Letter to the Editor: Let's Be Civil and Let's Tell the Truth

Letter to the Editor:

Waterfront for All posted an invitation on its website inviting the public to a party last weekend at Virtue Feed and Grain restaurant. The invitation called for guests to join because “There is much confusion about the waterfront plan because of some really loud, cranky people who WANT to complain...but still throw cigarettes on the ground—you know the type, right!).”

I thought it was in very poor taste.

I have eaten at Virtue Feed and Grain and both times I have seen and said hello to co-owner Murray Bonitt, a supporter of Waterfront for All, and told him what a great job they did with the building. I used to work there when it was Olsson’s Books and Records. I also saw Jody Manor at Virtue, and said hello, as I do two or three times a week when I see him at his restaurant, Bittersweet.

I also know restaurateurs Cathal and Meshelle Armstrong, who I met when my former wife was a restaurant reviewer for the Alexandria Times. I don't think she ever gave one of their restaurants a bad review.

I have seen them eating at Taverna Cretoukou, the restaurant in the building my family has owned since the early 70's. l really appreciate that they support and enjoy other local restaurants. But I am disappointed that they would support the nasty rhetoric in the invitation to this party.

The urban legends published on their website show that they do not stick to the facts. I counter that:

1.  Citizens for an Alternative Alexandria Waterfront Plan is not for keeping the waterfront the way it is.

Myth busted:  CAAWP is for keeping the waterfront as it is.

2.  CAAWP does not think that Old Town will be National Harbor, but in 2007 the mayor appointed an Economic Sustainability Workgroup to suggest how we would compete with National Harbor. The waterfront development was one of the suggestions.

Myth busted:  The city Waterfront Plan is like National Harbor.

3.  Resolution with the Old Dominion Boat Club is important, but CAAWP does not support eminent domain and we question the wisdom of taking the ODBC to the Virginia Supreme Court in exchange for $21,000 a year in revenue for Wales Alley. John Fitzgerald Square, a city plan centerpiece is supposed to be located at the ODBC parking lot. It’s not possible without a resolution with the club.

Myth busted:  The city’s Waterfront Plan does not depend on resolution with the club because it is not about the amenities, but about developing the waterfront.

4.  CAAWP has discovered private meetings with a Robinson Terminal attorney and representatives of the Cummings property in 2009 before the plan was drafted.  There were certainly other meetings regarding the lawsuit filed in 2008 by Robinson Terminal asking for the 1992 zoning to be ignored and have all the rights granted them in 1983.

Myth busted: These were not public meetings, and they influenced the plan.

5.  CAAWP believes “by right” development is unlikely as only a 1 FAR  (floor area ratio) is allowed for office or residential, and it would only be increased to a 1.25 FAR if retail is added. This is far below what the property owners are asking for or the maximum they could get under the current SUP process. In an SUP Process, concessions like paying for the $6.5 million in flood mitigation could be required.

Myth busted: Neither this plan or by-right zoning will give us what we want. We need a new plan.

6.  CAWP does not believe that the city Waterfront Plan will take away currently public space, but it does remove a once in a lifetime opportunity to acquire more parkland along the Alexandria Waterfront, which is a National Historic Landmark District. Parkland increases the value of private properties around it, adding to the tax base.

The suggestion that there will be more control by developers is a myth when what they are actually getting is maximum flexibility. Developers are not required to make any donations "for flood mitigation, open space, parks, streetscape enhancements, public art and the like," as Waterfront for All suggests. Yes, the development will supposedly pay for these things, but it is not in developer contributions. Rather, every tax dollar generated from these developments for 25 years will go to waterfront improvements.

Myth busted: The developers are not paying for this plan, taxpayers are with any new tax revenue generated for 25 years.

7. CAAWP believes the city Waterfront Plan will cause more traffic and congestion. Putting 3 hotels on the waterfront will increase traffic and congestion.  There will also be office and condo development. If you want hotels, do the study on the traffic on Union Street as recommended by the Waterfront Plan Work Group before passing the plan. The plan says there are 700 currently available parking spaces and they are contemplating that at least 300 more would need to be built. There has been no comparison between the parking needed for hotels and museums and art centers. Since the Torpedo Factory has no dedicated parking, I would suggest another art center wouldn’t need off-street parking.

Myth busted: There will be more traffic and congestion.

A Waterfront for All spokeswoman said the plan covers 340 acres. It does not or we could have hotels anywhere in that zone and the 25-acre GenOn power plant would be in the plan. The zoning changes are for three property owners only, and affect 8.5 acres in an 8-block area. The city plan will add only about 1.5 acres of park to what is already in the settlement agreement. If the CAAWP plan is passed, 10 acres of parkland would be added.

I hope that Waterfront for All can do two things, get the facts right and stop belittling people who don't support the city's Waterfront Plan. We both have a right to our opinions.