Boyd Walker (user 274) - Comments by Date

Dear Patch,

This invitation was posted on the Waterfront for All Website, and I
thought it was in very poor taste:

Friends,
We need your help—and we'll even make it a PARTY!
There is much confusion about the waterfront plan because of some
really loud, cranky people who WANT to complain...
(but still throw cigarettes on the ground—you know the type, right!)
Anyway we want to help clear it up, (the confusion, and the
cigarettes!). Our waterfront is one of the most historic seaports in
the US—but doesn't really look like it, and it should.
If you care about making our Alexandria waterfront a really special
and beautiful place (for ALL who live here), and want to know the REAL
plan the city is proposing (it's really great, you'd love it!), here's
where to be:
WHERE you can hear (and be fed)
Sunday, 3:00 P.M. at Virtue Feed & Grain
106 South Union Street Alexandria, Virginia
WHERE 'You' can be heard
Public Hearing on the Proposed Waterfront Plan
Saturday, January 21st, 9:30am @ City Hall, 301 King Street
We and our crew will be at there.
Thank you always for your kind and gracious support.
If you don't agree, that is fine, we still love you ;) but know the facts.
Read the Urban Legends : Be in the know.
Please PASS THIS ON!

I am doing what the supporters of Waterfront for All have suggested and passing this message on. I have eaten at Virtue Feed and Grain twice, and both times I have been there I have seen Murray Bonitt, one of the owners and a supporter of Waterfront for All, and made sure to go over and say hello, and talk about what a great job they did with the building. I used to work at Olsson’s Books and Records in the same building when I was 17 and they put now there is a very nice restaurant in the building. I also saw Jody Manor at Virtue, and said hello, as I do two or three times a week when I see him at his restaurant, Bittersweet. I also know Cathal and Meshelle Armstrong, who I first met when my former wife was a restaurant reviewer for the Alexandria Times. I don't think she ever gave one of their restaurants a bad review. I have seen them eating at Taverna Cretoukou, the restaurant in the building my family has owned since the early 70's and l really appreciate that they support and enjoy other local restaurants. But I have to say that I am disappointed that these people would support the nasty rhetoric in the invitation to this party. Of course Waterfront for All has a right to have a party, and get out their message, but their demeaning characterization of people on the other side of the issue is beyond the pale.

This is kind of characterization and the fact tat they are holding their final rally at the restaurant at the heart of questions of conflict of interest says a lot about Waterfront for All. The Urban Legends published on their website also show that they do not always stick to the facts. Here are my replies to each of them:

1. CAAWP is not for keeping the waterfront the way it is, or why would we have written a 200 page Alternative Plan. Myth busted: CAAWP is for keeping the waterfront as it is.

2. CAAWP does not think that Old Town will be National Harbor, not in scale or size, but in 2007 the Mayor appointed an Economic Sustainability Workgroup headed by Nigel Morris in order to suggest how we would compete with National Harbor. The Waterfront development was one of the suggestions, and so we now have a plan that includes hotels, like National Harbor. Myth Busted: The City Waterfront Plan is like National Harbor.

3. Yes, Resolution with the Old Dominion Boat Club is important, but CAAWP does not support doing it by Eminent Domain and we question the wisdom of taking the ODBC to the Virginia Supreme Court in exchange for $21,000 a year in revenue for Wales Alley. John Fitzgerald Square, which is supposed to go where the ODBC parking lot is, is not possible without a resolution with the Boat Club and is supposed to be a centerpiece of the city plan. Myth: The City’s Waterfront Plan does not depend on Resolution of the Old Dominion Boat Club because it is not about the amenities, but about developing the waterfront.

4. CAAWP has discovered. according to FOIA documents, many private meetings with Robinson Terminal, Attorney Duncan Blair, and representative of the Cummings property in 2009 before the plan was drafted. There were certainly other meetings regarding the lawsuit filed in 2008 by Robinson Terminal asking for the 1992 zoning to be ignored and have all the rights granted them in 1983. Myth busted: Maybe it was not the back room, but these were not public meetings, and they influenced the plan.

