Peter’s Take

Peter’s Take is a biweekly opinion column. The views expressed are solely the autho

A new report by the Civic Federation (CivFed report) analyzes Arlington’s recent historical spending on park and recreation investments funded with Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) bond dollars.

The CivFed report’s results are summarized in a table on page 1. Roughly 86% of all bond funds were dedicated to recreational uses. By contrast, less than 5% was spent on land acquisition and less than 2% was invested in open space and natural habitat.

Resource allocation mismatch

This funding allocation history is inconsistent with the public’s stated priorities for outdoor park and recreation investments, as determined by the County’s 2016 “statistically valid” survey, which ranked investments in trails, natural areas, and wildlife habitat as top priorities to satisfy unmet or partially unmet needs in our community.

In three of the last four park and recreation bond referenda appearing on November ballots, land acquisition was offered as a rationale for borrowing the funds. Yet, CivFed’s report notes a consistent shortfall in the County’s acquisition of new public land — just 1.82 total acres acquired since 2015, well below the annual 3-acre per year target in the 2019 Public Spaces Master Plan (PSMP).

Although the County has made significant investments in trail modernization and expansion through various funding mechanisms (including transportation funding), the same cannot be said for land acquisition or for investment in natural areas and wildlife habitat.

Beyond the 2016 community survey priorities, the County has set aggressive goals in its plans for stormwater management and flood resilience, as well as energy-use reduction coupled with urban heat island mitigation. See the 2014 Stormwater Master Plan and the 2019 Community Energy Plan.

Acquiring land to preserve and harness natural County infrastructure is essential for meeting these goals while simultaneously allowing the County to satisfy previously identified unmet or partially met needs for natural open space supporting human health as well as wildlife.

CivFed’s recommendations

On May 19, the CivFed voted overwhelmingly (63-5-1) to approve an important resolution making three recommendations to guide future park and recreation investments:

1. The County should balance its capital investments to “fund passive park features (including wildlife habitat and open space), trails, and parkland acquisition on a more equitable basis with respect to its recreational investments.”
2. The County should “demonstrate more forward-thinking and commitment to land acquisition for passive park use,” especially through the purchase of land identified as a “Generational and Unique Opportunity” in the PSMP.
3. The County should “consider as a high priority dual-purpose sites that can be used for flood mitigation and Open Space-Natural Habitat,” as described in the 2014 Stormwater Master Plan.

Planning for Arlington’s future during a pandemic

On May 19, in response to uncertainty prompted by the pandemic, the County Manager proposed a scaled-back, one-year CIP just for 2021, rather than the traditional 10-year plan.

Stormwater management/flood resilience continues to be included as a funding priority in this one-year CIP. This priority is consistent with CivFed’s third recommendation to acquire land that serves a dual purpose.

(more…)

Peter’s Take is a biweekly opinion column. The views expressed are solely the author’s.

The Northern Virginia Regional Parks Authority (NOVAParks) owns and operates Arlington’s primarily natural Potomac Overlook, Upton Hill and W&OD Trail regional parks.

But NOVAParks seems to have lost the trail outlined in its own Mission Statement which emphasizes (at p.7) enriching our lives “through the conservation of regional natural and cultural resources.”

Arlington’s statistically valid resident park survey (at p. 4) found that our community’s three most desired park features are multi-use trails, hiking trails, and natural areas & wildlife habitats. Yet NOVAParks is now single-mindedly pursuing funding for a project to dramatically widen the W&OD trail to create an environmentally damaging commuter thoroughfare.

NOVAParks’ W&OD trail widening project

NOVAParks proposes replacing the two-mile-long, 10-12 foot-wide segment of the trail paralleling Four Mile Run between N. Roosevelt St. and North Carlin Springs Road. In many areas the new trail will be two parallel paved trails — a 12-foot-wide bike trail, an 8-foot-wide pedestrian trail, a 2-foot median and outside buffers — for a total width of at least 26 feet, equal to some residential streets! Elsewhere, the trail will be widened to 16 feet with outside buffers for a total width of at least 20 feet.

