Author: Peter Rousselot

Peter’s Take: What Virginia Should Do About Guns

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

Background

In its recent front-page editorial about the mass shooting in San Bernardino, California, the NY Times editorial Board stated:

[M]otives do not matter to the dead in California, nor did they in Colorado, Oregon, South Carolina, Virginia, Connecticut and far too many other places. The attention and anger of Americans should also be directed at the elected leaders whose job is to keep us safe but who place a higher premium on the money and political power of an industry dedicated to profiting from the unfettered spread of ever more powerful firearms…It is not necessary to debate the peculiar wording of the Second Amendment. No right is unlimited and immune from reasonable regulation.

There are reasonable regulations — consistent with the Second Amendment right to bear arms — that Virginia can and should adopt to reduce gun deaths.

Discussion

If a particular gun control proposal is consistent with the Second Amendment and is shown to be likely to prevent multiple future fatalities, it doesn’t matter whether it would have prevented other fatalities. The life saved could be yours.

For example, Virginia can and should close the so-called “gun show loophole.” This loophole should be closed because, under current Virginia law, background checks that are required to be performed on people who seek to buy guns at Virginia gun stores are NOT required to be performed on people who buy guns at Virginia gun shows.

All members of the Virginia House of Delegates representing Arlington — Patrick Hope, Alfonso Lopez, Rip Sullivan, and Mark Levine — support Virginia legislation to close this loophole. An online petition supporting closing this loophole now has over 30,000 (!) signatures.

Another significant set of gun control laws that Virginia can and should enact would tighten the criteria governing access to guns by people with documented severe mental or emotional problems. A report from the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence determined that of 109 domestic homicides in Virginia last year, 64 were committed with guns.

The group recommended state-level legislation, which [Governor] McAuliffe has backed, that would prohibit gun possession by anyone under a protective order or those convicted of misdemeanors related to domestic violence.

Conclusion

Even Justice Scalia has acknowledged that:

Nothing in our opinion [about Second Amendment protections] should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings…

All we need in Virginia is for our legislators to have the courage to legislate within the constitutional boundaries that the U.S. Supreme Court has provided to them.

Peter’s Take: Stratford — Honor History, But No ‘Historic Designation’

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com. 

As the Washington Post reported on Nov. 25, the Arlington School Board is “moving toward a compromise” under which the historic desegregation events at the Stratford school site on Vacation Lane would be honored. However, under the compromise, the school building itself would not receive a formal “local historic designation” as demanded by the Historic Affairs and Landmark Review Board (HALRB).

This is the type of compromise the School Board should have reached much sooner.

Background

According to the Post story:

The School Board last week adopted a plan for an addition that leaves intact the façade of the building and that satisfies some of the requirements of historic designation. The planned remodel will cost between $31 million and $36 million, according to preliminary estimates, and will add 35,000 square feet of space to the school. And the board set aside $250,000 for commemorative artwork and educational displays to ensure the community knows the history of the building. School Board members said the money might also be used to enhance what is taught in the classroom about Arlington’s history of desegregation.

The vote on this proposal was 3-2 (Van Doren, Lander, and Violand-Sanchez voting for; Kanninen and Raphael voting against).

The final School Board vote on whether to grant formal local-historic-designation status to the current building is now scheduled for Dec. 8.

Discussion

This most recent Stratford compromise plan, while certainly not the only compromise that might be appropriate, does contain the two critical elements that should be present in any compromise:

  1. Honor the historic desegregation events that took place at this site, but
  2. Do NOT formally designate the current building as a “local historic site,” thereby triggering all the review and approval requirements for subsequent changes to the building that would flow from such a formal local historic designation.

As I have written recently, our community is confronted with a set of serious challenges to build new schools, fire stations, and other public facilities without clear priorities to fit the cost of all these new facilities within a budget we can afford. The School Board is absolutely correct to be concerned about unnecessarily adding to this cost at the current Stratford school site:

Such a [formal local historic] designation could hamper school officials’ efforts both at the proposed $30-plus-million renovation, but also would add hurdles for any future exterior changes to the school.