5. CAAWP believes “by- right” (that developers would build without any approvals) development is very unlikely as only a 1 FAR (floor area ratio) is allowed for office or residential, and it would only be increased to a 1.25 FAR if retail is added. This is far below what the property owners
are asking for or the maximum they could get under the current SUP process. In an SUP Process concessions like paying for the 6.5 million in flood mitigation could be required. Myth busted: Neither this plan or by-right zoning will give us what we want. The only thing that will give us what we want is a new plan that is built around a shared vision.

6. CAWP does not believe that the City Waterfront Plan will take away what is currently public space,
but it does remove a once in a lifetime opportunity to acquire more parkland along the Alexandria Waterfront which is a National Historic Landmark District and enjoyed by citizens across the city. Parkland increases the value of private properties around it, thus it would add significantly to the tax base without requiring development.
The suggestion that there will be more control by developers is truly a myth when what they are actually getting is maximum flexibility. The Developers are also not required to make any donations "for flood mitigation, open space, parks, streetscape enhancements, public art and the like," as Waterfront for All suggests. Yes, the development will supposedly pay for these things, but it is not in developer contributions but that every tax dollar generated from these developments for 25 years (they have shortened it from 30) will go to Waterfront improvements which will of course also help the developers. There are no developer contributions,. Myth busted: The Developers are not paying for this plan, tax payers are with any new tax revenue generated for 25 years.

7. CAAWP believes the City Waterfront Plan will cause more traffic and congestion. Putting 3 hotels on the waterfront will increase traffic and congestion, period. There will also be office and condo development as well. The City plan originally said it will cause no traffic or congestion just like they said about BRAC. That is not just misleading, but a lie. If you want Hotels, do the study on the traffic on Union Street that the Waterfront Work Group has recommended before the plan is passed. There will actually be almost 1000 new cars parking along the waterfront. The Plan says there are 700 currently available spaces and they are contemplating that at least 300 more would need to be built. There has been no comparison between the parking needed for hotels and museums and art centers. Since the Torpedo Factory has no dedicated parking I would suggest another art center would also need no parking. Myth busted: There will be more Traffic and Congestion.

The invitation to a party, calling us "cranky" people is characteristic of this organization, as are their portrayal of our views. There spokesperson Lynn Hampton on WAMU said that the plan covers 340 acres. It most certainly does not or we could have hotels anywhere in that zone and the 25 acre Gen On coal fired power plant would be in the plan. The Zoning changes are for three property owners only, and affect 8.5 acres in an 8 block area. In fact, the city plan will add only about 1.5 acres of park to what is already in the settlement agreement. If the CAAWP Plan is passed 10 acres of parkland would be added. If the City Waterfront Plan is passed we will have hotels along the waterfront in a few years, and be paying for them for the next 25 years. Hotels will not make Alexandria a historic and special place. An open waterfront accessible to the public with activities for all will be a better waterfront.

I hope that Waterfront for All can do two things, get the facts right, and stop belittling people who don't support the City's Waterfront Plan. We both have a right to our opinions.

Boyd Walker
Co-founder and Co-Chair of Citizens for an Alternative Alexandria Waterfront Plan

Boyd Walker (274) | User | January 16, 2012 - 12:04 AM | Waterfront Comment Board

Mayor and Members of City Council,

I would be interested in meeting with each of you before the 21st to discuss the Waterfront Plan. As all of you know, I am opposed to rezoning the waterfront, and I would like to lay out the arguments for this, and talk to you about my vision of the waterfront. Re-zoning will greatly increase cost of each of these properties for any other use, putting all other options further out of reach. I have always believed there are other options, and I do not think that they have been adequately explored by city planning staff.

