Archive for October 2008
Stormwater Management – It’s Failing in Other Places Too
The New York Times noted today that the Clean Water Act “is designed to target specific contaminants, when the problem with stormwater often is one of volume. A surge of water after a storm can cause streams to erode and fill waterways with sediment.”
There is no serious debate regarding the damage caused by paving our fields/forests, then having rainwater race off the impervious surfaces into local creeks. We know that erosion and excessive sediment triggered by runoff is slowly killing 1,000 miles of streams in Prince William County, and the Chesapeake Bay itself. (For background, see Stormwater and Streams).
The question is “what to do about it?”
The National Academy of Sciences has just proposed an answer… and it is not “more of the same.”
Occoquan Bay Refuge Fall Festival – Lots of people, lots of fun
The Fall Festival at the Occoquan Bay Refuge was today and we had a terrific time. The weather was beautiful and there was lots to do.
The Audubon Society of NoVA, NoVA Bird Club and Virginia Native Plant Society led wildlife and wildflower tours. PWCA was there with an assortment of frogs, turtles & aquatic insects for people to meet. The VA Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries had an great display on mammals, complete with scat replicas.
PWCA also continued planting vegetation around the small pond off the parking lot. Last year we planted spatter dock, pickerel weed and a rush. The pickerel weed and rush didn’t make it, but the spatterdock is blooming, looks terrific and improved the habitat for wildlife.
This year we planted two river birches, two black willows, monkey flower and tried more of the rush in a different location. Special thanks to the FWS, who provided the plants, and everyone who helped plant them. It will be exciting to see these new plants, plus last years spatterdock, along the pond’s shoreline next year… when we’ll be planting something else. All in all, a very good day!
What now for Land Use/Transportation?
The Planning Commission postponed a decision on the Transportation and Land Use chapters last night – but left the public hearing open. That detail was not noted in the Washington Post article.
If you missed the chance to talk last night, you can speak at Citizen’s Time next Wednesday, and at future meetings until the public hearing is officially closed.
As the Planning Staff produces some of the data requested by the members of the Planning Commission after the citizens finished speaking last night, you may find some interesting numbers.
Quite a few of the Planning Commissioners have scientific expertise, so they ought to be able to deal with statistics. I’m particularly interested in the estimated demand for additional housing units beyond what current zoning would allow vs. potential development that would be permitted in the 25 “centers.”
(NOTE: A 4-hour work session will be held by the Planning Commission, but there is no citizen time normally at such sessions.)
Planning Commission reverses vote on buffers
Guest post by Elena Schlossberg
As if the major changes proposed for the Comp Plan weren’t enough, Supervisors will vote on proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance on December 16. One of these changes would weaken our buffer standards for new and existing development. Buffers are strips of land with trees and other plants that separate (buffer) two different land uses, such as roads, strip malls, stormwater facilities and neighborhoods.
The Planning Commission, which originally voted to support these changes, reversed their vote at the October 8 meeting and is now recommending that Supervisors make no changes to our buffer standards.
proposed VRE extension: public meeting on October 22
VRE announcement: On October 22, It’s Your Turn Read the rest of this entry »
Metrorail/VRE is the answer (ugh, what’s the question?)
In suburban San Jose, California, voters this November are being asked to approve a one-eighth-cent sales tax increase (Measure B) to extend BART (their “Metrorail”) from San Francisco.
One rider notes “BART backers sell Measure B as a way to ease traffic, save the world from global warming and move toward independence from foreign oil.” In San Jose, “many people still believe that having BART will make us a big city at last, like the Velveteen Rabbit turned real.” You can read the whole story at Why One Transit Rider Opposes BART to San Jose.
How could anyone with half-a-brain think a subway extension to the suburbs was a bad idea?
If you want to measure if a rail project is the “right answer,” first be clear about the problem. Read the rest of this entry »
October 8 Public Hearings on Land Use/Transportation/Housing
In this Comprehensive Plan update cycle, the Planning Commission determined that revised chapters on transportation and land use should be drafted separately by different committees. That guaranteed the eight planning commissioners would have to integrate the two chapters.
Hey, someone has to determine where future growth should be concentrated, so we could reduce future traffic congestion from single occupancy vehicles (SOV’s), right?
“More of the same” for PW County development just guarantees perpetual gridlock and grumpy citizens, even assuming that voters/politicians would approve much higher taxes and we could build new roads and transit capabilities.
The Planning Commission’s heavy lifting in public starts with hearings on Wednesday, October 8 (7:00pm at McCoart Adminstrative Center). Read the rest of this entry »
