Peter’s Take

Peter’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.

In an article last week, ARLnow.com highlighted comments by the CEO of the Ballston Business Improvement District about the NSF departure. Tina Leone struck a note of reassurance:

Leone said the neighborhood is going to be just fine without a federal tenant [NSF] and its more than 2,000 employees, even though she said it will add about 1 percent to Arlington’s office vacancy rate … Leone said the reason for her optimism lies in the major development projects underway…

Ms. Leone is doing her job to promote Ballston. But from a long-term fiscal perspective, the “major development projects underway” do not justify her optimism.

New Ballston development projects are likely to be a fiscal net negative

As one commenter on last week’s Ballston story aptly summarized:

All of the new buildings in Ballston are residential or educational. The developers of approved (but unbuilt) commercial buildings in Ballston (including one in Liberty Center) are in the process of or have received approval of site plan amendments that permit them to construct residential buildings on their sites.

The long-term fiscal impact of each of these new, large Ballston residential buildings is likely to be a net negative for Arlington’s budget. The total costs of new school seats, parks, and all other public infrastructure required to serve the added residential population in each building are likely to exceed substantially the new tax revenues that each project and its new residents will generate.

Examples of studies elsewhere that document this likely net-negative outcome include:

• Counting the Costs of Growth (Albemarle County/Charlottesville)
• The Fiscal and Economic Impacts of Stafford County’s Proposed 2008 and 2010 Comprehensive Plans
• A Meta-Analysis of Cost of Community Service Studies (“We find clear support for the common perception that residential land uses tend to have ratios greater than one, while commercial/industrial and agricultural/open-space land uses tend to have ratios less than one.”)

Unlike its neighbors, Arlington fails to prepare short-term and long-term fiscal impact analyses of projects like those approved for Ballston

Neighboring jurisdictions like Fairfax and Loudoun counties use some form of project-specific fiscal impact assessments as part of their review processes. Even though these jurisdictions use a proffer system rather than a special exception/site-plan system, the benefits to policy-makers and the public of having project-specific fiscal impact assessments are common to all of us.

Falls Church City has utilized fiscal impact analyses for years, and has a detailed description of its model.

Caveats: Other jurisdictions’ models often don’t include capital costs or assess environmental impacts or quantify a value for natural space. A new branch of economics — environmental economics — provides new models that help to establish a monetary value for open space and the natural infrastructure.

Arlington should adopt project-specific fiscal impact statements

The Community Facilities Study Group’s (CFSG) Final Report  contained this Recommendation No. 12:

Add an economic and fiscal impact section to private development (special exception/site plan and Form Based Code) project staff reports to provide information on the costs (e.g. the projected service demands and other costs to the community) and benefits (e.g. the taxes and other economic benefits) likely to be generated by a proposed project.

Why hasn’t Arlington County adopted CFSG Recommendation No. 12?

Conclusion

Both short-term and long-term planning must include a fiscal component.

Arlington should adopt fiscal planning tools like those long-since used by its neighbors.

Peter’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.

In an article last week, ARLnow.com chronicled inspection delays plaguing the opening of the new BrickHaus beer garden.

Last week’s article cross-referenced a 2016 ARLnow story detailing complaints by former Virginia Del. Rob Krupicka. He vented about navigating Arlington’s permitting and inspection process to open a donut shop.

This spring, the permitting process for home remodeling was slammed in Arlington Magazine.

Discussion

I interviewed someone who recently opened a small professional services firm in Arlington.

I called this person’s attention to Krupicka’s experience. Was their own more recent experience similar? Answer: yes.

To recap, this is some of what Krupicka said:

• “Payments have to be made by mail or in person rather than online and for some things you can’t move forward without payment, so that means waiting in line in the planning office for hours.”
• “Planning, Zoning, Health, etc. don’t talk to each other and it appears they don’t understand where each other fits in the process. The process actually seems to assume the small business person will force that communication and coordination. …The big guys just hire lawyers. Small businesses should not have to.”
• “Many permits need to be applied for in person. You can’t just submit them online. … I have spent days waiting in the county offices. I have overheard a lot of very unhappy individuals and business people.”
• “There is an online system for some things, but … it was very cumbersome. I spent hours working with tech support to get it to work.”