Not only did staff dismiss the plan presented by CAAWP, but it has dismissed any efforts to seek alternative sources of funding. A different aproach would have been to work with CAAWP instead of appearing to dismiss the hard work of many citizens who had tried at their own time and expense to articulate. The Waterfront Work Group did some great work and made some progress, but did not resolve the major differences. I don't think that just saying now that we can't say reach consensus or have a plan that everyone is happy with, does not make it okay to vote for this plan. Frankly, it is throwing in the towel.

If zoning changes are not eliminated from this plan, I will urge all city council members to vote no. I think there is more than adequate reason to vote against this plan, and hopefully a new plan that has broader support can be created. It must balance economic needs with public benefits. This plan is out of balance, mainly because the development comes first, and then the public amenities will be stretched out over a 15 year period, and can only be built if all the development proceeds as proposed. Then, the plan is only revenue nuetral, or only starts to make a positive return in 30 years, again if everything goes exactly according to plan. It is a long term bet on short term revenue, and there has not been a good enough argument that we need this development and that development is better than other options.

Lastly, I cannot neglect the historical signifigance of our waterfront. Not only were the streets laid out by George Washington, but his boat was built here, he left to be innaugurated our first president from his hometown. George Washington saw the Potomac as an integral part of building the Nation. He also made sure it was includedin the district of Columbia. The City was laid out around West Point, where a tobacco taxing wharehouse was located. The first Wharf in Alexandria was built at this site, probably in by 1755 when General Braddock's Troops arrived at a the wahrf, according to historian Ted Pulliam. The streets were laid out around this point. Currently this site is assessed for around 15 milion, but with rezoning it would probably be worth 30 million. I only ask that we consider the benefits not only to Alexandria, but to the Nation that we buy this property at the current price, protect it from development, and designate it as the future site of a museum.

There is so much more, and I hope you will take the time to meet with me, so that we can work together to create a great waterfront for future generations, and not just the best waterfront for revenue generation for the current generation. I look forward to talking to each of you.

Boyd Walker

Boyd Walker (274) | User | January 9, 2012 - 9:38 AM | Waterfront Comment Board

Boyd Walker (user 274) - Comments by Board

Waterfront Comment Board

Dear Patch,

This invitation was posted on the Waterfront for All Website, and I
thought it was in very poor taste:

Friends,
We need your help—and we'll even make it a PARTY!
There is much confusion about the waterfront plan because of some
really loud, cranky people who WANT to complain...
(but still throw cigarettes on the ground—you know the type, right!)
Anyway we want to help clear it up, (the confusion, and the
cigarettes!). Our waterfront is one of the most historic seaports in
the US—but doesn't really look like it, and it should.
If you care about making our Alexandria waterfront a really special
and beautiful place (for ALL who live here), and want to know the REAL
plan the city is proposing (it's really great, you'd love it!), here's
where to be:
WHERE you can hear (and be fed)
Sunday, 3:00 P.M. at Virtue Feed & Grain
106 South Union Street Alexandria, Virginia
WHERE 'You' can be heard
Public Hearing on the Proposed Waterfront Plan
Saturday, January 21st, 9:30am @ City Hall, 301 King Street
We and our crew will be at there.
Thank you always for your kind and gracious support.
If you don't agree, that is fine, we still love you ;) but know the facts.
Read the Urban Legends : Be in the know.
Please PASS THIS ON!

I am doing what the supporters of Waterfront for All have suggested and passing this message on. I have eaten at Virtue Feed and Grain twice, and both times I have been there I have seen Murray Bonitt, one of the owners and a supporter of Waterfront for All, and made sure to go over and say hello, and talk about what a great job they did with the building. I used to work at Olsson’s Books and Records in the same building when I was 17 and they put now there is a very nice restaurant in the building. I also saw Jody Manor at Virtue, and said hello, as I do two or three times a week when I see him at his restaurant, Bittersweet. I also know Cathal and Meshelle Armstrong, who I first met when my former wife was a restaurant reviewer for the Alexandria Times. I don't think she ever gave one of their restaurants a bad review. I have seen them eating at Taverna Cretoukou, the restaurant in the building my family has owned since the early 70's and l really appreciate that they support and enjoy other local restaurants. But I have to say that I am disappointed that these people would support the nasty rhetoric in the invitation to this party. Of course Waterfront for All has a right to have a party, and get out their message, but their demeaning characterization of people on the other side of the issue is beyond the pale.