Conclusion

In light of the complexity and cost of all the new construction issues APS has to confront throughout the County, the School Board quickly should wrap this one up by voting NO on local historic designation for Stratford.

Peter’s Take: Community Facilities Study — Where Should We Go From Here?

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com. 

A soon as possible after it takes office on Jan. 1, the new County Board needs to make a series of important decisions regarding recommendations in the final report submitted by the Community Facilities Study Group (CFSG). As explained below, these decisions involve both substance and process.

Background

The CFSG highlighted five pressing community challenges:

  • A scarcity of land for public facilities — Just 2.2 square miles of Arlington’s 26 square miles are public land owned by the County or APS. That public land is needed for schools, fire stations, community centers, storage and maintenance facilities and more.
  • Changing demographics — Arlington’s population is projected to grow from 216,700 today to 283,000 in 2040. School enrollment is expected to exceed 30,000 students by 2024.
  • A threatened commercial tax base — A shrinking federal presence, shifts in the way businesses use office space, and a competitive regional market have combined to push office vacancy rates to a historic high in Arlington.
  • Strategic facility planning and priority setting — The County needs a clear and open structure for setting priorities among competing needs.
  • Revamping the community dialogue — To reach all members of our community, Arlington needs to make participation easier, earlier, and more meaningful.

In accepting the CFSG report, the current County and School Boards directed their staffs to present initial responses no later than Feb. 2016, followed by community feedback and formal staff recommendations due by Sept. 2016. Under the current schedule, both Boards then are supposed to “reconvene” with the CFSG by the end of 2016.

Discussion

One of the most important issues the new County Board needs to address ASAP is the conflict between the current schedule to review the CFSG report and the traditional schedule to adopt Arlington’s next 10-year capital improvement plan (CIP). Under past practice, the next CIP is due for adoption in summer 2016.

But, the current County Board has just approved a timetable for review of the CFSG report that strongly suggests that the new County Board will not be ready to address the last two of the five pressing community challenges identified by the CFSG — priorities and transparency — until well after the new County Board actually has adopted the next CIP.

It is incongruous that the new County Board actually would make major decisions regarding what is likely to be a $3 billion, 10-year capital improvement plan without first agreeing upon and then utilizing, the types of priorities recommended by the CFSG.

Conclusion

To enable setting priorities, the new County Board should design a transparent 2016 CIP process that mandates:

  • financial modeling of appropriate alternative development scenarios, and
  • alternative capital cost assumptions for individual major capital projects.

Peter’s Take: Reform County Board’s Fiscal Year Close-Out Process

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

Early in 2016, the new County Board should overhaul the seriously-flawed process the current County Board uses to allocate any surplus funds left over at the close of the County’s fiscal year.

Background

Both the County Board and the School Board have fiscal years that end on June 30. Each Board is required, by law, to adopt a balanced budget. In many years, the County Board has closed its fiscal year with substantial surpluses. Since the School Board receives the lion’s share of its revenues from the County Board, the School Board receives a pro-rata share of any such locally-generated surpluses.

However, each Board currently has very different processes for deciding what to do with such surpluses. The School Board’s approach is far superior to the County Board’s approach.

Discussion

At its Nov. 19 meeting, the County Board is scheduled to vote to allocate tens of millions of dollars in prior fiscal year surplus funds. The County Board has scheduled that vote based on a proposed allocation contained in a staff report not posted on the County website when this column was submitted to ARLnow.com. This is exactly the same process the County Board has followed for years. You can review last year’s County staff report’s recommendations regarding how to allocate prior fiscal year surplus funds here.

Many activists believe that the County overestimates expenses and underestimates revenues in the operating budget it adopts each spring. They claim the County does this deliberately so that during the following fall’s fiscal year close-out, the County can eliminate a public review of its close-out recommendations comparable to the public review the budget receives in the spring. County staff counters indignantly that any such suggestions are false because the County’s spring budgeting approach simply demonstrates prudent financial planning for which the staff should be praised.

It isn’t necessary to resolve this heated annual debate over motive because there is a far better process available to guard against the possibility that the activists are correct.