This project should be withdrawn

This project will destroy almost two acres of green space while adding almost two acres of impermeable paved surface, including within Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Areas (RPA’s) and flood plain along Four Mile Run, threatening increased flooding in Arlington’s BonAir and Bluemont parks. NOVAParks has failed to conduct an “alternatives assessment” of less expensive and environmentally destructive solutions. Finally, NOVAParks has failed to conduct any safety assessment of whether its proposed wider trail, with potentially higher bicycle speeds and volume, will actually increase bicycle speeds, and therefore the frequency and severity of accidents.

(more…)

Peter’s Take is a biweekly opinion column. The views expressed are solely the author’s.

As of April 20, there were 300 officially-reported Virginia statewide coronavirus deaths. By contrast, the annual average Virginia statewide gun violence death toll has been 958.

While the governmental path forward to minimize coronavirus deaths remains uncertain, Virginia has passed a significant number of new common-sense gun safety laws this year. These new laws will help substantially to lower our gun violence death toll from what it would have been without them.

Last week marked the 13th anniversary of the death of 32 students and faculty shot at Virginia Tech.

In 2020, the new Democratic majority in the legislature supported a package of eight major gun-safety laws.

Seven of these narrowly targeted new laws will become effective on July 1. Congratulations to Arlington Delegate Patrick Hope (HD 47) for his leadership on this legislation.

Already enacted

Earlier this month, Virginia enacted these five laws strengthening gun safety:

Background checks

SB 70 requires a background check for any firearm sale. This new law eliminates a prior provision that made background checks of prospective purchasers at firearms shows voluntary (the gun-show loophole).

The vast majority of the American public support laws requiring background checks on all firearms purchases. More than 90% of both gun owners and non-gun owners support this policy. Strong support for background-check laws also has been measured among NRA members, with at least 69% supporting comprehensive background checks.

Red flag provisions

SB 240 creates a legal mechanism enabling law enforcement temporarily to separate a person from their firearms when they represent a danger to themselves or others. Virginia is now among 19 other states and the District of Columbia to enact this type of law.

One handgun a month

SB 69 reinstates Virginia’s one-handgun-a-month law to help curb stockpiling of firearms and trafficking. Laws limiting the number of firearms an individual can purchase per month help reduce the number of guns that end up at the scene of a crime. Virginia used to have a one-gun-a-month law, but repealed that law in 2012 at the request of the NRA.

Lost or stolen firearms

Virginia HB 9 requires gun owners to report their lost or stolen firearms to law enforcement within 48 hours or face a civil penalty.

Children’s access to firearms

Virginia HB 1083 further decreases the chances of children accessing firearms by increasing the penalty for recklessly leaving firearms in their presence.

(more…)

Peter’s Take is a biweekly opinion column. The views expressed are solely the author’s.

The University of Virginia (UVA) and the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) have used their status and political power to prevent the Virginia General Assembly from taking action to enable the use of by far the most effective reading readiness screening test (RAN).

Instead, Virginia’s children are being tested using a much less effective test (PALS) from which UVA-associated individuals and organizations derive financial benefits.  The Virginia General Assembly will be investigating those financial benefits this year.

The VDOE – UVA literacy screening partnership

Since 1997, Virginia has been using the state-endorsed Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening test (PALS), created by UVA, to identify students experiencing or at-risk for reading difficulties. UVA and the VDOE worked in tandem to support and sponsor PALS.

PALS’ questionable effectiveness for identifying dyslexia and other reading disabilities

According to the International Dyslexia Association, “perhaps as many as 15-20% of the population as a whole–have some of the symptoms of dyslexia, including slow or inaccurate reading, poor spelling, poor writing, or mixing up similar words.”

Despite Virginia’s screening and intervention processes having been in place since 1997, children continue to be identified after 3rd grade as being dyslexic, when remediation is more intensive and costly to be effective. How many of these students could/should have received more effective K-3 reading interventions based on a timely identification, perhaps obviating their need for special education or remain unidentified and struggling in the general education system?

In the meantime, another test, RAN, (5-10 minute administration time) is “one of the strongest predictors of later reading ability” (p. 431).

(more…)

Peter’s Take is a biweekly opinion column. The views expressed are solely the author’s.

Despite over five years of multiple contacts with County government, residents in the Arlington Forest and Bluemont neighborhoods are justifiably frustrated by the County’s lack of progress in protecting pedestrians crossing Carlin Springs Road.