Next, I asked my source to summarize their own experience:

• “There are often complaints of conflicting and differing interpretations of code requirements. For one business I know, they installed the door system according to their approved plans. The first inspector told them it wasn’t approvable, and that they had to replace it with an entirely different system. They made the substitution at great expense. The second inspector told them the re-worked door system was not approvable, and he would only accept the door system that matched their approved building permit plan set. The tenant then had to re-construct the door system for the third time.”
• “The inspectors use clip boards and then have to go back to the office and enter the data into a desktop. That doubles the effort that the inspectors have to make for each site. Arlington County needs to update from clipboards to a hand-held data management system.”
• “Technology updating could improve communication with customers/contractors. The data is then instantly reviewable by supervisors and those in other related departments with open permits dependent upon sequential and related inspections.”

Conclusion

Arlington correctly preaches that continually attracting small businesses is vital to our economic future. But, Arlington’s permitting and inspection practices badly undermine its sermons.

Arlington County is still trying to compete using paper in a digital world. Meanwhile, APS is giving iPads to every elementary school student in grades 2-5.

Legendary N.Y. Yankees Manager Casey Stengel proved himself a world-class baseball manager in the 1950’s. In 1962, Casey was hired as the manager to help launch the expansion N.Y. Mets. Expressing his frustration over the Mets’ team performance, Casey famously asked, “can’t anyone here play this game?”

When will someone be held accountable for the long-standing deficiencies in permitting and inspection? Why can’t Arlington County play this game?

Peter’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 ARLnow.com previously reported, Arlington County has posted a draft civic engagement action plan.

You should read the current two-page draft plan outline, and submit comments by September 13 using the comment form.

Discussion

Just last year, the County Manager created the new Office of Communication and Public Engagement. The office was created in the wake of multiple civic engagement fiascos (e.g. WRAPS process, Fire Station 8, Bluemont Park baseball field). Bryna Helfer was appointed an Assistant County Manager to lead the office.

Over the past four to six months, Bryna and her team have been actively meeting with community leaders to gather insights about how they viewed public engagement, particularly for capital projects. The team has held meetings with government planners, engineers, county leadership and County Board members.

The team believes four key themes emerged:

• Engagement Opportunities
• Communication Practice
• Diversity of Views and Participants
• Lack of Capacity

The resulting draft plan raises many issues, some mentioned, some not.

MENTIONED

Strategies for different projects and policies

The County plans to use the development of next year’s Capital Improvement Plan as a pilot to test improved strategies for civic engagement concerning new capital projects. This makes sense. However, there should be other distinct civic engagement models for other types of major county decisions (e.g., significant new policies, major capital maintenance, ranking among priorities based on overall budget constraints) — each with clear explanations for community engagement.

Predetermination

Staff must disclose up front all current assumptions and restrictions for all projects and policies. If necessary, neutral facilitators should be employed to conduct civic engagement. 

Accountability

Arlington’s civic associations, ranging from the many superbly-managed ones all the way to some non-existent ones, always will display a spectrum of effectiveness because these are volunteer groups. The county government, NOT civic associations, must assume primary responsibility and accountability for civic engagement with respect to taxpayer-funded projects and policies.

The County should maintain a separate, interactive webpage with all information, data, assumptions, civic engagement results (favor, oppose) and FAQs about the projects or policies subject to civic engagement.

Project and policy definitions

If the county only asks, “where shall we put the basketball court?”, and never asks, “do you want a basketball court?”, the county and its citizens are in serious trouble.