This is kind of characterization and the fact tat they are holding their final rally at the restaurant at the heart of questions of conflict of interest says a lot about Waterfront for All. The Urban Legends published on their website also show that they do not always stick to the facts. Here are my replies to each of them:

1. CAAWP is not for keeping the waterfront the way it is, or why would we have written a 200 page Alternative Plan. Myth busted: CAAWP is for keeping the waterfront as it is.

2. CAAWP does not think that Old Town will be National Harbor, not in scale or size, but in 2007 the Mayor appointed an Economic Sustainability Workgroup headed by Nigel Morris in order to suggest how we would compete with National Harbor. The Waterfront development was one of the suggestions, and so we now have a plan that includes hotels, like National Harbor. Myth Busted: The City Waterfront Plan is like National Harbor.

3. Yes, Resolution with the Old Dominion Boat Club is important, but CAAWP does not support doing it by Eminent Domain and we question the wisdom of taking the ODBC to the Virginia Supreme Court in exchange for $21,000 a year in revenue for Wales Alley. John Fitzgerald Square, which is supposed to go where the ODBC parking lot is, is not possible without a resolution with the Boat Club and is supposed to be a centerpiece of the city plan. Myth: The City’s Waterfront Plan does not depend on Resolution of the Old Dominion Boat Club because it is not about the amenities, but about developing the waterfront.

4. CAAWP has discovered. according to FOIA documents, many private meetings with Robinson Terminal, Attorney Duncan Blair, and representative of the Cummings property in 2009 before the plan was drafted. There were certainly other meetings regarding the lawsuit filed in 2008 by Robinson Terminal asking for the 1992 zoning to be ignored and have all the rights granted them in 1983. Myth busted: Maybe it was not the back room, but these were not public meetings, and they influenced the plan.

5. CAAWP believes “by- right” (that developers would build without any approvals) development is very unlikely as only a 1 FAR (floor area ratio) is allowed for office or residential, and it would only be increased to a 1.25 FAR if retail is added. This is far below what the property owners
are asking for or the maximum they could get under the current SUP process. In an SUP Process concessions like paying for the 6.5 million in flood mitigation could be required. Myth busted: Neither this plan or by-right zoning will give us what we want. The only thing that will give us what we want is a new plan that is built around a shared vision.

6. CAWP does not believe that the City Waterfront Plan will take away what is currently public space,
but it does remove a once in a lifetime opportunity to acquire more parkland along the Alexandria Waterfront which is a National Historic Landmark District and enjoyed by citizens across the city. Parkland increases the value of private properties around it, thus it would add significantly to the tax base without requiring development.
The suggestion that there will be more control by developers is truly a myth when what they are actually getting is maximum flexibility. The Developers are also not required to make any donations "for flood mitigation, open space, parks, streetscape enhancements, public art and the like," as Waterfront for All suggests. Yes, the development will supposedly pay for these things, but it is not in developer contributions but that every tax dollar generated from these developments for 25 years (they have shortened it from 30) will go to Waterfront improvements which will of course also help the developers. There are no developer contributions,. Myth busted: The Developers are not paying for this plan, tax payers are with any new tax revenue generated for 25 years.

7. CAAWP believes the City Waterfront Plan will cause more traffic and congestion. Putting 3 hotels on the waterfront will increase traffic and congestion, period. There will also be office and condo development as well. The City plan originally said it will cause no traffic or congestion just like they said about BRAC. That is not just misleading, but a lie. If you want Hotels, do the study on the traffic on Union Street that the Waterfront Work Group has recommended before the plan is passed. There will actually be almost 1000 new cars parking along the waterfront. The Plan says there are 700 currently available spaces and they are contemplating that at least 300 more would need to be built. There has been no comparison between the parking needed for hotels and museums and art centers. Since the Torpedo Factory has no dedicated parking I would suggest another art center would also need no parking. Myth busted: There will be more Traffic and Congestion.