The County has failed these neighborhoods in two respects. First, it has failed to take the decisive actions needed to protect pedestrians at several dangerous intersections. Second, it has failed to give sufficient weight to the views and knowledge of neighborhood associations and residents who offered highly relevant on-the-ground observations, surveys, and data.

For years, residents have been collecting their own survey data and examples of children and families being struck or nearly struck by vehicles.

Neighbors see a number of ingredients that contribute to dangerous risks for pedestrians including:

• Increasing traffic from commercial and residential development in Ballston.
• Lack of traffic signals that alert and stop traffic to allow safe crossing, paired with poor sightlines.
• A history of lack of enforcement of the rules of the road

Carlin Springs Road background

In 2016, the Arlington Forest Citizens Association (AFCA) President spoke to the County Board about pedestrian safety concerns from Ballston to Route 50. At that time, former Board member John Vihstadt was assigned as the Board liaison to AFCA.

In 2016 and 2017, AFCA sent letters detailing accounts of children and families nearly getting struck by oncoming traffic. For example, Lara Doyle witnessed a pedestrian near-miss incident she described as a Kenmore Middle School student dodging cars — like the video game Frogger — while attempting to cross the road as yellow pedestrian lights were flashing. The Arlington Forest and Bluemont Civic Associations have formed pedestrian safety committees and have 40+ pages of emails, meeting notes, and formal letters documenting their direct engagement activity with the County.

In the summer of 2018, ARLnow reported on an accident in which a neighbor was struck by a vehicle while commuting to Metro. Neighbors at the time voiced public concerns:

“Yet [Lora] Strine says the area lacks clearly marked crosswalks or traffic calming measures to slow drivers, particularly on such a wide road, and she can’t understand why it’s taken the county so long to address the issue. ‘This accident is not really an accident,” Strine told ARLnow. “It’s really been years in the making.”

Eric Larsen, the accident victim, advocated before the County Board in a statement urging the County to protect pedestrians.

(more…)

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

Despite mounting evidence that Arlington County government’s past designs for stream “restorations” are fundamentally flawed, the County persists in moving forward with these flawed designs at Donaldson Run Tributary B (“Trib B”), Gulf Branch and elsewhere.

Background

In columns last year, I outlined concerns about the County’s stream restoration designs generally and at Donaldson Run. More recently, I highlighted the County government’s failures to prioritize mature tree preservation on County-or-APS-owned property, e.g., at Ashlawn Elementary.

In December 2019, the County took the extraordinary step of issuing a press release characterizing criticisms of its stream restoration designs as “myths.” To the contrary, these County designs continue to be flawed.

County plan for Trib B stream restoration

The County’s latest stream restoration plan for Trib B would remove 86 large mature trees and plant 332 new trees (from 1-4 inches in diameter) which would have to withstand floods and deer destruction with unlikely high survival rates.

The County asserts many mature trees will simply fall over if restoration does not occur and sediment in the water flow must be arrested to protect the Potomac and Chesapeake. However, the sediment caught in step pools and low areas to moderate this flow will also contain pollutants that will stay in the local environment.

Why the County’s Trib B plan is flawed

The persistent flaws in the County’s stream restorations include:

• The stream bed may be physically restored, but the stream still will be ecologically damaged. “You can’t ask a stream to do everything an entire watershed should do,” said Margaret A. Palmer, a University of Maryland scientist who’s researched stream restoration ecology.
• Damage to the stream’s watershed cannot be rectified without taking a much more environmentally pro-active approach to the impacts of climate change, development, and loss of mature trees.
• Because the era of the “100-year” flood has been left far behind due to climate change, and rectifying the watershed will take many years, the work–and great expense–of physically restoring the stream bed may be washed away in a very short time. Therefore, the next major flood after Trib B is “restored” could ravage the stream bed, require significant rebuilding, and do so without the natural water absorption protection of the major mature trees which the County currently plans to remove.

Planting even hundreds of new trees is no subsitute for the removal of the mature ones. The relative benefits of mature trees vs. small ones are staggeringly in favor of the mature trees as regards CO2 absorption, water absorption, property value and other metrics.

Regionally, in the absence of empirical evidence on the efficacy of stream restoration projects, the issue of tree removal in pursuit of Chesapeake Bay Conservancy credits and to “remediate” stream erosion has elicited widespread recent concern.

In dense urban environments like Arlington, experts caution against the types of stream restoration techniques advocated by the County.