Weight of community opinions

The weight to be given community opinions depends on knowledgeable expertise. In siting a new school, a community’s opinion about whether to build “up or out” should be entitled to a lot more deference than whether a foundation can bear the weight load.

NOT MENTIONED

Limits of civic engagement

Even the best civic engagement practices cannot prevent fiascos caused by other factors such as:

• wrong policies
• lack of proper staff training
• needs changing
• lack of accountability

If the policy is wrong, change it. If staff lacks training, train them. If needs change, then processes need to be flexible. If staff members are never disciplined, transferred, nor fired for repeated mistakes, civic engagement cannot fix that fundamental management failure.

Conclusion

No outreach, survey, tool, process or plan is perfect. However, because Arlington properly relies so heavily on its numerous and talented citizen volunteers, the County must ensure that it is delivering the best possible opportunities for fair, transparent and inclusive civic engagement.

The May & June 2017 Friends of Aurora Highlands Park Newsletter contains excellent additional civic engagement suggestions.

Peter’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 July 11, Arlington posted a “Preliminary Draft” of its new Public Spaces Master Plan. This draft reflects considerable thought and effort. I encourage you to provide your comments by the newly-extended August 31 deadline.

The PSMP (p. 2) seeks to provide the foundation for:

a network of publicly- and privately-owned public spaces that connect the County‘s established neighborhoods and growing corridors to natural areas, protect valuable natural resources, provide opportunities for structured and casual recreation, and ensure access to the Potomac River, Four Mile Run, and their tributaries.

Today’s column discusses only a small number of issues raised by this 272-page draft.

Discussion

I have highlighted previously  the urgency of preserving and materially increasing Arlington’s inadequate park and recreation resources to address dramatically increasing demands from the projected county population growth of 63,000 people (29 percent) by 2040.

The PSMP core “Strategic Direction 1 – Public Spaces” seeks to “ensure equitable access to spaces for recreation, play and enjoying nature by adding and improving public spaces.”

These proposed changes can help reach this goal:

Counting “parkland” 

The PSMP states (p. 44): “Arlington has over 2000 acres of parkland, both County and non-County owned…”  However, without greater clarity as to what is being counted as “parkland” (e.g., possibly all APS facilities and “unusable” portions of the federally-owned GW Parkway are included), this global number appears inflated and misleading.

The relevant issue is the amount of additional parkland needed in Arlington to meet present and future demand.  See the “Population-Based Standards” chart (p. 90).

New “Public Space” 

Proposed “Action” 1.1 (p. 70) states: “Add at least 30 acres of new public space over the next 10 years.” Inclusion of this land acquisition goal is critical and has widespread community support.

However, “Natural Areas and Wildlife Habitats” ranked as the second highest outdoor need on the statistically valid 2015 Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment Survey, and county citizens are consistently calling for more natural green space: “We want natural grass, trees, and a place to relax.”

This goal should be clearly focused on the county acquiring more “green parkland” or it will be “fulfilled” in large part by more hardscape plazas and/or synthetic turf in our urban corridors.

The PSMP should also incorporate the three separate sub-categories of “natural lands”, “unstructured” (or “casual use”) areas, and “structured” areas, i.e. athletic fields and courts I previously recommended. This should also provide explicit prohibitions on any loss of natural lands and “casual use” areas.

New Land Acquisition Policy

While hopefully facilitating parkland acquisition, this policy needs revisions to avoid filtering out critical present and potential “natural lands” and “casual use” areas. Higher points must be awarded to such “natural lands” that don’t have “special features.” Criteria affording points to such “casual use” areas need to be added. Points should also be reallocated from existing plans where parcels may already have been developed to parcels with strong community support identified on an “ad hoc” basis.

Conclusion

The PSMP is a new step forward for Arlington’s park and recreation resources.  Although creative mechanisms to acquire more parkland are identified, our critical need for preserving and increasing our parkland — particularly our “green parkland” — can only be met with a strong commitment by the County Board in our budgets and CIPs for the foreseeable future.

Peter’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.

