You are absolutely correct. The opponents will not compromise and consensus is not possible. Their leaders want to keep the issue alive as long as possible to further their political ambitions. Fannon, a member of the Dominion boat club will oppose, although he should recuse himself. The two ladies will either abstain or vote against since they are playing the populist card too in order to get re-elected. So hopefully the others will have enough back-bone and persevere.

Sean, you said it well. Recently I explained to a friend: Simply, the warehouses on the north and south side of the riverfront have by-right zoning to build townhomes,condos, offices and restaurants. Changing the zoning on these to build three 150 each will have less traffic impact than the current zoning and will require the owners to clean up the polluted flow from their site into the river. The hotels also provide 6 times more tax revenue than the current zonin. This tax revenue provides the money for flood control and to add 5 acres of additional parks. A group oppose to the city plan want the city to buy the warehouses (taking $50 million off the tax roles and issue debt for all Alexandrian to pay through increased taxes, to buy the property and develop it to parks and museums. The city is already at the top of its debt limit and recently received a negative outlook from the rating agencies. The opposition plan estimates 500,000 people attending the museums. There you get a traffic problem and more buses!. The cost of the opposition plan is upward of $100 million. The opponents have a political agenda with the leaders running for election next year. They are using this platform and misinformation to get their names in the press.

So, Sean Holihan can suddenly weigh in on the issue because he is running for council but people who have been working on the issue for 3 years are discredited if they are even thinking of running for council. I would be curious to know how many of those 100 meetings Sean attended, and I do not remember seeing him at at one of the Waterfront Work Group meetings, of which there were 15. Where has he been? He also chose not to speak to anyone from CAAWP before forming his opinion. Shouldn't someone seeking a leadership position talk to both sides first? None of the Current City Council members have taken the time to resolve differences and sit down with both sides. In fact, I believe at least one of the council members have been coordinating with the new "citizens" group Waterfront for All. Sean, next time you decide to weigh in on an issue, I hope you take the time to sit down with both sides. That would show real leadership.

Sean has it exactly right. It's time to move this forward. Enough talk -- more action.

BRAVO, Sean. While I admire CAAWP's passion, it is time to move on!

Once more this group of "yea sayers" are exhibiting their ignorance of the main issues, such as implications of zoning changes, density impact, and FAR. The City's Work Group report cites a number of critical gaps in the city's understanding of what it is proposing: parking, transportation management, flooding, pedestrian flow and safety, marina development, environmental impact assessment, and a GenOn Small Area Plan.
It is this type of public commentary by "yea sayers" that does nothing to produce a "world class waterfront". Better for each of them to google waterfront development around the world and see what others are doing: Madrid is turning a six mile stretch along their river into one long park; Zurich is setting traffic lights to slow and eliminate traffic; Stockholm does everything right.
Open your eyes - it's a big and inventive world with many lessons to learn from.

The City Council set the time table for voting on the waterfront plan The postponement from a June vote was clearly meant avoid any possible influence on the Democratic Primary in August. The work group meetings failed to reach any consensus on the important issues -- consistently splitting on four to three votes. Attending those meetings did help those of us who went understand the plan. I do not believe the editorial writer was ever present. Council's new goal is to vote as far as possible before campaigning for Council seats starts in the spring. If this plan were popular with most citizens, the date of its adoption would not matter.

Sean, Cute analogy, but not fitting. The city's waterfront plan is AWFUL! And it is not the job of a concerned citizens group to develop a completed plan! It's the city's. With their fat consultant budget that was funded by us, the tax payers, the city could only come up with one plan? highest density possible! The city council has cowered to the developers and property owners who are bullying them with law suit threats and threats of, " if you don't rezone, we'll build something horrible to spite you." Who's in charge here? I thought that's what the City Council did - safeguard our city. The group of concerned citizens, CAAWP, is just that, a group of Alexandrians who has no "skin in the game", unlike some other "citizens" groups, who cares deeply about the long term development and integrity of the historic waterfront. We are citizens who KNOW there is a better way than exchanging rezoning and high density development along the riverfront for a meager walkway. I am among the Alexandrians who want to elect city council members who have the grit stand up to developers and financiers,
and there are A LOT of us!
Beth Gibney

