David Potomac Yard
-
The Basics
-
David on Patch
-
More Stuff
Comments
-
On the article Planning Commission OKs Waterfront Rezoning
-
On the article Euille Reiterates Commitment to Building Metro Station at Potomac Yard
David Potomac Yard
12:32 pm on Tuesday, February 5, 2013
The metro station will be funded out of a special tax district and private contributions from developers. The city's bond ratings have recently been reaffired at AAA and the rating agencies know full well of the planned metro station. The contract with the developer even includes an early lump sum baloon payment to keep the city within its statutory limit.
Also, the travel delay will be minor to morning commuters as they're going to work on weekends and nights (hence the temporary lighting). Finally, the minor travel delay of trains during 2 years of construction is outweighed by the mitigated road congestion for the next 20 years.
-
On the article Election 2012: What Your Neighbors Donated to Obama, Romney
David Potomac Yard
3:16 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Gail, you're using rational thought to make a salient point. Thank you.
-
On the article Election 2012: What Your Neighbors Donated to Obama, Romney
David Potomac Yard
3:13 pm on Tuesday, September 25, 2012
ReplyWhenever I read these comments, I go back and forth between amusement and absolute horror.
-
On the article Opinion: Growth That Isn’t Smart
David Potomac Yard
1:26 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
James on the Potomac,
There is a fundamental flaw with your finaicial analysis. The taxpayer contributions are coming from a special tax district only on new development. So, Potomac Yard residents will pay a higher tax rate to support the construction while everybody else pays what they would regardless. The developer contribution is fixed. The third source is new tax revenue from the commercial development.
It's important to note that all 3 sources of funding are conditional on the Metro being build. So, it's not like the funds are being taken from schools to build the Metro, the funds are coming from new residents and from new tax revenues that only would exist given the Metro construction.
Yes, if the station is more expensive than expected, some money will be diverted from general revenues, but the larger public is getting a new station at a vast discount. Given that nearby existing residents will get easy walkable access to a new station and the increase in property values that comes with it, I would think everybody would jump at the chance.
-
On the article Opinion: Growth That Isn’t Smart
David Potomac Yard
1:10 pm on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Jim,
No, you are misunderstanding, probably my fault. By not saying there is no ideal density, I'm not saying maximize density, I'm saying there is no fixed recipe for what density is appropriate for a given city/neighborhood. In many places, those without transportation access, less density is appropriate.
However, where there are pockets of underdeveloped land near transit corridors (existing or planned), the most cost effective projects are often those that are more dense, all else being equal. I'm not advocating 50 story towers built on parkland. On the contrary, having more dense clusters of housing allows for more parks and recreational facilities that make urban living so special. Also, congestion is an urban blight which is why my entire perspective is shaped by access to transportation.
We should protect our valuable open spaces, but what about aging assets that are set to be replaced regardless? In my view, shart growth means that development should sustain itself, and density is one tool in order to meet that objective. Given an abandoned rail yard, what would make the most sense? Given an aging auto-dependant corridor, why repeat past mistakes?
I like you Jim, even if we don't agree.
-
On the article Opinion: Growth That Isn’t Smart
David Potomac Yard
10:05 am on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Jim,
New people do bring new cars, but it's not quite accurate to assume it's proportional. Recent studies have shown a growing number of people who want to live in urban settings without cars, both empty nesters who are downsizing and younger professionals. So having a lot more people doesn't necessarily mean more cars or diminishing quality of life. New residents and tourists use things like streetcars, zipcar, and bikeshare.
The public does have input both direct through community meetings, indirectly through their representitives, but most importantly through the free market. Developers are making profit because they're providing properties that people want to buy. That to me is proof that "development" isn't some boogeyman being forced down the public throats, but rather something people crave. I fail to see how turning an empty superfund site into a new and hopefully vibrant community can be seen as a bad thing. Not sure why profit is bad if people want what is being sold. If a developer profited from an unused development or didn't live up to their agreements, I could see your point.
Nobody is advocating bulldozing Old Town for condos. The developments discussed are turning an abandoned railyard and half-empty strip malls into a new, more vibrant asset for the city. I don't understand NIMBYism that has no compelling alternate vision.
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/why-dont-young-americans-buy-cars/255001/
-
On the article Opinion: Growth That Isn’t Smart
David Potomac Yard
8:36 am on Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Jim,
I don't think there is an “ideal” density, as variety in neighborhoods and the services they provide are vital to a robust city. Alexandria has gorgeous townhomes and semi-detached homes throughout Old Town and Del Ray; attractive detached single family homes, and multifamily throughout. All are good and balance within those pockets is better than an ideal density overall. That said there is great potential in certain locations for far more density than currently exists.
All else being equal, density allows for more efficient provision of public services which saves the city money at construction and over time. For instance, if the city were to build a new street, it could support 10 single family homes or a 30 townhomes, or 50 condos. There are fixed costs that don't vary much for the number of units. Sidewalks, streetlights, and sewer lines are largely fixed; when you've already dug the hole, there isn't much difference for a large pipe or a small pipe. The more residents paying taxes to support the infrastructure, the more cost effective the project.
With the large caveat that more people have transportation access, which is why successful, mixed, dense developments cluster around transit access (think Orange line). Potomac Yard Metro and the Route 1 BRT will support Braddock and PY. King Street supports Carlyle. Planned improvements will support Beauregard. They go together: density without transit or transit without density are equally ineffective.
-
On the article Opinion: Growth That Isn’t Smart
David Potomac Yard
9:19 pm on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
James, "Dude":
If you're going to just discount the results of planning studies out of hand, what's the point of linking to them? This is my problem with people like you and the original poster, you will ignore any analysis that shows results you don't want to see, calling for ever more analysis. It's a classic delay tactic when you have no firm basis for your position. If you however had a logical reason for questioning the results of the study, outside of the "developer liar, liar, pants on fire defense" let's hear it. Also, I don't work for a developer, I'm just a private citizen who, like most of my generation, see the value of dense, walkable, developments and have purchased in the Potomac Yard.
Here though are public benefits from the Beauregard Plan and benefits in the form of new tax revenues from the Potomac Yard Metro.
Page 151
http://alexandriava.gov/uploadedFiles/planning/beauregard/CH9.pdfSlide 34
http://potomacyardmetro.com/PY%20Metro%20public%20meeting%20presentation%204-19-12.pdf -
On the article Opinion: Growth That Isn’t Smart
David Potomac Yard
9:58 am on Tuesday, May 15, 2012
ReplyI read that entire thing without coming across one salient point. Straw man indeed. It is easy to say the opposition is wrong, but might the candidate offer anything useful other than "density is bad?" More planning is needed? That's hilarious, the Beauregard plan and the Potomac Yard have been studied extensively and both show objective, quantified benefits. The city would be in a far better financial position if it had more dense, mixed use, transit oriented development. More business and more residents paying taxes for more efficient improvements helps the city as a whole, not just the users of that new infrastructure. Getting defensive about growth will lock the city in the 1950s as jurisdictions around the area start to offer the services that citizens want.
David Potomac Yard
8:27 am on Thursday, March 7, 2013
This nonsense has gone on long enough. Minority rights guarantee you access, not results. The endgame is clear: the only question is how much time and money the opponents are going to waste.