Last week, The Washington Post published a story about newly-imposed parking restrictions on a one-block, dead-end street in the Woodmont neighborhood.

After initially receiving a complaint from one street resident, county staff decided that parking on certain narrower portions of the street should be prohibited even for residents, per the article: “Deputy County Manager Carol Mitten said that the county does not seek out violations of its parking or zoning laws but that once a complaint is filed, it is obligated to respond.”

The Post story explained that the county’s decision to ban parking was based on “rules that allow the government to ban parking on streets narrower than 21 feet (24th Street N. is only 15 feet wide in places) and concerns about how fire department vehicles could quickly get in and out.”

Arlington County staff’s solution was worse than the problem

Once county staff received the original complaint, staff were obligated to “respond” by investigating, learning about all relevant facts and circumstances, and respectfully seeking to engage with all street residents (there were only 13 homeowners) regarding possible solutions.

One of those solutions could have been: take no action. The county’s “rules,” as quoted in The Post, are not mandatory. Even if they were, the county could change them. Justifiably, when residents of the block finally found out that “most of their curbside parking was about to disappear…they were outraged.”

Understanding the character of the neighborhood puts their outrage into context:

All of the houses on the block have at least one off-street parking space. Edwards and his wife, Vicki Edwards, 80, who has an artificial knee and artificial hip, share a steep private driveway with Joe Ruth and Sharon Rogers. When it rains or snows, however, both households prefer to park on the street, which gives them easy access to their front doors. “This is definitely limiting our goal of aging in place,” said Rogers, 75, who has helped organize the street’s resistance.

After the original complainant withdrew her complaint, all street residents opposed county staff’s solution.

The squeaky wheel shouldn’t always get the grease

There are too many instances in which County staff receive a complaint or a request from an individual citizen that at first blush suggests taking an action, but after careful investigation and consideration actually deserves a no-action response.

Another example is the Nelly Custis playground request I discussed in a column a few months ago. In the Nelly Custis situation, the county’s Department of Parks and Recreation initially decided to install a 3d playground in a .8-acre park located in the Aurora Highlands neighborhood.

That neighborhood already had two playgrounds within a little over one block. DPR made that initial decision at the request of a nearby day-care provider, but without taking into account the objections of many other neighbors who preferred to retain open green space at that location in their small park.

Conclusion

Even the intervention of a sympathetic County Board member, John Vihstadt, didn’t fundamentally alter the outcome in Woodmont: “‘It’s sometimes hard to fight city hall, even from the inside,’ he said.”

We need a new culture at city hall: first, do no harm. Why is the current culture so often oblivious? What happened to common sense?

Ms. Minton told one resident that staff’s solution couldn’t be changed because “this ship has sailed.” This ship should be returned to port.

Peter’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 close Redskins watcher says Virginia is the most likely site for a new Redskins stadium because team President Bruce Allen has “significant personal ties at the highest levels of the Virginia government,” and the amount of public financing for a new stadium will be the “single most important factor” in site selection.

Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe is “vigorously pursuing” the stadium. On July 27, McAulliffe renewed his lobbying of Redskins owner Dan Snyder:

“We’ve laid everything out and served it up beautifully,” McAuliffe said …. McAuliffe pivoted to the latest method of financing massive NFL projects in which a stadium is part of a vast retail, shopping and hotel complex, by relying on development funds (in addition to considerable tax breaks) to foot the bill….

Football stadiums do not spur significant economic growth

The evidence is overwhelming that subsidizing the construction of a new Redskins stadium will never be in the best interests of Virginia taxpayers:

Roger Noll, an economist who studies sports-stadium subsidies at Stanford University, says he has never witnessed the construction of a football stadium that has had a significant positive impact on the local economy.

Direct costs far outweigh the benefits

A very extensive study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City found that a typical stadium costs taxpayers more than four times more than any long-term benefits from jobs and tax revenues:

Proponents of using public funds to finance stadium construction argue that the benefits from increased economic activity and increased tax revenue collection exceed the public outlays. But independent economic studies universally find such benefits to be much smaller than claimed.