CAAWP has been unable or unwilling to compromise in order to meet some of its arguably laudable goals, and that dooms its entire "plan" to pie-in-the-sky failure. For example, CAAWP wanted a massive museum that the City's reply demonstrated was absolutely unrealistic, both in terms of financing and projected visitation. As that reply pointed out, successful museums in historic districts often rely on small hotels to serve as visitation and destination anchors and for "make-up" revenue to cover the cost of the museum or attracton that visitors alone don't cover (Williamsburg and many plantation estates are great examples of this). Because CAAWP wanted no hotels at all on the waterfront, it was unwilling (or lacked the imagination) to propose that one of the possible hotels on the Robinson sites be specifically linked to its proposed museum (for example, by requiring both an initial developer contribution to the museum and ongoing financing) and tying the theme of any such hotel to the overall maritime history experience. This could have been a win-win-win scenario -- a small hotel that funds the greater public good of the museum, with little or no drain on taxpayers. But CAAWP chose to ignore that point and refused to compromise on one issue to get what it really (purportedly) wanted -- as it has throughout the process. It is now left with no realistic alternative to the City's plan.

Excellent comments from all. I have to side with Sean; although that does mean I would vote for him. As a resident for only one year, I have periodically weighed-in my thoughts on the ongoing controversy. I have continually felt that the primary goal for CAAWP was to procrastinate on any movement toward a revitalized Waterfront. Cries for a “world-class" waterfront or wait to include the coal plant area, cloud the issue – what can the taxpayers afford? From my observation point, if the city's plan is economically feasible, it's time to move forward.

I must say I agree with Sean and most of the other posters. Also, never seems to fail that there are always some of the CAAWP group that go into attack mode when their postion doesn't appear to be supported. Much like their consistent bent to provide misinformation and inflammatory rhetoric. I was acutally somewhat supportive of a number of their ideas but as time went by I saw hostility from that group increase, distortion of the facts relative to size of buildings even going so far as to suggest we were being "National Harborized and high rises were coming in. Further, there was absolutely no compromise position. They want what they want and nothing esle. I support the city's plan and there are alot us too! Oh, and I vote as well and will not be voting for any fof the CAAWP group that may run. Why would I want someone in office that can't compromise. We already have that across the potomac...we don't need in here if we want to continue to progress.

And who studied the Martha's Vineyard waterfront? Obviously someone who did not take anything from that study! We have spent summers there for the past 23 years and I am very familiar with the planning, restraint and success of Martha's Vineyard's waterfront. Martha's Vineyard is quaint, it"s real, it's historic and its' citizens fought to keep it that way! Now, no one is fighting and all are in agreement that restraint was the key to success. That's why ALL the tourists want to go there - to see something "real". I hope Alexandria's City Council will have the foresight that Martha's Vineyard's City Council did! We have a once in a city's life time opportunity! And former mistakes should not be our precedent. We are stuck with some of those, but hopefully we have learned and will hold the downgraded zoning, control what is built and enjoy a beautiful vibrant waterfront that is fitting to our fabulous historic city.
Beth Gibney

Beth Gabney says opponents will compromise after the city agrees not to rezone. Let me get this straight - the city gives you all you want and then you agree to compromise. What a deal!

As for underground garages, they are expensive. However, most European cities - Paris, Geneva, etc. - have them along rivers. They should be required here in exchange for the zoning.

I do find all this anti-developer anti-financier populism another effort by the opponents to appeal to emotion.

Dear Mr. Rosenbaum:

What matters is the geology, not the place. Underground anything built on a floodplain, which is how FEMA classifies Alexandria's waterfront, is risky. FEMA's own insurance department puts a 1/4 chance of any property at 201 S. Union claiming for flood damage in the life of a 30-yr mortgage. This is the life span of this project.
Simple populism or simple thinking is not the answer anymore. We can't afford to make mistakes, nor do we have any excuse in this age of shared information and sophisticated analytical methods to do so.