What can be done at Trib B

Some things can and should be done now at Trib B in view of the ravages of recent floods and the County’s lack of any meaningful maintenance of the stream. Some sewer lines may be subject to damage and should be rerouted (e.g., San Diego) or protected. Water pipes should be protected (using any of a wide variety of methods such as stacked stone walls and repairing stormwater discharge pipes) that would not require the heavy equipment the County currently proposes for the “restoration.” And, a relatively few mature trees would have their roots so exposed that they might have to be removed before they fall. CIP funds should be made available for all the above work.

Conclusion

County government is poised to repeat past mistakes by replicating them at Donaldson Run Trib B costing $1.45M for stream work alone (not infrastructure repair). Refusing to address development and land-use problems by merely adjusting stream channels to manage greater volumes of runoff won’t work against climate-change-era floods. Aggressively maintaining Trib B to handle both moderate and truly major floods, possible rerouting of water pipes out of the stream bed, and focusing greater attention on conservation of our natural resources are the keys to a cost-effective Trib B approach.

Peter Rousselot previously served as Chair of the Fiscal Affairs Advisory Commission (FAAC) to the Arlington County Board and as Co-Chair of the Advisory Council on Instruction (ACI) to the Arlington School Board. He is also a former Chair of the Arlington County Democratic Committee (ACDC) and a former member of the Central Committee of the Democratic Party of Virginia (DPVA). He currently serves as a board member of the Together Virginia PAC-a political action committee dedicated to identifying, helping and advising Democratic candidates in rural Virginia.

Peter’s Take is a biweekly opinion column. The views expressed are solely the author’s.

Arlington County recently conducted a study asking residents to select and rate a series of values that should be the foundation for setting the County’s water utility rate structure.

The values: Simplicity, Affordability, Conservation, Economic Development, Cost Equity, and Financial Sustainability.

The first three values are straightforward.

Under “Simplicity,” every resident would be charged the same rate for water and sewer. Under “Affordability,” the first 12,000 gallons of water used each year would be priced at a lower rate while usage above that amount would be priced at a higher rate. Under “Conservation,” the structure would look much like the structure under “Affordability,” but there would be three pricing tiers instead of only two.

A case can be made for any of these three scenarios, although none encourages environmental stewardship by providing incentives for residents to use water to protect their trees, bushes, and gardens.

The last three values are far more problematic. Under “Cost Equity,” customers would be charged based on the cost of how they use water and wastewater services. It costs the utility more to deliver water to or collect wastewater from some neighborhoods than it does from others or, as the study indicated, “it may cost more on a per capita basis to pipe water to one family in a single family home than to one family living in a multifamily building.”

Would developers of large apartment complexes receive a price break? Would residents of wealthy North Arlington pay less because they live closest to the aqueduct that brings water to the County?

Our County Board has adopted a resolution defining equity as “all populations having access to community conditions and opportunities needed to reach their full potential and to experience optimal well-being.” But dividing residents based on housing hardly seems equitable. As one study participant noted, “once we start breaking people into different economic groups and discriminating against some, the end result will be confusion and enmity.”

Another participant observed that this approach could well result in higher rates for low income families further from the main water supply.

Under “Economic Development,” the utility rate structure would be the reverse of the utility rate structure under “Conservation.” Big water users (i.e., businesses) would pay a high price for the first million gallons of water; a lower price for the second million gallons; and an even lower price for all additional gallons.

According to latest available U.S. Census data, the professional, scientific, and technical services sector comprises almost 30% of private workplaces and employs more than one quarter of all who work in the Arlington private sector. This sector is not a large water user.

(more…)

Peter’s Take is a biweekly opinion column. The views expressed are solely the author’s.

Delegate Patrick Hope (D-47) has introduced a bill: HB 817 to guide digital device use in Virginia public schools.

Teachers have been concerned about these issues. Petitions have been generated by community members — one to discontinue 1:1, another seeking a low screen track.

In Maryland, a landmark bill was unanimously passed to create the nation’s 1st health and safety guidelines on school-issued devices, and the Baltimore superintendent was imprisoned for accepting money from the powerful EdTech industry lobby.