The School Board first receives, posts on its website, and discusses in a public meeting its staff’s recommendations regarding how to allocate any surplus funds. But, the School Board does not vote on its staff’s proposal until the following month. This much fairer and more transparent process allows the School Board to:

  • discuss the initial APS staff recommendations at a public meeting,
  • receive a public report from the APS Budget Advisory Committee, and
  • wait a month to get further input from the general public, before finally
  • adopting the final allocation of any APS surplus funds.

Conclusion

The new County Board should adopt the School Board’s close-out process.

Peter’s Take: What Do A Poop Fence And An APS Trailer Have In Common?

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

A poop fence and an APS trailer both represent choices that our local governing bodies have made in the past. We can do much better in the future.

Background

In October, ARLnow.com posted a story about the completion of a public art installation on a sewage treatment plant fence. The County Board properly was ridiculed.

In September, ARLnow.com posted a story warning that more trailers were coming to certain schools. Most Arlington parents agree this is a bad idea.

Will the new County and School Boards continue to make choices like these?

Discussion

I believe the new Boards must make smarter choices. The new Boards must deny certain constituencies funding to which they aspire in order to provide more funding to other priorities that have greater community support.

The current County Board has dodged certain critical issues such as developer proffers for school construction. While Fairfax and Loudoun require such education proffers, our current County Board continues to claim that Arlington lacks the legal authority to require them. I say: prove it, then get it.

The new County Board should direct the County Attorney to publish a legal opinion explaining why he claims Arlington lacks the authority. After other lawyers examine the County Attorney’s opinion, if there is a consensus that Arlington indeed does lack such authority, the new County Board expeditiously should direct our Richmond legislative delegation to get that authority. Arlington needs a level legal playing field to enable us to require developers to contribute to all different types of “community benefits.”

The new County Board should lead in organizing a transparent community conversation about our next capital and operating budgets. What priorities does our community assign to using either developer proffers or general obligation bond financing for:

  • education?
  • open space acquisition?
  • affordable housing?
  • public art?
  • other?

We need to develop such priorities to direct both our tax dollars and developer contributions.

At the same time, the new School Board should lead a transparent community conversation regarding new and innovative ways to cut the cost of construction of new schools and additions.

New modular school construction technologies are much:

  • cheaper,
  • greener, and
  • faster

than the current school design and construction approach to which APS staff stubbornly clings. Cheaper new classrooms = fewer trailers.

Examples of modular construction that APS should investigate include:

Conclusion

We need to prioritize spending on core services, not on “totally redefining the traditional role of a fence.” We need more regular classrooms much faster.

Peter’s Take: Vote For Both Cristol And Dorsey For County Board

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

Arlington faces competing demands for investment in schools, parks, housing and economic development. It is essential that our County Board members have a record of accomplishment, a demonstrated willingness to exercise independence, and the ability to bring people together to move Arlington forward. That’s why I am strongly supporting both Katie Cristol and Christian Dorsey for election to the County Board.

Both candidates support reforming the way our participation process works to make it more accessible and more representative for all Arlingtonians, and have voiced support for the “72-hour rule” for public posting of Board documents.

Katie Cristol will draw on her background working with resource-constrained localities across the country to bring a comparative perspective to Arlington’s challenges. As an education policy advisor, Katie has experience asking tough questions about efficiency: is a dollar spent on a program more effective than a dollar spent elsewhere.

Katie also has proposed more accessible avenues for community input, like open houses in parks, so that residents unable to participate in lengthy meetings still can share their thoughts. Katie’s professional experience with community engagement, which is vital for utilizing the knowledge of Arlington’s many well-informed residents, will make her a thoughtful steward of Arlington’s resources. Rather than seeking to join or represent a particular faction on the County Board, Katie offers an alternative: fiscal responsibility and responsiveness paired with progressive values. To learn more, please visit Katie’s website.

Christian Dorsey’s career has centered on promoting broadly-shared prosperity for communities across the country. This requires critical thinking about budget priorities. That type of thinking, along with his commitment to open, responsive, and inclusive County government, is why Christian has been endorsed by all five members of the County Board.

