Andrew, after nearly three years of lisiening to all Alexandrians, we are excited that the plan is set for a vote. There have been many compromises as the plan as moved along. The next steps, as you know, are to work with the owners of the property through the special use permit process. Citizens will again have a voice in the next steps.

Andrew -
In the interest of transparency could you please let us all know why you resigned from Council?

Lynn, Dan - why the rush? The City hasnt even done a traffic study for the (largley residential) area. Don't you think the elected officials would want information such as that so that they can cast their vote based on objective/quantifiable information about the impact of this plan? Who would want to make what will likely be the biggest, most important vote of their political career based on partial information? That my friends is nuts.

it is a shame that alexandria allows development on every inch of waterfront. with all the flooding already happening you would think they would let some of it go back to wetlands and do their part to heal the bay.

Andrew's remarks are on target. His detractors' snide comments are not. They are unbecoming too.

Missing, however, is a a compelling explanation for the timetable. Really, why the rush to judgement? Who decided the waterfront must be altered now?

More: given the enormous public divisiveness our public servants' plan has caused, why are they condescendingly dismissing those who find so many legitimate faults in their plan?

As I say over and over, I attended all 100 public participation meetings with citizens over two years. All the meetings after the first one followed the same pattern, the staff presented the plan without any notable changes. The citizens complained as much as the staff ordained format of the meetings allowed (there was never a town hall style meeting). A few months would go by and then the staff would call another meeting and we would go through the same things again. After awhile I think I kept attending just to see how many times staff was willing to do the same things again. The planning staff could have brought this plan to Council a year ago and Council could have voted on it then. All decisions about timing were always in the hands of the Council or the planning staff.

irret,
Here are some undisputable facts...not sure where your information came from....
There are about 950 acres of parks in the City of Alexandria:
1) 150+ acres of parks are along the waterfront.
2) That means more than 15% of Alexandria’s parks are on the waterfront.
3) The Waterfront Plan area is less than 4% of the City’s land area.
4) The land area of the Waterfront Plan is about 350 acres, so the Plan area is over 40% park land.
5) The City’s open space plan identifies the most urgent need for parks as being Alexandria’s West End, which is not nearly as well-served with parks as the Waterfront.
6) The Waterfront Plan would add at least 5 acres of parks and high quality open space.

Dear Gina,
Here are a few indisputable facts to add to your grab bag of Alexandria park lore:
1. The Parks and Rec Commission appointed you to the Waterfront Commission, which voted to support the City's waterfront plan.
2. The City's park plan was written by Elliot Rhodeside of Rhodeside and Harwell. Rhodeside and Harwell wrote the City's Open Space Plan. Mr. Rhodeside was on the Waterfront Plan Work Group and endorsed the City's plan.
3. Alexandria NOW has less parkland per capita than it did a few years ago. That number is much less than the recommended national average--and it is declining.
4. Parks are valuable wherever we can place them. They are certainly more valuable than hotels on the waterfront.
5. The City's waterfront plan is about 350 acres, and yet the rezoning only includes 8.5 acres. Those 8.5 acres, when developed, will pollute and congest the remaining 341 acres.
6. The land area of the waterfront (4%) is not proportional to its value to the town (there is only ONE waterfront)
7. The City's push for density in the West End is driving up the need for more open space there. It's that simple. The City always says we should buy parkland somewhere and ends up buying NONE anywhere
PS: We need everyone in Waterfront4$$ to sign a conflict of interest statement
ANDREW

What I have always failed to understand is why any group thinks that adding MORE parks will somehow entice people to utilize them. We (Alexandrians and our visitors) don't use the parks that currently exist on the waterfront.

I am neither for the current Council plan or the CAAWP plan. I think both have major flaws.

I for one would like to see another 2-3 restaurants that are actually on the water so that my family and our friends can patronize the establishments, enjoy the views of the Potomac on a nice night and then stroll home through the parks.