Opportunity costs further tilt the balance against taxpayer funding

The costs of a new Virginia stadium for the Redskins are even higher when you factor in the opportunity costs. Virginia tax dollars spent on such a stadium are tax dollars that could have been spent to:

• fund Virginia’s state share of a new dedicated funding stream for Metro
• redress some of the many remaining critical deficiencies in Virginia’s mental health facilities
• help bring high-speed broadband to rural areas of Virginia that currently lack it
• expand Virginia’s Medicaid program

These are only four of hundreds of more deserving needs.

Dan Snyder doesn’t need the money

Redskins owner Dan Snyder is a billionaire who doesn’t need a public hand out. Any Virginia tax dollars for a new Redskins stadium will go directly into Dan Snyder’s pockets.

A 2003 study by a member of the University of Texas economics department documented that a new stadium increases:

• team profits by an average of $13 million annually
• payroll salaries by $14 million annually
• team book value by $90 million

All these numbers are likely to be much higher in 2017.

Conclusion

I admire McAuliffe for his tireless work to promote economic development in Virginia. But, Virginia should not offer to give Dan Snyder either “development funds” or “considerable tax breaks.”

Nothing related to the stadium should be subsidized by Virginia taxpayers. Dan Snyder should arrange 100% private financing. Under these conditions, Snyder could build his stadium in Virginia if he could find a welcoming local government.

Seattle Seahawks all-star cornerback Richard Sherman gets it: “I’d stop spending billions of taxpayer dollars on stadiums…and maybe make the billionaires who actually benefit from the stadiums pay for them.”

Peter’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.

In April, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments released a report recommending a new 1 percent regional sales tax for Metro as the best way to generate a dedicated source of funding:

A 1 percent sales tax in Metro’s eight city and county jurisdictions would provide the transit system with adequate revenue to cover its most urgent infrastructure and maintenance costs over the next decade, according to a new analysis …

On July 20, the Loudoun County Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution opposing this COG recommendation: “Supervisors argued the proposed regional sales tax was not fair to a county like Loudoun that will only gain about three miles of track.”

Metro needs dedicated funding

Dedicated funding is money that is not subject to an appropriations process.

Most other metropolitan transit systems in America have a dedicated revenue stream to supplement the contributions of local governments. Our Metro system doesn’t have one:

“Instead, Metro relies on a patchwork of annual subsidies from local governments. In effect, Metro competes yearly against myriad other public spending priorities, its operating budget consistently facing some level of appropriations risk.”

Arlington will pay more for Metro without dedicated funding

Metro will continue to deteriorate without dedicated funding, and will eventually go into a death spiral. Arlington and the entire region which depends on Metro cannot allow that to happen. The longer the region drags its feet, the financial burdens on Arlington to keep Metro afloat will put greater and greater pressure on our local budget — leading inexorably to:

• higher local property tax bills
• crowding out of other critical local budget priorities
• a combination of both of the above

Metro dedicated funding should be conditioned on bipartisan reform

As I have written previously, a dedicated funding source for Metro should be tied to a bipartisan, regional Metro reform plan that will maximize the chances that both the new and the existing funding for Metro will be spent wisely.

Dedicated funding source need not be identical in every jurisdiction

As originally proposed, COG’s 1 percent sales tax envisioned a uniform new tax in every participating jurisdiction. But, that kind of uniformity is not the only possible outcome. It’s on this point that Arlington County Board member Christian Dorsey has demonstrated leadership. While Dorsey is Arlington’s representative on the Metro Board of Directors, Arlington’s Metro representative no longer is a voting representative.

