Letter to the Editor: Waterfront Planning Process Sinks to 4-Year Low

To the Editor:

I thought we had reached the nadir in the waterfront planning process on my birthday a year ago, but I was wrong by a country mile. The new low point occurred just last Tuesday night when the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to push through the text amendment that gives the green light to rezoning the waterfront.  This land-use plan will allow developers to triple the density along the waterfront, and build basically anything they want, including two hotels.

The night had all the hallmarks of a show trial from beginning to end. The commission was dismissive, arrogant, condescending, and at times downright bullying in its response to community concerns. It would be clear even to a child that the City has made been no real attempt to look at the issues that will make this plan a success or failure.

The night began with Chairman Komoroske lecturing the audience that he would not tolerate any outburst of dissent. Dissent, how undemocratic! And the night ended with Commissioner Dunn taking the stage to say that the plan was great and that he too was a steward of the town’s history. All and all, it was the final act in a performance by planning officials who have done everything in their power over the last four years to squelch public opinion and input that doesn’t fit with the city’s planning agenda.

No one ever asked what kind of waterfront what kind of waterfront citizens really wanted. With no preconditions, that is.  Many citizens want a waterfront that will build upon the legacy of citizens like Ellen Pickering, who fought for waterfront parks.  It makes no sense to let hotels and townhomes gobble up precious river frontage, as this development will do little to enhance the town’s historic importance. Contrast the idea of development that preserves what is beautiful and unique about our waterfront with the ambitions of Mayor Bill Euille, who favors the leveraging (maximizing development that is) of the waterfront to pay for what he claims are great public improvements.

Citizens who have tried to engage the City in a conversation about all sorts of planning aspects related to the waterfront have been told time and time again that the plan was a community plan; that hotels make the waterfront a more public space; that the size of the area being developed is small relative to the size of the waterfront (or North America, for that matter) and therefore it will not impact the town negatively, and so on. These were just some of the many ridiculous and unsubstantiated assertions made by planning commission members over the course of the evening in support of a plan that does not have the support of a key part of the community. That they know that and still act as they do is quite unbelievable.

Although opponents of the plan are characterized as elitist, I would argue that it is the political elite that now govern Alexandria that we should be worried about. They have shut down debate and are on the verge of approving a land-use plan that gives BIG property even more rights to control the future of the waterfront, all in the name of paying for the public benefits that either don’t exist or are not sufficient.

This is not a community plan because the planning process was largely a monologue from day one. Hence, we have lost the opportunity to create a plan that would add lasting value to a historic town by involving the community in the planning process. As a long time citizen activist, I’m disheartened by what we have not accomplished and dismayed that the city council is likely to vote for this shallow and unimaginative plan on March 16.  Alexandria and its citizens deserve better.

Andrew Macdonald