The invitation to a party, calling us "cranky" people is characteristic of this organization, as are their portrayal of our views. There spokesperson Lynn Hampton on WAMU said that the plan covers 340 acres. It most certainly does not or we could have hotels anywhere in that zone and the 25 acre Gen On coal fired power plant would be in the plan. The Zoning changes are for three property owners only, and affect 8.5 acres in an 8 block area. In fact, the city plan will add only about 1.5 acres of park to what is already in the settlement agreement. If the CAAWP Plan is passed 10 acres of parkland would be added. If the City Waterfront Plan is passed we will have hotels along the waterfront in a few years, and be paying for them for the next 25 years. Hotels will not make Alexandria a historic and special place. An open waterfront accessible to the public with activities for all will be a better waterfront.

I hope that Waterfront for All can do two things, get the facts right, and stop belittling people who don't support the City's Waterfront Plan. We both have a right to our opinions.

Boyd Walker
Co-founder and Co-Chair of Citizens for an Alternative Alexandria Waterfront Plan

Boyd Walker (274) | User | January 16, 2012 - 12:04 AM

Mayor and Members of City Council,

I would be interested in meeting with each of you before the 21st to discuss the Waterfront Plan. As all of you know, I am opposed to rezoning the waterfront, and I would like to lay out the arguments for this, and talk to you about my vision of the waterfront. Re-zoning will greatly increase cost of each of these properties for any other use, putting all other options further out of reach. I have always believed there are other options, and I do not think that they have been adequately explored by city planning staff.

Not only did staff dismiss the plan presented by CAAWP, but it has dismissed any efforts to seek alternative sources of funding. A different aproach would have been to work with CAAWP instead of appearing to dismiss the hard work of many citizens who had tried at their own time and expense to articulate. The Waterfront Work Group did some great work and made some progress, but did not resolve the major differences. I don't think that just saying now that we can't say reach consensus or have a plan that everyone is happy with, does not make it okay to vote for this plan. Frankly, it is throwing in the towel.

If zoning changes are not eliminated from this plan, I will urge all city council members to vote no. I think there is more than adequate reason to vote against this plan, and hopefully a new plan that has broader support can be created. It must balance economic needs with public benefits. This plan is out of balance, mainly because the development comes first, and then the public amenities will be stretched out over a 15 year period, and can only be built if all the development proceeds as proposed. Then, the plan is only revenue nuetral, or only starts to make a positive return in 30 years, again if everything goes exactly according to plan. It is a long term bet on short term revenue, and there has not been a good enough argument that we need this development and that development is better than other options.

Lastly, I cannot neglect the historical signifigance of our waterfront. Not only were the streets laid out by George Washington, but his boat was built here, he left to be innaugurated our first president from his hometown. George Washington saw the Potomac as an integral part of building the Nation. He also made sure it was includedin the district of Columbia. The City was laid out around West Point, where a tobacco taxing wharehouse was located. The first Wharf in Alexandria was built at this site, probably in by 1755 when General Braddock's Troops arrived at a the wahrf, according to historian Ted Pulliam. The streets were laid out around this point. Currently this site is assessed for around 15 milion, but with rezoning it would probably be worth 30 million. I only ask that we consider the benefits not only to Alexandria, but to the Nation that we buy this property at the current price, protect it from development, and designate it as the future site of a museum.

There is so much more, and I hope you will take the time to meet with me, so that we can work together to create a great waterfront for future generations, and not just the best waterfront for revenue generation for the current generation. I look forward to talking to each of you.

Boyd Walker

Boyd Walker (274) | User | January 9, 2012 - 9:38 AM