Christian also embraces the idea that progressive values are, in fact, compatible with fiscal prudence. That’s why, even as a resident living near Columbia Pike, Christian was a voice of thoughtful opposition to the streetcar. Not because he opposes investments in transit and infrastructure, but because Christian wants to ensure those investments make sense and produce optimal outcomes. As a macroeconomist, an APS parent, an appointee to the Planning and Tenant-Landlord Commissions, and a civic activist who has served our community for over two decades, Christian Dorsey will be ready to lead on day one. To learn more, please visit Christian’s website.

Conclusion

Registered voters in Arlington are entitled to cast two votes for the open seats on the County Board. The best way to ensure your say in how our County is governed is to cast both votes, and Katie Cristol and Christian Dorsey are clearly the best choices.

Peter’s Take: Don’t Extend Parking Meter Hours

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

Twice this year (in May and again this month), the County Board scheduled, but then postponed, a vote on a County staff recommendation to extend parking meter hours from 6-8 p.m.. The Board should just say NO.

Background

In support of its recommendation to extend the hours from 6 to 8, County staff stated:

Use of curbside space by long-term parkers after 6 p.m. limits the number of spaces available for short-term parkers. This limitation has a negative impact on adjacent commercial businesses that are generally dependent on convenient curbside parking … The proposed changes in … hours of operation would help achieve the goals adopted in the Parking Element of the Master Transportation Plan…

The Parking Element is a 31-page, single-spaced document adopted in November 2009. This document proposes an explanation why, in theory, at certain times of the day, parking meters and their fees can play an important role in fostering the health of adjacent businesses.

Discussion

The Arlington businesses whose health properly is the concern of the staff’s recommendation are strongly OPPOSED to the staff’s recommendation. In a Sept. 24, 2015 letter to the County Board, the Arlington Chamber of Commerce had this to say:

The Chamber recently reached out to our retail and restaurant members regarding the proposed parking meter hour changes …The feedback we received was unanimously in opposition to the extension of parking meter hours…The Arlington Chamber represents 700 businesses with an interest in Arlington County. We appreciate the planning theory that increasing parking meters and hours can in fact lead to more parking spaces and thus more people willing to drive to an area to frequent businesses. However, our members … do not believe that the proposed changes will produce the intended result.

The Crystal City BID wrote a Sept. 25, 2015 letter to the Board, similarly requesting that the two-hour extension be denied:

Despite Arlington’s success in transit-oriented development, retail and restaurant businesses still rely heavily on patronage by customers who drive. With other emerging centers of activity in Tysons, Mosaic District, National Harbor and many more, additional consideration must be given to ensure that the County is not driving people, potential customers, and tax dollars away with ill-timed and burdensome policies.

Conclusion

Without extending hours, ideas worthy of discussion with stakeholders include:

  • smart phone aps that would inform drivers of availability in nearby parking garages and potentially curbside spaces as well,
  • surge pricing technology where meter rates could be calibrated up or down to demand,
  • special parking-garage rates for restaurant service workers, many of whom occupy curb space that businesses with scarce parking would prefer be left to customers.

Peter’s Take: Protecting Arlington From Changes To I-66 Commuter Rules

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

Starting in summer 2015, the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has been holding a series of public meetings on VDOT’s proposal to impose tolls during rush hour on I-66. VDOT’s proposal has generated substantial support from smart growth advocates. They argue that this proposal is far preferable to the status quo.

However, on Oct. 1, Virginia Republican legislative leaders held a press conference to condemn VDOT’s proposal:

Calling the proposal “outrageously expensive” for commuters, [Virginia House Speaker William J.] Howell … called on the governor to trash the idea and launch a plan that includes promptly adding new lanes to the heavily congested highway.

Of course, “adding new lanes” presumably includes adding them to the portion of I-66 inside Arlington’s borders far sooner than such lanes would be added under VDOT’s proposal.

Regardless of the conceptual merits of VDOT’s proposal, the Virginia Republican legislative proposal, or any other proposal, critical details regarding the costs and benefits are missing from all of these alternative proposals. The Arlington County Board should NOT vote to approve any proposal (including VDOT’s proposal) until all critical details are supplied. Arlington residents also need a reasonable amount of time to examine and comment upon those details before any Board vote.

