The Post is technically correct that multifamily housing must be “nearly” identical in design standards. But this focus on aesthetics misses a key point: These EHO projects are permitted to be built on larger lot sizes than the single-family homes they replace. For years before this policy was proposed, Arlington civic groups, environmental groups, and other groups had been pressuring the county to reconsider existing overly generous lot size limits for single-family homes. Housing. Acknowledging this concern, the County Commission assured Arlington residents in 2022 that lot coverage for these new developments would be equivalent to the generous existing limits for single-family homes. But the County ultimately Developers of EHO projects are now allowed to build an additional 5 percent of the lot on which their project is located, but this is an exception that only applies to a small number of single-family homes with detached backyard garages.
As the County’s Preliminary EHO Report confirms, EHO developers, pending the outcome of the litigation, are already taking full advantage of this additional 5 percent exemption in their designs. Their projects destroy mature trees, exacerbate heat islands and other climate impacts, create additional stormwater management challenges that are already substantial given the increasing frequency and severity of flash floods, lead to the demolition of small and affordable homes, create shade that makes solar power generation difficult for surrounding homes, and undermine the reasonable expectations of quiet living for the neighbors noted in the article.
The County Commission declined to consider a proposal to postpone the expanded housing option until the lot size issue was finally resolved, but has only now directed staff to begin researching ways to address these concerns. How quickly the county moves forward will be critical, as developers continue to demolish many of Arlington’s smaller homes on a weekly basis and the county grants larger lot sizes for the expanded housing option.
William R. Richardson Jr., Arlington
The author is president of the Donaldson Run Civic Association.
As I read the June 8th front page article about Arlington residents at odds with their government, I tried to find a reason why Arlington’s government would feel obligated to pack more people into the city, but I couldn’t find one.
Is there a law that requires Arlington city officials, elected or employed, to allow additional housing to be built without citizen approval? And if so, when is Arlington “full”? Surely Arlington city officials understand that there are limits to the number of people, cars, and possessions that can fit within the boundaries that make up Arlington, just as there are limits to the number of people that can occupy a given space, such as a school classroom, a cafe, or a stadium.
First of all, who is in charge of Arlington, private citizens or public officials?
I found the June 8 article about the lawsuit against the Arlington Housing Options Expansion Program very amusing. Apparently the loose liberal NIMBYs are so conflicted about their desire to support affordable housing if it can be built somewhere else that they have to turn their narrow private interest into a broad public interest. Inevitably they do. They bring up concerns about schools, roads, sewers, kids, gentrification, greedy developers, whether the housing is affordable, and, if all else fails, about process and procedure. To those opposed to the “loss of the middle class,” please be honest. You just want to protect your own corner of heaven. That’s okay, we all are! But at least be honest about it.
Jeffrey Denney, Washington
The July 1 Metro article, “New Law Takes Effect,” fails to mention an important new law in Virginia, House Bill 1395, “Preservation of Historic Landmarks and Application for Historic District Designation,” legislation I introduced with John Reeder and which Rep. Patrick Hope vigorously promoted despite four years of relentless opposition from Arlington County.
This new law is necessary and important, and will prevent the catastrophe that occurred in 2021 in Arlington with the destruction of the historic Febry-Rotrop-Rouse Mansion on Wilson Boulevard. This unique antebellum mansion, numerous historic outbuildings, and 9.5 acres of vacant land were all approved for demolition by Arlington County prior to the completion of the ongoing review for Local Historic District designation for the entire site under the county’s jurisdiction.
This new law requires that the relevant government agencies complete the full Local Historic District review and approval process before issuing a demolition permit. Compliance with this new law may soon be tested in Arlington, as the former Nellie Custis School site in South Arlington is under serious threat of demolition and is currently pending Local Historic District review.
Preservationists like me will be watching closely here and across Virginia to ensure this historic new law is properly followed.
I was amused by the dark humor in the July 2nd Metro article, “Fairfax County Schools Changes Grading Policy.” Educational jargon aside, the change is just another example of “karma” in education.
Fairfax school leaders solemnly announced they were changing the grading system from the “traditional” method, which considers “student behavior, participation and study habits,” to a new model that “prioritizes” student performance on projects, tests, homework and quizzes.
When I went to public school in the 1940s and 1950s, traditional grading methods were based on student performance on tests, homework, quizzes, and projects. Sound familiar? In fact, it’s no different, except that students back then had to demonstrate proficiency in more rigorous ways than students in Fairfax’s new model.
In the decades since the 1950s, education “reformers” have successfully transformed grading into the current system based on student behavior, which at its worst was more about preserving students’ self-esteem than ensuring their learning. Now, this current system is being replaced by a 1950s system disguised as a new model.
I can’t see it, but I am convinced that 20 years from now, after the model based on subject mastery has once again become the “traditional” grading system, this model will be challenged by education “reformers” who want to replace it with a new grading model based on student behavior, participation, and study habits.
Roger Burkhart, Gaithersburg
Regarding the June 27 Metro article “Virginia and Maryland in dispute over blue crab dredging”:
Picture this: friends and family gathered around the table munching on blue crab, rehashing the age-old debate over JO Seasoning versus Old Bay and teaching the youngest how to remove the precious chunks of meat. This summer, the scene will play out thousands of times in Virginia and Maryland, where the iconic blue crab is as much a part of the culture as it is the economy.
Now, imagine a scenario in which the blue crab fishery, the fishermen who catch them, and the gatherings that gather them are all things of the past. Thanks to a decision last month by the Virginia Marine Resources Commission, such a tragedy may be in our future.
VMRC recently voted to overturn a 15-year closure of Virginia’s winter blue crab dredge fishery, which historically operated from December through March. The ban was put into place in 2008 due to a severe decline in blue crab populations that was linked to overfishing of females, which are key to the sustainability of the population. Because of where and when the winter dredge fishery operates, it primarily captures adult female crabs before they spawn in the spring. It is estimated that when the dredge fishery was in operation, 34 percent of the adult female crabs in the Bay were caught each year, along with millions of larval crabs that would have been born if the crabs had been allowed to spawn.
Now, the outlook for blue crab populations in the bay is once again uncertain, as scientists race to understand the latest challenges limiting crab reproduction and the impacts of emerging threats such as blue catfish. A new stock assessment is currently underway to create statistical models to estimate crab populations and sustainable harvest rates. However, VMRC has chosen to open the door to additional harvest now, against the best available science, the advice of its own staff scientists, and the conservation efforts of neighboring jurisdictions.
Crab lovers in both states are rightly outraged by this decision. The VMRC’s ruling is concerning, premature and not based on science. There is still time to convince the commission to reverse this foolish decision and not reopen the fishery in December. That is exactly what we are asking them to do.
Emmett Hanger,Mount Solon Virginia.
The authors are a former board member of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, chairman emeritus of the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science, and a former Republican senator from the Virginia General Assembly.