When Loudoun’s opposition to the 1 percent sales tax first surfaced, Dorsey took the lead in proposing options, while emphasizing the responsibility of each jurisdiction to participate equitably in a regional solution:

“I’m not an apollite that says we gotta all do the same thing, but don’t use this as an opportunity to shirk your responsibility to participate equitably, and if that means something different out in Loudoun than in Arlington, it wouldn’t be the first time, and that would be OK.”

Dorsey noted that some of his constituents were for a regional sales tax that “wouldn’t disproportionately harm one sector of the taxpaying community,” while others preferred a meals tax that would concentrate on development around the Metro stations. 

Conclusion

It’s challenging to find a way to get to yes on a bipartisan regional proposal for dedicated Metro funding. Thanks to Christian Dorsey for his leadership in carefully exploring various alternative ways to get there.

Peter’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.

Last Thursday, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) unveiled the latest Trumpcare bill. There aren’t enough Republican Senators who support this latest version. McConnell has now scheduled a vote on outright repeal of Obamacare for “early next week.”

Drastic Virginia Medicaid cuts

The most remarkably bad thing about Trumpcare is its persistent focus on drastically cutting Medicaid benefits. The per-capita caps would cost Virginia’s Medicaid program at least $1.4 billion over seven years.

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) previously blasted these cuts:

Virginia historically has run one of the leanest Medicaid programs in the country…. But as a result of the steep cuts to Medicaid in Trumpcare, Virginia would be forced to pick up an additional $900 million in costs for Medicaid over the next ten years in order to maintain the same level of care.

Virginia Republican legislative leaders already are on record condemning these cuts: “Proposals to impose per-capita caps on federal Medicaid spending would put Virginia at a severe disadvantage.”

U.S. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) aptly summarized what’s wrong with her Senate leadership’s approach:

We should not be making fundamental changes in a vital safety net program that’s been on the books for 50 years, the Medicaid program, without having a single hearing to evaluate what the consequences are going to be.

Virginia children disproportionately harmed

The proposed Medicaid cuts would particularly harm Virginia’s children:

The bill would have a disproportionate effect on children, who make up about 60 percent of Medicaid enrollment in Virginia. During the 2014-15 school year, the most recent year for which data is available, Virginia school districts received $33 million in Medicaid reimbursements.

Virginians with pre-existing conditions lose coverage

The latest Trumpcare bill contains a new provision (the so-called Cruz amendment) that major health insurance companies say is “simply unworkable.” It would deny coverage for pre-existing conditions and de-stabilize insurance marketplaces in Virginia and across the nation:

The protections for preexisting conditions are gone. The GOP vision is of health markets where the very sick can buy unaffordable Obamacare-compliant plans that are, maybe, made affordable by subsidies, but most people are back in an insurance market where past allergies or future pregnancy or a history of knee problems will leave you basically uninsurable.

Conclusion

Republicans and Democrats remain divided over their contrasting degrees of respect for the principle of mutual obligation:

If [Trumpcare] passed, the Republican reform would eventually return the country to a system a lot like the one in place before the A.C.A., when older people, sick people, and the working poor struggled to find coverage–or went without.

Supporters of Trumpcare claim it would enable everyone to have access to affordable healthcare. But, the truth is that only those wealthy enough to pay would have access to meaningful healthcare.

Repeal of Obamacare without a replacement would be even worse. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that repeal would cause the number of uninsured people to rise by 18 million next year and by 32 million by 2026.

Both approaches are bad.

U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) has issued a call for a fresh, bipartisan start for healthcare reform. He’s right.

Responsible Republicans and Democrats now should join together to hold open and thoughtful public hearings to fix those parts of Obamacare that need fixing.

Peter’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.

In last week’s column, I noted that Arlington residents are increasingly concerned about the challenges of future growth and development.

I suggested that the Arlington County and School Boards should do some long-term strategic thinking about aspects of our smart growth policies that should be re-examined and new tools that should be considered to address our challenges.

I further recommended that the County Board should propose for community discussion a draft of topics to discuss in a broad-based community process leading to Smart Growth 2.0.

