Urges Council to Think Hard About Project
In regards to the Harris Teeter project, I’d like to say this to the Falls Church City Council:
Many of us understand the desire for growth in our city, and the eventuality of it. Everything must change, eventually. (There is a season, turn, turn, turn…) Many of us understand that ‘things don’t get done’ without expense – yes, everything costs. We understand ‘profit’. And many understand and desire variety and ‘convenience’ when it comes to purchasing life necessities – like food. And we try (as we all should) to understand collateral damage all such projects have. It simply can’t be ‘all good’.
So please, think about what has to happen and how it ‘inconveniences’ those relatively few who live close to the project.
Please “think ahead” – unlike anyone on past councils did (by the way) regarding new buildings on Broad Street (built over the last twenty years) and obvious rain water-runoff issues for residents south of Broad.
Think about them… no, they aren’t making any profit. They actually aren’t ‘part of the deal’ at all. At best they may find it more ‘convenient’ to walk to the store rather than drive to competitors. That is, if they don’t boycott this store entirely.
Maybe, just maybe, ask yourselves… what would it take to keep those folks happy?
Hey, I know… make them a part of the deal! GIVE THEM SOMETHING! If you’re going to insist on putting a rather hideous (and noisy) supermarket, essentially in their backyard – give them something for the ‘inconvenience’ it will surely cost them.
Knock-knock… hey, City Council? Figure it out.
Don’t let it go, as did those before you – regarding rainwater runoff. We all know what that’s costing us now.
Take care of your peeps.
City Shouldn’t Engage in Any ‘Social Engineering’
The February 28, 2013 Falls Church News-Press editorial, “Will F.C. Reverse The Income Gap?” is an example of discrimination, bigotry and racism very seldom seen in print.
Your statement, “In short, an enlightened City leadership would work to ensure the City is less white, and less rich…” is offensive to me and offensive to anyone who believes that a person’s race, nor economic status, should be a determination of a person’s worth to society. In addition, the City leadership’s responsibility to its citizens is not to engage in social engineering by imposing an arbitrary “quota” on the City’s race or economic status, but to ensure that there is, in fact, no discrimination permitted.
You reference affordable housing as “It need not be dependent on added government spending so much as on a political willingness to permit the private sector to develop the kind of affordable housing which would be profitable and also benefit families further down the income scale.” Falls Church policies do not prevent the private sector for building affordable housing. Instead, I believe you are suggesting that Falls Church provide tax breaks for housing designated as “affordable.” It is not the responsibility of the City to social engineer housing based on race or economic status. As you well know, Falls Church relies on taxes to function and provide services to its citizens. To ensure profitability of affordable housing through tax breaks will require unnecessary higher taxes for the remainder of the 12,500 City residents.
In closing, I have two additional comments:
1. Your challenge to Falls Church to “buck the trend in the new Brandeis University study showing the wealth gap between blacks and white…” is not only racist and discriminatory, but a very tall order for the “Little City” of 12,500 people in 2.2 square miles.
2. Your Goal No. 2. is not a goal but an opinion.
Letters to the Editor may be submitted to email@example.com or via our online form here. Letters should be limited to 350 words and may be edited for content, clarity and length. To view the FCNP’s letter and submission policy, please click here.