I have corresponded with the Arlington County Board, Jay Fisette, Robert Sharpe the Ombudsman for Constituent Services, Mr. Schwartz the Assistant County Manager RE: WITHDRAWAL OF RHODESIDE GREEN PARK AS POTENTIAL SITE FOR TEMPORARY FIRE STATION.
A neighbor wrote this letter to the board tonight
I write to urge, in the strongest terms, that you immediately withdraw Rhodeside Green Park from consideration as a potential site for the proposed temporary fire station in Rosslyn.
I and other neighbors of the park and surrounding community are mindful, and support, the need to retain our firefighting capability during construction of a new station. However, consideration of Rhodeside Green is wholly inappropriate in so many ways that it is difficult to choose whether to be more disappointed in your consideration of the site itself or the deeply troubling manner in which it has been targeted.
As to the site, there is a desperate need in Arlington for more - not less - green space, both in the county at large and the immediate Ft. Myer Heights North neighborhood. Did you consider Arlington County Civic Federation's report to you (Feb. 2016) documenting the acute shortage of green space in the county, noting that there's less of it per resident than at any time in the last 50 years, and reminding you that your own data call for a 36% rise in households (75,400 individuals) by 2040? Did you consider your own Parks and Recreation Committee's white paper (July 2015) quantifying the health, environmental and economic benefits of more - not less - green space?
Did you factor the disruption to quality of life - in the form of air and 24-hr. noise pollution and potential physical hazard - for the park's immediate neighbors, all of whom made substantial life decisions to locate here confident they were moving themselves and their families to a residential zone intended to remain that way? Was it troubling that you would be violating the original agreement that allowed Rhodeside Green Park to exist to begin with, in which the developer gifted the land to you for $10 in return for your assurance that it be dedicated for public park use?
For that matter, have you budgeted for compensation to homeowners whose property values will show a long-term negative effect from this project? [Before you dismiss this last point as simple self-interest, know that all of us who oppose this site selection are mindful of the greater good and critical service our fire stations provide. That said, it's equally true that our homes are, for most of us, by far our largest asset. As such their value substantially impacts our lives. The lost tax revenue from the depressed value of a handful of homes is easily absorbed by the county. The same is not true for the individual homeowners impacted. Have you considered the cost to the county and its other taxpayers should impacted homeowners choose, as well they should, to avail themselves of every avenue of redress?]
Yet we need our fire station. Surely there are more appropriate alternatives. Use of the site near Holiday Inn, we are told, would block one of the hotel's parking garage entrances - a temporary, negligible inconvenience for guests in town for a day or two. While choosing Gateway Park would also involve repurposing green space, its location prohibits long-term development, guaranteeing a truly temporary scenario minimally disruptive to residents, as well as a space that is far more easily and fully restored, lacking as it does the older trees of Rhodeside. The Wilson School site, we understand, would delay availability of new playing fields - again a legitimately temporary inconvenience which removes no current benefit and imposes no longer-term harm on a larger community. We note that a common denominator among the sites proposed to date is that they are county-owned. Has consideration been given to leasing privately owned land in a more suitable location?
Perhaps all of the above has been carefully considered. Judging from your process to date, however, I must conclude it has not. Conducting this business at 8:30 on a Saturday morning at the height of vacation season - in a town famous for clearing out for the summer - and with zero advance notice or outreach to impacted voters and taxpayers, seems neglectful at best, and at worst deceitful. Where was your adherence to the revered 'Arlington Way', which we're told values bottom-up consulting and consensus-building? (Surely advance notice is not outside your skillset, as we are reminded each election cycle when we receive months of proactive communication from board candidates seeking our vote.)
Rhodeside Green Park would be a wrongheaded choice for a clearly needed temporary station. And its sketchy selection process will not reflect well on the elected officials who purport to serve our greater good through inclusion and discussion. I implore you, for all practical reasons, to remove the site from consideration. read more