This thoughtful response to my column was provided on social media:

We need a new vision and I think you are really into something important. For those of us that care about the County’s future I wonder if you would consider translating this piece into “layperson’s” terms. You assume a tremendous base of knowledge in the description of the problem and the solution. It will continue to be a small group of people making decisions for a large and diverse group of residents if the process is typical.

Discussion

We do need a new vision. That new vision should not be decided by a small group of people making decisions for a large and diverse group of residents.

In the spirit of translating last week’s piece into “layperson’s” terms, and at the (very acceptable) risk of offending some of the lawyers and Smart Growth 1.0 theologians in the audience, there are two types of development in Arlington.

By-right development

By-right development is the kind of development that already has been authorized by the County Board through prior zoning decisions. The way Virginia law works, this is the kind of development that the County Board can’t revoke.

So when you hear somebody calling for a “moratorium on development because we are growing too fast,” forget about a moratorium as applied to by-right development. However, there are many policies that the county legally could undertake that would spur or restrain by-right development.

Discretionary development

Discretionary development can only occur if the County Board takes affirmative action to change existing zoning to enable it. Here, the County Board has a lot more power: it can deny a development proposal outright, or it can say: yes, you can–but only if you agree to certain conditions.

Cost of new school seats

Based on the best available projections of school enrollment growth, and the cost of new school seats, Arlington should exercise its power to condition some discretionary development proposals on a developer’s acceptance of certain related conditions. For example:

• a developer seeks to build a large, multi-family rental apartment building containing hundreds of units
• the existing zoning for that site currently does not permit anything like such a project

The county should negotiate more effectively with developers of such discretionary projects to obtain cash or in-kind contributions from those developers to defray the costs to the public of the new school seats, parks, and other public infrastructure required to serve the new residents in such a proposed new building.

Some county insiders claim that Arlington is prohibited either by the Dillon Rule or by state law from ever imposing these kinds of conditions. Their claims are false.

Conclusion

Together as a community, we should adopt a new vision of Smart Growth 2.0 that is appropriate for today’s circumstances.

Peter’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.

Last week, the County and School Boards held a combined work session with the Joint Facilities Advisory Commission. County Board chair Jay Fisette also delivered a mid-year State of the County address.

Some of the comments made at these events reflected welcome candor — possibly a much-needed acknowledgement of the multiple, urgent challenges confronting Arlington.

As Fisette stated, Arlington’s critical response must be to “plan, plan, plan, plan.”

Arlington needs comprehensive, integrated long-term planning

Smart growth 2.0

Arlington’s much-praised transit-oriented smart growth vision was adopted in the 1970s. Almost 50 years later, residents are increasingly concerned about the challenges of future growth and development.

I have written columns about some of these challenges, including:

• What the County Board should do in 2017
• Addressing Arlington’s long-term budget gap
• Long-term planning for new schools

Between now and September, the County and School Boards should do some long-term strategic thinking about:

• aspects of our smart growth policies that should be re-examined based upon projected macro-economic conditions for Arlington over the next 30 years
• new tools that should be considered to address our challenges

Such internal deliberations must consider policy and priority choices that range far beyond the appropriate scope for JFAC.

By September, the County Board should propose for community discussion a draft working list of topics that ought to be reviewed in a very broad-based community process leading to Smart Growth 2.0.

JFAC

Over the summer, the County and School Boards need to adopt a new work plan on which JFAC can commence at its scheduled September 20 meeting.

Comprehensive long-term facilities planning is paramount

JFAC’s highest priority must be the integrated assessment and planning for long-term County and APS facility needs, including of course APS capacity needs, for the next 15 years. This JFAC process must be continuously informed by and integrate the interim conclusions and decisions made by the County Board’s parallel Smart Growth 2.0 planning process.

