Letter to the Editor: Love's Labor Lost on Valentine's Day Waterfront Vote

Today, Valentine's Day, is a curious time to schedule the required vote on the Alexandria waterfront.

After all, the mayor said at the first hearing he doesn’t love the plan, and he didn’t care if it was voted up or down, just that it was time for a vote. Like love, embracing an imperfect plan, is not something one should rush into. Yes, there is always a temptation to move forward quickly, and in this case too quickly. If we are unsure whether we love this plan or not, let us step back, and reconsider. Perhaps there is a chance for the community to have a second bite at the apple instead of rushing into the wrong relationship.

Why is this the wrong relationship? Because it is imbalanced, and there are too many expectations of perfection embodied in the contract. Take the timeline for instance. When we started writing the contract for the waterfront we were told it must be revenue neutral, but now if you read the language of the contract carefully it says “when completed” the waterfront will yield $3.5 million per year
in new tax revenue, and it will pay for itself in 28 years.

How long will it take till its completed, 10 or 15 years, even if it was completed in 2 years, it would take 30 years to pay for itself. This is not fiscal prudence, it is fiscal madness to base the level of development we allow on some formula that if everything goes exactly according to plan, the marriage will be solvent or break even in no fewer than 30 years. We are committing our children to continue paying for the bargain we are making today. I hope most people don’t get married because they think they can make the books work, and have a healthy balance sheet. They should be marrying because they love each other, and we should have a water front plan that we love, because it is going to be a very long partnership.

Another huge gap between expectations and what is really possible is the language that each of the three development sites should have an emphasis on “Arts, History and Culture, “ and we should protect our current cultural institutions and try to attract new ones.

This sounds like a cultural arts district that would give incentives and favorable taxes to non-profit arts organizations that are open to the public. The Art League, the Alexandria Seaport Foundation, and the Archeology Museum certainly fit this model, but where are they going to go in this new plan?

Without purchasing the three sites, there will be nowhere for these dreams to go.  Yes, now the plan says a museum would be welcome at Robinson Terminal North at West Point, and that “West’s Point could also be a good location for a maritime museum and the docking of an historic ship.”  Giving lip service to
expectations is not good for a relationship. We should only make promises we are actually willing to keep.

Like any relationship, one must consider the outside pressures, and realize there may be a third force in the marriage. In Alexandria’s relationship with the Waterfront, that third outside force is commercial interests who looked across the Potomac and saw hotels and restaurants, and thought, why isn’t our waterfront filled with hotels and restaurants, looked at three underutilized sites, and said, why not put them here. Some of the biggest advocates for the plan have been our own Alexandria Convention and Visitors Center.

Sure Alexandria has no place in Old Town for a 500-person wedding or a
conference for 2 to 3 thousand people.

I am happy to send them to National Harbor on our wonderful water taxi and then bring them back for the things they don’t have: history, arts, and culture and small independently owned businesses and restaurants. National Harbor has
32 restaurants, but most our national chains, so when visitors want a real unique experience, bring them back here. Sometimes the best way to compete is not to copy your competitor but to emphasize what you have that they don’t.

Unfortunately on each site, we have “Arts, History and Culture,” but we also must make room for “vibrant commercial uses (such as a hotel).“ Is there room for both in this relationship, or will we have to chose what sort of relationship we want. A careful reading of the of the proposed ordnance says that this will increase the lodging tax by $770,000. The lodging tax goes to the Convention and Visitors Bureau, which could explain why multiple speakers stood up and spoke in their behalf at each event, including the last public hearing.

This is a pretty big payout to the other party in the relationship. I want ACVA
to succeed in its mission to bring visitors to Alexandria, as this is an essential part of our local economy, but I want them to come to appreciate our long term commitment to a healthy and sustainable waterfront, and to the arts and cultural institutions we have already spawned and any new progeny we might attract or develop. I believe that visitors come for our history, so lets not take away the
opportunity to showcase that history on our waterfront.

There are too many questions for this relationship to move forward.

We don’t have room to develop these three sites to there full commercial potential and to provide homes to our cultural institutions and build a museum.  When our children are growing up, do we take them to a hotel to amuse them, or do we read them a book about history, take them to historical sites, and an art class?  We try to proved the best for our children and we should provide the best for future generations.

We should chose the relationship that best embodies the values we want to leave future generations, and not just try to build a waterfront that pays for itself in our generation. Temptation led to the first bite of the apple, now lets step back, so that we might have a second bite at the apple and a chance to do this right.