Among the critical details needed to evaluate the Arlington impacts of any proposal (including VDOT’s) are:

  • numerical estimates of the traffic flowing on I-66 that will be diverted to major alternative routes (e.g., Lee Hwy., Washington Blvd., Route 50),
  • specific infrastructure improvements necessary to accommodate the diverted traffic,
  • how much each infrastructure improvement will cost,
  • who will pay those costs, and
  • what other Arlington neighborhood impacts will be incurred.

At this writing, none of this information has been supplied to nor vetted by Arlington residents.

Any estimates of diverted traffic (and all the improvements and costs attributable to that diverted traffic) will contain a high degree of risk. Such estimates depend on very subjective judgments regarding how many commuters will stop driving alone and choose to carpool instead, or choose some other transit option. Who bears the risk and pays the cost if these subjective estimates are substantially wrong?

If the VDOT toll proposal survives the Republican vow to kill it, Arlington should insist upon a toll exemption for all intra-Arlington trips on I-66. Arlington residents with vehicles registered to an Arlington County home address should be permitted to travel during rush hour on I-66 between any two exits from exit 68 to exit 75 without paying any toll.

Conclusion

The County Board should lead transparently on all these issues. The issues are complicated. There’s no need to rush to judgment.

Peter’s Take: Is Airbnb Legal In Arlington?

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

Is Airbnb legal in Arlington? It’s hard to tell, and that’s a problem.

Airbnb certainly is doing business in Arlington. Airbnb’s website currently boasts 300+ Arlington rentals, including:

  • a “cozy Ballston 1bd” @ $45 per night,
  • a $350 per night “huge 3bd” one block from Metro, and
  • hundreds more all over Arlington.

At the same time as it promotes these listings, Airbnb is passing the buck of regulatory and tax compliance to Arlington property owners via a “help center” on the Airbnb website:

When deciding whether to become an Airbnb host, it is important for you to understand the laws in your county. As a platform and marketplace we do not provide legal advice, but we want to give you some useful links that may help you better understand laws and regulations in Arlington County.

The website then lists some of the laws and regulations that might apply to Arlington property owners who use Airbnb’s services:

  • zoning ordinance
  • building code
  • short-term rental building registration and record-keeping
  • transient occupancy tax
  • other rules (like those set by condo boards, home owners associations, etc.)

Finally, this Airbnb website urges property owners to contact Arlington’s Department of Community Planning, Housing and Development (CPHD) or other county agencies or to “consult a local lawyer or tax professional.”

Airbnb nowhere mentions the laws or regulations that might apply to Airbnb itself.

Where have we seen this movie before? Although there are differences, the name Uber comes to mind. Last year, we began the Uber conversation when some argued that Uber was operating taxis illegally in Arlington. This year, some are arguing that Airbnb is operating hotels illegally in Arlington.

As was the case with Uber, in a Dillon Rule state like Virginia, the appropriate regulatory framework for a service like Airbnb must first be established at the state level not the local level. The need for the state to act now is underscored by the fact that the legality of Airbnb’s operations already has been questioned in:

Conclusion

Right now, Arlington County should NOT go down the path of cities like Richmond, Charlottesville and Roanoke by spending time and energy looking for strictly local ways to regulate and tax Airbnb or its participating property owners. Instead, Arlington first should focus on seeking a fair and uniform state-wide regulatory framework for Airbnb and entities like it.

A Virginia state-wide solution ultimately might lead to an agreement by Airbnb and similar entities to act as the tax collection agents for localities like Arlington. Airbnb already has worked out such deals in D.C., San Francisco and Portland, Oregon.

Peter’s Take: Rosslyn Food Truck Pilot Worth Trying

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

On Aug. 17, Arlington County launched a six-month food-truck-zone pilot program in Rosslyn:

The program — designed to create pedestrian-friendly food truck access for area workers and residents — sprang from discussions among food truck owners, local restaurateurs and County and [Rosslyn] Business Improvement District [BID] staff. Participation is voluntary, meaning food trucks can park in other areas of Rosslyn and the County, provided owners observe the parking rules for those streets.

