental groups and others in Arlington had been pressing the county to revisit its existing, overly generous, lot-coverage limits for single-family homes. Recognizing this concern, the County Board assured Arlingtonians in 2022 that lot coverage for these new developments would be at parity with those generous existing limits for single-family homes. Yet the county ultimately allowed developers of EHO projects to build on an additional 5 percent of the lots where the projects are sited, an exception available only to those few single-family homes that include detached rear garages.As the county’s interim EHO report confirms, those EHO developers not waiting for the outcome of the litigation have already taken full advantage of this extra 5 percent allowance in their designs. Their projects would destroy mature trees, exacerbating heat islands and other climate effects; pose more stormwater management challenges, which are already considerable given the increased frequency and severity of flash floods; result in the teardowns of smaller and less expensive homes; cast shade that makes it harder for surrounding homes to generate solar power; and disrupt the reasonable expectations of quiet enjoyment by neighbors identified in the article.The county board refused to consider proposals to defer Expanded Housing Options until it had finally addressed this lot-coverage problem. But it has only now directed staff to begin a study of how to address these concerns. How promptly the county proceeds will be critical, as developers continue to tear down so many of Arlington’s smaller homes week by week and the county allows even more generous lot coverage for EHOs to go forward.William R. Richardson Jr., ArlingtonThe writer is president of the Donaldson Run Civic Association.As I read the June 8 front-page article about Arlington residents feuding with their government, I looked for but couldn’t find the reason why the Arlington government feels obliged to cram more people into the city.Is there a law that stipulates Arlington city officials, whether elected or employed, must enable more housing? And without citizen approval? If so, then when is Arlington “full”? Surely, Arlington government officials realize that, just as they allow a defined number of people to occupy a space, be it a school room, cafe or stadium, there’s a limit to how many human beings, along with their cars and possessions, can fit into the boundaries constituting Arlington.Who’s in charge in Arlington anyway, the public or their public servants?I found the June 8 article about a lawsuit against Arlington’s Expanded Housing Options program hilarious. It seems that comfortable, liberal NIMBYs are so conflicted by their desire to support affordable housing as long as it’s built somewhere else, they need to turn their narrow private interests into broad public interests. It never fails: They will bring up concerns about schools, streets, sewers, children, gentrification, greedy developers, whether the housing will be affordable, and if all else fails, process and procedure. Come clean, “missing middle” opponents; you simply want to protect your slice of heaven. It’s okay, we all do! But at least be honest about it.Jeffrey Denny, WashingtonThe July 1 Metro article “New laws set to take effect” neglected a significant new law in Virginia: House Bill 1395, “Historic Preservation; filing of a historic district designation,” which I proposed with John Reeder, and which was diligently championed by Del. Patrick Hope in the face of four years of relentless opposition from Arlington County.This new law is necessary and important, as it will prevent the debacle that occurred in Arlington in 2021 with the destruction of the historic Febrey-Lothrop-Rouse estate on Wilson Boulevard. This unique antebellum mansion, numerous historic outbuildings and 9½ acres of open land were all approved for demolition by Arlington County, prior to the completion of an in-progress review for Local Historic District designation for the entire site, which was also in the county’s hands.The new law requires full completion of the entire Local Historic District review and approval process prior to the issuance of any demolition permit by the government entity involved. It is possible that adherence to this new law might soon be tested in Arlington, with the current pending Local Historical District review for the former Nelly Custis school site in South Arlington, which is at serious risk of being demolished.Preservation advocates such as myself will be watching closely, here and around the whole state of Virginia, for proper compliance with this historic new legislation.I was amused by the dark humor in the July 2 Metro article “Fairfax County schools to change grading policy.” Once you cut the educational jargon away, the change is just another illustration of how “what goes around comes around” in education.Fairfax school leaders have solemnly announced they are changing their grading system from a “traditional” method that takes into account “student behavior, participation, and study habits” to new models that “prioritize” student performance on projects, tests, homework and quizzes.In the 1940s and ’50s when I was passing through public schools, the traditional method of grading was based on student performance on tests, homework, quizzes, and projects. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? In fact, other than students back then having to demonstrate mastery in a more rigorous way than those under Fairfax’s new model, there is no difference.In the decades after the 1950s, educational “reformers” successfully converted grading into the present system based on student behavior, which at its worst made preserving a student’s self-esteem its goal rather than assuring they learned anything. Now, this present system is being replaced by the 1950s system posing as a new model.I will not be around to see it, but I would be willing to bet that, 20 years from now, after the model based on mastery of subject matter has become the “traditional” grading system again, it will be challenged by educational “reformers” wishing to replace it with a new grading model based on student behavior, participation and study habits.Roger Burkhart, GaithersburgRegarding the June 27 Metro article, “Va., Md. bicker over blue crab dredging”:Imagine it. Friends and family gathered around a table, picking blue crabs, rehashing the age-old argument about J.O. seasoning vs. Old Bay and teaching the youngest of the crowd how to extract the prized lump meat. This summer, this scene is likely to play out thousands of times across Virginia and Maryland, where the iconic blue crab is as much a part of the cultural fabric as it is the economy.Now, imagine a scenario in which the blue crab fishery, the watermen who fish them and crab-picking gatherings are a thing of the past. Because of last month’s decision by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, that tragedy could be our future.The VMRC recently voted to overturn a 15-year closure of Virginia’s blue crab winter dredge fishery, which operated historically from December through March. The ban went into effect in 2008 because of severe declines in blue crab numbers, linked to the overharvesting of female crabs — the key to population sustainability. The winter dredge fishery, because of where and when it operates, takes predominantly adult female crabs before they spawn in the spring. Estimates indicated that when the dredge fishery was operating, it harvested 34 percent of all adult female crabs in the bay each year, and along with them, the millions of juvenile crabs they would have produced if they had been left to spawn.Today, the outlook for the bay’s blue crab population is once again worrisome, with scientists racing to understand the latest challenges limiting crab reproduction and the impact of new threats such as blue catfish. A new stock assessment, which will produce a statistical model that estimates crab abundance and sustainable harvest rates, is currently underway. Yet the VMRC chose now to open the possibility of additional harvest, against the best available science, the advice of its own staff scientists and the conservation efforts of its neighboring jurisdictions.Crab lovers in both states are rightfully upset by this decision. The VMRC’s verdict is concerning, premature and not based on science. There is still time to convince the commission to walk back this unwise decision and not reopen the fishery this December. That’s exactly what we urge them to do.Emmett Hanger,Mount Solon Va.The writers are, respectively, former director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, president emeritus at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and a former Republican senator in the Virginia General Assembly.
Read more
Regarding the July 8 front-page article “Homeowners sue over zoning changes”:
The article about Arlington County’s “missing middle” litigation clearly outlines two critical issues in the case. Did the county analyze whether its sweeping Expanded Housing Options (EHO) ordinance was the best way to create more reasonably priced housing units? And did it analyze how building more multifamily dwellings would affect Arlington’s infrastructure? In my view, these impacts have the potential to be devastating.
The Post is technically correct that multifamily units must be “almost” identical in design standards. But this focus on aesthetics misses an important point: These EHO projects are allowed to build on a larger percentage of a lot than the single-family houses they replace. For many years before this policy was proposed, civic associations, environmental groups and others in Arlington had been pressing the county to revisit its existing, overly generous, lot-coverage limits for single-family homes. Recognizing this concern, the County Board assured Arlingtonians in 2022 that lot coverage for these new developments would be at parity with those generous existing limits for single-family homes. Yet the county ultimately allowed developers of EHO projects to build on an additional 5 percent of the lots where the projects are sited, an exception available only to those few single-family homes that include detached rear garages.
As the county’s interim EHO report confirms, those EHO developers not waiting for the outcome of the litigation have already taken full advantage of this extra 5 percent allowance in their designs. Their projects would destroy mature trees, exacerbating heat islands and other climate effects; pose more stormwater management challenges, which are already considerable given the increased frequency and severity of flash floods; result in the teardowns of smaller and less expensive homes; cast shade that makes it harder for surrounding homes to generate solar power; and disrupt the reasonable expectations of quiet enjoyment by neighbors identified in the article.
The county board refused to consider proposals to defer Expanded Housing Options until it had finally addressed this lot-coverage problem. But it has only now directed staff to begin a study of how to address these concerns. How promptly the county proceeds will be critical, as developers continue to tear down so many of Arlington’s smaller homes week by week and the county allows even more generous lot coverage for EHOs to go forward.
William R. Richardson Jr., Arlington
The writer is president of the Donaldson Run Civic Association.
As I read the June 8 front-page article about Arlington residents feuding with their government, I looked for but couldn’t find the reason why the Arlington government feels obliged to cram more people into the city.
Is there a law that stipulates Arlington city officials, whether elected or employed, must enable more housing? And without citizen approval? If so, then when is Arlington “full”? Surely, Arlington government officials realize that, just as they allow a defined number of people to occupy a space, be it a school room, cafe or stadium, there’s a limit to how many human beings, along with their cars and possessions, can fit into the boundaries constituting Arlington.
Who’s in charge in Arlington anyway, the public or their public servants?