Such legislation should be enacted in Virginia because of the impact of digital devices:

• On Health
• On Learning
• On Privacy

Arlington experience

In Arlington, the School Health Advisory Board (SHAB) approved the formation of the Screen Use in Schools Subcommittee (SUS) to advise APS regarding policy implementation for APS-issued devices.

During its research, SHAB discovered that some APS staff were on the advisory board of CoSN (The Consortium of School Networks). Such membership raised serious concerns about undue influence and conflicts of interest regarding what’s best for academic outcomes and the health and well-being of APS students. CoSN membership boasts some of the biggest tech companies in the world, including Microsoft and Amazon Web Services.

While APS parents correctly focus on the total daily time their children spend looking at APS-issued device screens (school and home), CoSN advocates that school screen use is different. See Screens and Kids:

“Shift the conversation. The debate today should not be about “screen time” which made historical sense around the consumption of older, passive technologies, such as television) but “learning time.” When used appropriately technology increases student engagement, helps educators and students accelerate learning, expands opportunities beyond the classroom and enriches the educational environment.”

APS’s screen use policies and practices

APS’s view of screen use simply adopts CoSN’s position:

The phrase “screen time,” as used by academics, refers to using digital media for “entertainment purposes.” Using a digital device for learning is not considered “screen time.”

APS’s view defies common sense. SUS correctly has contested APS’s notion that school screen use should not count in the total daily digital diet of children, just as the food they consume at school counts in their daily caloric intake. SUS’s position finds strong support in an analysis from the National Education Policy Center.

(more…)

Peter’s Take is a biweekly opinion column. The views expressed are solely the author’s.

For years, County Board members have talked green about Arlington’s environmental problems.

Those issues include preserving our mature tree canopy, slowing impervious-surface increases and protecting Arlingtonians from development-and climate change-related flood risks.

But when it comes time to act green, they hide behind the Dillon Rule, claiming Arlington can’t enact stronger environmental protections without new state legislation.

Their claims are environmentally insensitive and legally incorrect. Last July’s catastrophic flooding underscores the urgency of addressing these environmental threats.

Arlington must begin using legal powers it already has to

• preserve our remaining mature tree canopy and slow impervious surface growth

Preserving and increasing our mature tree canopy protects Arlington’s environment. Mature trees provide well-documented benefits in urban areas, including reducing energy use; removing air pollutants; improving water quality; reducing runoff volume; providing diverse wildlife habitats, increasing property values, and improving human health.

Mature trees naturally prevent stormwater runoff: their roots soak up water; their leaves intercept rainfall, and they re-emit water vapor to help cool the atmosphere.

Arlington should exercise these powers it already possesses:

Adopt a countywide stormwater utility fee (as Albemarle County already has). Stormwater utility fees are charged based on a property’s percentage of impervious surface cover, placing a greater burden on those who generate more runoff. See here and here. This fee should be enacted in addition to Arlington’s current service-district method to incentivize landowners to keep space open and green or to restore land to natural condition.

Enact a tree preservation ordinance to conserve trees during development based on Arlington’s status as an EPA-designated ozone nonattainment area. See here. Fairfax (also a nonattainment area) has such an ordinance. Passage in Arlington may help preserve trees located outside Chesapeake Bay resource protection areas (RPAs) — particularly if changes to current zoning would result in lower tree cover.

Enforce permit requirements on public sites. Arlington must stop giving itself and APS free passes when permit requirements are violated. When APS cut more trees than permitted on the Ashlawn Elementary School site, the County Board simply changed the permit terms instead of imposing penalties.

Stop relying on Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act loopholes for RPAs on public land. Projects at just 9 publicly owned sites accounted for the loss of 979 trees between 2014 and 2018.

Adopt a use-value assessment program (as Alexandria, Fairfax, Loudoun and others have) to reward property owners for keeping 5+ acre tracts of land open and undeveloped. Details here. While opportunities to take advantage of such a provision in land-constrained Arlington are quite limited, some of the pool clubs and other recreation associations might have sufficient land as does the Febrey-Lothrop House at Wilson and McKinley.

• protect Arlington residents from development-and climate change-related flood risks

Leverage existing federal/other regulations to support tree preservation as a runoff-control tool. Example: Arlington’s Four Mile Run Flood Control Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires Arlington to limit “post-development peak runoff” and prevent increases in the Run’s “100-year peak flow.” See §60-11, subsection C.

(more…)