JFAC should not be distracted by further BUCK and VHC responsibilities

To ensure that JFAC can focus its limited resources on the demands of its long-term planning process, the County Board should not task JFAC with any further significant leadership or operational responsibilities regarding land use decisions for the Buck and VHC sites. Instead, separate working groups should be convened for each of those sites, including neighborhood representation, to lead and make these decisions — perhaps with a JFAC liaison or co-chair.

Maybe relieve JFAC of short-term bus siting responsibilities

Only if resources permit should JFAC be tasked to conduct a short-term study of bus storage siting options. In any event, whatever group studies these options should not be artificially constrained either by locations within Arlington’s geographic borders or conventional approaches to bus storage.

Conclusion

With growing acknowledgement of the significant fiscal and physical challenges confronting the county, the County Board needs to commence in September a broad public conversation ultimately leading to an updated vision for future growth and development that commands substantial public support.

JFAC should focus beginning in September on a long-term, comprehensive assessment across county and APS of likely facility needs and siting proposals to be informed ultimately by the results of the “visioning” process.

If resources permit, JFAC should undertake a short-term project re bus storage siting.  Any other possible JFAC projects should be addressed through separate processes.

Peter’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.

Last Thursday, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell finally unveiled the Senate’s version of Trumpcare.

On Tuesday, faced with a revolt in their own ranks, Senate GOP leaders postponed a vote on their bill until after the July 4 recess.

Virginia political leaders from both parties strongly oppose the Medicaid cuts

Both Republican and Democratic legislators in Virginia have condemned the Senate bill.

Virginia House of Delegates Appropriations Committee chair Chris Jones (R-Suffolk), and state Senate Finance co-chair Emmett Hanger (R-Augusta), co-signed a letter to McConnell, noting that his Trumpcare bill:

“fails to address the inequities in the federal funding allocation between states” for the Medicaid program that Virginia has operated in partnership with the federal government for a half-century.

These two Virginia Republican legislative leaders, who also serve as the co-chairs of the Joint Subcommittee for Human Resources Oversight, stated that their subcommittee:

is especially concerned that proposals to impose per-capita caps on federal Medicaid spending would put Virginia at a severe disadvantage because they would base the future federal share on past spending that has been among the lowest in the country and would not take into account measures adopted this year to expand treatment of people with mental illnesses or addictions.

These per-capita caps would cost Virginia’s Medicaid program at least $1.4 billion over seven years.

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) also blasted the Trumpcare Medicaid provisions:

Virginia historically has run one of the leanest Medicaid programs in the country, with lower reimbursement rates than many other states. But as a result of the steep cuts to Medicaid in Trumpcare, Virginia would be forced to pick up an additional $900 million in costs for Medicaid over the next ten years in order to maintain the same level of care.

The federal government must continue to finance a major share of Medicaid costs

Although the U.S. Senate’s proposed Trumpcare bill is far worse in this respect, a fundamental flaw in both the Senate and House bills is that Trumpcare’s approach to Medicaid represents a massive and historic retreat by the federal government from supporting healthcare for the most poor and vulnerable:

States would continue to receive extra funding for Obamacare’s expansion of Medicaid to more poor adults, but only temporarily. After several years, states wishing to cover that population would be expected to pay a much greater share of the bill, even as they adjust to leaner federal funding for other Medicaid beneficiaries — disabled children, nursing home residents — who are more vulnerable.

It’s appropriate for the federal government to insist that each state have at least “some skin in the game.” However, one of the worst defects in Trumpcare’s approach to Medicaid financing is that it fails to account fairly for the vast differences in median household incomes and poverty rates among the states.

Conclusion

Trumpcare’s latest state’s rights approach is “mean” (h/t Donald Trump).

If enacted, Trumpcare will produce the largest single transfer of wealth to the rich from the middle class and poor in American history.

“A basic test of government is its ability to prevent large-scale harm to its citizens’ health and survival. This bill, and this Administration, are failing that test”– Atul Gawande.

This bill is still very much alive. All Virginians should join their political leaders in the fight against this cold-hearted proposal.