A little neighborly myth busting
IThere is no democratic deficit here, no dastardly sleight of hand, no Little Washington power play.
read Mr. Jones’s letter last week three times in the vain hope that a glimmer of reality might break through (“No, development isn’t inevitable,” July 15). Alas it was not to be. I would not venture to dispute Mr. Jones’ interpretation of King Cnut, or his passion for honoring our history, I would only note that when it comes to his recounting of Rappahannock’s own history or the intentions he attributes to Town of Washington o cials, his reality falls short. I am disappointed.
Indeed I had expected better. For those, however, who do still care about facts, as I believe many in Rappahannock do, let me attempt to set the record straight with a little gentle and neighborly myth busting.
► Myth number 1: At the crux of Mr. Jones’ argument is the assertion that the Town of Washington is stealing democratic rights from county residents in a power play that excludes county residents from decision making on the Rush River Commons development. One wouldn’t know from the beautifully-dressed rhetoric that sachays its way across his page that Mr. Jones even knows that in 1894 the Town of Washington was declared an incorporated town. Or indeed, that, as an incorporated town, one of only 190 in Virginia, Washington has its own government in many respects independent of county structures. That essentially means it has a democraticallyelected Town Council drawn from town residents, it also has its own Planning Commission, its own Architectural Review Board, Zoning Administrator and Board of Zoning Appeals. These are the bodies which review and, in the case of the Town Council, ultimately vote on whether to proceed with requests for special use permits or other ordinances within town boundaries. In exercising our decision-making authority as an incorporated town we are doing what our forebears have done before us. There is no democratic de cit here, no dastardly sleight of hand, no Little Washington power play. The Town Council will decide as it has for many decades. So much for our voting. What about our listening? On that the answer is simple: We are and will remain committed to hearing the voices of our Rappahannock neighbors wherever they reside. More on that below.
► Myth number 2: The Town of Washington has fallen at on due diligence. Not so. The Town of Washington’s Planning Commission (a body whose membership encompasses decades of public policy experience) has to date held ve sessions to discuss the project. The Town Council has held three.
All these meetings and work sessions have been publicly advertised and open to county residents. Indeed, throughout the process we have bene ted from the presence and participation of county residents including our supervisor, Keir Whitson, who has been a frequent participant. Debbie Donehey, supervisor for the Wake eld District, joined us for our site visit.
► Myth number 3: Approval of the project has been a fait accompli from the get go. Far from skimping on our due diligence, the best evidence of the seriousness of our intent has been the fact that as a result of our deliberations BK, LLC has revised its original development plan in signi cant areas. To name just a few of the changes: The footprint and facades of the commercial building and the residences have been redrawn; the number of residences has been reduced; the number of stories has been reduced; the tra c ow has been amended; the criteria for occupancy has been further de ned; and issues around maintenance have been eshed out in greater detail.
► Myth number 4: Town o cials have both ignored and run roughshod over the county’s comprehensive plan. Another historical misnomer here. Given its more than 125 year status as an incorporated town, every ve years the Town of Washington produces its own comprehensive plan — drawn up by the Planning Commission, widely discussed in public hearings, and adopted by the duly elected Town Council. This has been regularly done since 1986. The latest Town of Washington Comprehensive Plan predates the county’s plan issued last year. But it contains many similarities. Indeed one would be hard pressed to see where there is any contradiction. We too want to maintain the beauty of our viewsheds; we too want to support sustainable and measured growth; we too want to preserve the best of our past while leaning into our best future. Our plans are in sync. Indeed the county’s comprehensive plan makes a point of designating Washington as one of the villages targeted by the county for housing development and population growth.
Finally, the kicker sentence: “The project has been handled with the usual clumsiness of our naïve arrivistes.” I o en wonder why Rappahannock is so hellbent on dividing neighbors into those who have been here and those who come here. (Incidentally, the term “born here” seems to have been dropped given that so many of those who rail against the arrivistes actually have no Rappahannock birthright of their own). I hope I have made the case that there has been no clumsiness here. Nor has there been an attempt to exclude. Quite the contrary. Our history has created di erent governing structures, we honor that fact. But we also recognize that no town is an island. We are proud to be part of the Rappahannock community, we are proud that we are the County seat, and we welcome all views. Please join us at the Planning Commission’s public hearing on July 29 at 7 p.m. at the Washington Town Hall where we will discuss our recommendation on the Rush River Commons project. You will nd more details in the Legal Notices section of this newspaper. All supporting documents are available at https://washingtonva.gov/town-meetings/.