Four Rosslyn pilot zones have been established:

  • On 19th Street N. just past N. Lynn Street
  • Along Wilson Blvd above N. Kent Street
  • At the intersection of N. Nash Street and Wilson Boulevard
  • On N. Pierce Street along Wilson Blvd

Food trucks can park for four hours rather than two in these zones.

Background

In developing this pilot, the County took a holistic view of curbside management, soliciting input from both food trucks and brick and mortar (B&M) establishments. In selecting the zones, the County and the BID pursued a consumer-centric approach. The goal: maximize public spaces, parking and infrastructure so that all retail establishments (B&M and trucks) are visible and easy to access.

Since the launch, the BID has continued proactively to communicate with and collect feedback from the community, food trucks and other stakeholders. The goal: to help inform how the zones might evolve. Most people in Rosslyn who were surveyed about the zones (through an online survey and by BID staff on the street) appreciate that N. Lynn Street is less congested. A majority of the respondents initially surveyed (68.75 percent) indicated they approve of the zones.

For the most part, those who do not approve of the zones would like to see the trucks return to N. Lynn Street. During the current Central Place construction, this is not feasible, but it may make sense for the trucks to return after construction ends in the first quarter of 2016.

Discussion

Any fair appraisal of this Rosslyn experiment must answer the question: compared to what?

Based upon the experience and feedback developed during this worthwhile pilot program, the County and the Rosslyn BID will be better positioned to answer critical questions about food trucks.

If some zones are better than no zones, the County and the BID must find a balance among:

  • expanding zones in size to allow each to hit a critical mass, while
  • complying with Arlington’s Vending Ordinance, and
  • trying to avoid empty or near-empty zones, and
  • deciding whether two or some other number of hours is the most appropriate incremental food-truck-parking benefit

If there continue to be advocates for no zones, the County and the BID must provide convincing reasons why some zones are better than none.

Peter’s Take: Reject Stratford Historic Designation Now

By Peter Rousselot

peter_rousselot_2014-12-27_for_facebookPeter’s Take is a weekly opinion column. The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ARLnow.com.

It’s time for the County Board to vote to reject historic designation for Stratford. The mere possibility that Stratford might receive such a designation is substantially hurting APS’ ability to design a new middle school to add desperately needed seats.

The current process–which relies on the false hope that a reasonable compromise can be reached between the Historic Affairs and Landmark Review Board (HALRB) and APS staff–already has proven that no such reasonable compromise will occur. Why prolong the agony?

(1) APS staff’s top priority is to design a school that makes sense – for programming, student circulation and overall school community. HALRB’s top priority, per its guidelines, is that there be minimal changes to the original building. These are two irreconcilable priorities.

(2) APS staff has announced publicly that its preference is the “link” design, which builds an atrium over the historic south building façade. During two work sessions (the Aug. 11 School Board work session and the Aug. 19 APS-HALRB work session), HALRB strongly criticized the “link” design. APS has proposed a wide variety of ways to honor Stratford’s desegregation history, but would definitely change the outward appearance of the building.  HALRB’s mission is to protect the history of the building by maintaining its appearance.  These are two irreconcilable historic preservation strategies.

(3) The idea of a compromise is clearly unrealistic. APS staff continues to present options partially to appease HALRB, but APS continues to promote the design APS believes works best for students. HALRB continues to throw up roadblocks, coming up with additional problems for each APS design. For instance, HALRB provided significant pushback to one of the APS “compromise” designs because the soccer field’s position relative to the school was changed by a matter of several yards. HALRB’s alternative solution basically eliminated a new parent drop-off plaza–an important safety enhancement. HALRB’s unwillingness to make even minimal changes to the outside view of the school is unreasonable. While some of APS’ own designs might prove to be too elaborate or expensive, that is a separate issue that can and should be addressed separately.

Conclusion

The County Board should vote now to reject historic designation for Stratford because it is clear that there will not be a reasonable compromise between two such diametrically opposed organizational missions as those of APS and HALRB.

The new Stratford Middle School should:

  • Incorporate design elements that sensitively and appropriately celebrate the historic desegregation events that took place at Stratford, BUT
  • Only celebrate them in a way which does NOT significantly add to the cost of the building nor otherwise restrict its use as a new middle school, as determined by APS not by HALRB.
View More Stories