I found the June 8 article about a lawsuit against Arlington’s Expanded Housing Options program hilarious. It seems that comfortable, liberal NIMBYs are so conflicted by their desire to support affordable housing as long as it’s built somewhere else, they need to turn their narrow private interests into broad public interests. It never fails: They will bring up concerns about schools, streets, sewers, children, gentrification, greedy developers, whether the housing will be affordable, and if all else fails, process and procedure. Come clean, “missing middle” opponents; you simply want to protect your slice of heaven. It’s okay, we all do! But at least be honest about it.
Jeffrey Denny, Washington
The July 1 Metro article “New laws set to take effect” neglected a significant new law in Virginia: House Bill 1395, “Historic Preservation; filing of a historic district designation,” which I proposed with John Reeder, and which was diligently championed by Del. Patrick Hope in the face of four years of relentless opposition from Arlington County.
This new law is necessary and important, as it will prevent the debacle that occurred in Arlington in 2021 with the destruction of the historic Febrey-Lothrop-Rouse estate on Wilson Boulevard. This unique antebellum mansion, numerous historic outbuildings and 9½ acres of open land were all approved for demolition by Arlington County, prior to the completion of an in-progress review for Local Historic District designation for the entire site, which was also in the county’s hands.
The new law requires full completion of the entire Local Historic District review and approval process prior to the issuance of any demolition permit by the government entity involved. It is possible that adherence to this new law might soon be tested in Arlington, with the current pending Local Historical District review for the former Nelly Custis school site in South Arlington, which is at serious risk of being demolished.
Preservation advocates such as myself will be watching closely, here and around the whole state of Virginia, for proper compliance with this historic new legislation.
I was amused by the dark humor in the July 2 Metro article “Fairfax County schools to change grading policy.” Once you cut the educational jargon away, the change is just another illustration of how “what goes around comes around” in education.
Fairfax school leaders have solemnly announced they are changing their grading system from a “traditional” method that takes into account “student behavior, participation, and study habits” to new models that “prioritize” student performance on projects, tests, homework and quizzes.
In the 1940s and ’50s when I was passing through public schools, the traditional method of grading was based on student performance on tests, homework, quizzes, and projects. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? In fact, other than students back then having to demonstrate mastery in a more rigorous way than those under Fairfax’s new model, there is no difference.
In the decades after the 1950s, educational “reformers” successfully converted grading into the present system based on student behavior, which at its worst made preserving a student’s self-esteem its goal rather than assuring they learned anything. Now, this present system is being replaced by the 1950s system posing as a new model.
I will not be around to see it, but I would be willing to bet that, 20 years from now, after the model based on mastery of subject matter has become the “traditional” grading system again, it will be challenged by educational “reformers” wishing to replace it with a new grading model based on student behavior, participation and study habits.
Roger Burkhart, Gaithersburg
Regarding the June 27 Metro article, “Va., Md. bicker over blue crab dredging”:
Imagine it. Friends and family gathered around a table, picking blue crabs, rehashing the age-old argument about J.O. seasoning vs. Old Bay and teaching the youngest of the crowd how to extract the prized lump meat. This summer, this scene is likely to play out thousands of times across Virginia and Maryland, where the iconic blue crab is as much a part of the cultural fabric as it is the economy.
Now, imagine a scenario in which the blue crab fishery, the watermen who fish them and crab-picking gatherings are a thing of the past. Because of last month’s decision by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, that tragedy could be our future.
The VMRC recently voted to overturn a 15-year closure of Virginia’s blue crab winter dredge fishery, which operated historically from December through March. The ban went into effect in 2008 because of severe declines in blue crab numbers, linked to the overharvesting of female crabs — the key to population sustainability. The winter dredge fishery, because of where and when it operates, takes predominantly adult female crabs before they spawn in the spring. Estimates indicated that when the dredge fishery was operating, it harvested 34 percent of all adult female crabs in the bay each year, and along with them, the millions of juvenile crabs they would have produced if they had been left to spawn.
Today, the outlook for the bay’s blue crab population is once again worrisome, with scientists racing to understand the latest challenges limiting crab reproduction and the impact of new threats such as blue catfish. A new stock assessment, which will produce a statistical model that estimates crab abundance and sustainable harvest rates, is currently underway. Yet the VMRC chose now to open the possibility of additional harvest, against the best available science, the advice of its own staff scientists and the conservation efforts of its neighboring jurisdictions.
Crab lovers in both states are rightfully upset by this decision. The VMRC’s verdict is concerning, premature and not based on science. There is still time to convince the commission to walk back this unwise decision and not reopen the fishery this December. That’s exactly what we urge them to do.
Emmett Hanger,Mount Solon Va.
The writers are, respectively, former director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, president emeritus at the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science and a former Republican senator in the Virginia General Assembly.