How about Jackson 20 in the Hotel Monaco or Brabo and the Brabo Tasting Room in the Lorien? Both very good restaurants/bars that we and many of our neighbors go to on a regular basis. Imagine that quality with a beautiful waterview. We wouldn't care if it's in or affiliated with a hotel. We have also had out of town visitors ask where they could stay on the water....the only place we could refer them to is the Crowne Plaza which is kind of off the beaten track. It would be nice to be able to offer them a place with a view that is a little more centrally located and upscale. Compromise is the key here and unfortunately that hasn't happened. As far as the "ha ha Waterfront for All" group is concerned, the same could be said of the CAAWP. Unless one wants to wander through another underutilzed park or visit a museum, what does that plan offer the rest of the residents of and visitors to Alexandria? Competing groups taking shots at each other is not constructive. I respect the views of both sides. I don't think that the City's plan is bad, I don't think the supporters of the WFA or CAAWP are bad. They just have differing views and the best interest of Alexandria at heart. I happen to support the WFA. Development is a reality. Yes, some developers will make alot of money but the vast majority of supporters on either side will not. Thanks.

Again, we agree. Compromise on what to build , not rezoning. We could have a lovely mixed use waterfront with restaurants, etc, with less density and height. But the lower height doesn't work for the hotel financial model, which is the city's choice because it's the easiest way to collect the most taxes. Forget that it's out of scale with Old Town. They need to sharpen pencils, and get creative - such as looking down the road to GenOn, etc. Overbuilding the waterfront in the most historic section of our city is the simplest - wrong - answer. A compromise could include one well placed hotel on the waterfront, with restaurants at ground level. Not 3. The placement of two of them on the south side of King Street is particularly inappropriate - and no parking or traffic plan? The more commercial 3 hotel direction will invite cruise ships, Charleston, S.C.'s growing pains waterfront battle. Well designed mixed use residential, with current zoning and one hotel, with required set backs (that is MANDATED not given to us by Robinson Terminal). We don't need 3 hotels to get a walkway along the water! The city would like you to think so. I have no problem with developers making money. I am a capitalist - with a conscience. My "shot" is directed at dishonesty not capitalism. Waterfront4All was formed by investors that mask as a citizens group because it gives them more leverage by claiming the plan has "citizens" support. That's all. No problem with investors. Just fight fair.

A few simple facts need repeating. The Cummings-Turner properties currently have a floor area ratio of 2. Under this plan that would go to a 3 floor area ratio. Each increment of floor area ratio represents a lot. On Cummings-Turner that would mean an increase in density of 50 per cent -- on land sitting in the middle of what remains of the colonial seaport. The increases in density on the two Robinson Terminal sites are about 25 per cent each. As for heights, count each floor of a building as 10 feet of the height. I do not believe any of the townhouses in the two developments you mention are five stories tall. The new buildings will be five stories tall. Together with the increased floor area ratio, that produces massive slightly squat looking structures. They will be hideous.

As for open space, the only open space we would gain in the plan that we could not otherwise have are the two Robinson Terminal piers. That was plain in the presentation city staff made at the waterfront work group meeting where it was discussed

That only flood mitigation is for "nuisance flooding" at an estimated cost of $6 million to the tax payers. That amount protects only a few businesses owners, not homeowners. The price is too high in my opinion.

Follow the money: Our public servants see the waterfront as a source of tax revenue for their spending plans. All other considerations are secondary to this goal. The back and forth remarks--building height, density, flood mitigation, etc.--are just so much chatter.

Even discounting the contrived timing (e. g., why force a decision now, especially now that a massive batch of unexpected waterfront property will become available when the power plant closes?), the waterfront is a true fork in the road for Historic Alexandria.

The citizens have lost control of the city in which we live. Effective public servants would not resort to cramming, duplicity, stonewalling and condescending to foist a plan on citizenry now badly divided because of the city plan. They would instead bend over backwards to ensure their vision for the future of Historic Alexandria reflects what the vast majority of citizens want.

Case in point: What responsible public servants countenance the creation of a lobbying group to defend their plans against citizens who decry it? It makes clear the astounding role reversal that has occurred: the citizens are the servants and the public officials are our masters.

Doug...perhaps I wasn't clear on my earlier post. I certainly would like to see some additional independent restaurants/bars along the waterfront. I was simply saying that I would also like to see some small hotels there as well and if they did have a restaurant with waterviews that would be great. I think we're in agreement.

fair enough

This is all about lining campaign accounts of current city council members, that's it....they are owned by the developers.