Smarter Growth. John H. SpiersЧитать онлайн книгу.
equally important rationale was the high cost of buying the property from Miller & Smith. While the Department of the Interior had offered up to $1.2 million, that money was contingent on the county and the state matching the offer. Fairfax’s share was 20 percent, which translated to nearly half a million dollars, while the state would have to contribute over $700,000. Although Fairfax was a rather wealthy county, it was struggling to pay the bills for an ever-widening array of services as residents settled farther out and sought to lower their tax rates. Dedicating such a considerable amount of money to preserve land that would not generate tax revenue seemed a losing proposition, even though the prospective development of the Burling tract threatened the amenities that many residents saw as contributing to a high quality of life.44
The differing viewpoints of public officials and environmentalists highlighted the challenges of translating the value of the environmental goods and services that land offered into the economic calculus of the real estate market. Public officials continually searched for revenue-generating development to pay for public services.45 In doing so, they were disinclined to support robust environmental policies that might ward off developers because of their costs for compliance and because of the high costs of paying for land preservation in “hot” real estate markets.46 Given that the developer was looking to align its project with the single-family residential character of the community and was willing to offer relatively strong environmental safeguards, it made sense that local officials were open to the site’s development.
In contrast, members of the Old Georgetown Pike and Potomac River Association were critical of the decision for setting a bad precedent. As group member John Adams asked, “If you develop this piece of land now, what is to keep other pieces from being developed later?”47 Adams’ question echoed of “the tragedy of the commons,” a phrase popularized by Garrett Hardin in a 1968 article about global population pressures that also spoke to the issues surrounding growth and environmental protection in modern America.48 It questioned how the law and the mechanisms of the market privileged individual actors and their private property rights, particularly in the short-term pursuit of profit, over a robust commitment to ensuring the public’s investment in long-term access to environmental goods and resources.49 Thus, the development of a single property would be interpreted as a rational, individual act rather than part of a broader pattern of growth with a cumulative environmental impact. The concept of the tragedy of the commons cut to the heart of modern environmentalism, which insisted that law, policy, and cultural values needed to evolve to promote a more ecologically sound and equitable use of nature to counterbalance the selfish tendencies underlying private property.50
Although citizens who supported preservation of the Burling tract felt that this served the public good more than building yet another housing development, their claims were not immune to scrutiny. Most were predominately middle- and upper-class professionals, or their children, who could afford to live in communities where large amounts of open space increased housing values.51 This charge was quite valid for groups such as the Old Georgetown Pike and Potomac River Association and reflected the tendency for higher income areas experiencing rapid growth to see popular support for open space preservation.52 Moreover, many residents who supported preservation failed to acknowledge how postwar housing and land use policies had privileged white middle-class interests over others.53 This led a columnist for the Washington Post to recommend that the local money to help buy the Burling tract could be better spent on expanding housing and social services for lower-income residents.54 For supporters of preserving the Burling tract to be successful, they would have to position their environmental interests as more important than the imperative for growth.55
The Possibility of a Park
Over several months, a small but growing coalition of residents had opposed plans to develop the Burling tract. Initially, they sought to mitigate the ecological impact of building homes on the site but soon concluded that the property’s natural features should be preserved for public enjoyment. As local interest in preservation expanded, the board of supervisors held another hearing on April 8 to allow the public to air its views. In the preceding month, more than one hundred high school students had organized a petition drive to solicit support among residents in the Dranesville District for paying a special property tax assessment to help the county purchase the Burling tract for use as a nature park.
At the hearing, a group of thirty students representing Fairfax Students for Preservation of the Burling Tract delivered petitions signed by 2,300 district residents. This was an unusual statement of financial support for land preservation in a fiscally conservative county that had long been devoted to attracting suburban development.56 The move, however, made sense given that Fairfax was experiencing rapid suburbanization, which degraded environmental resources that many residents felt were critical to their quality of life.57 While offering to pay to preserve the Burling tract, the signatories did not expressly question the political economy underlying suburbanization or the legal and cultural endorsement of private property rights that made public acquisition the only sure way to protect the property.58
The presence of the students at the April 8 hearing confirmed the central role of young people in the case. They testified about their interests in hiking to the waterfall on the property at Scott’s Run, confirming the influence of recreational interests on open space preservation.59 Many of the students went to the same high school and were in the gym class of Marian Agnew, an early supporter of preservation. Some people contended that Agnew had duped her students into participating in the hearing to advance her own interests. In response, one parent wrote to a local newspaper that her son and the other students had not been “indoctrinated” but believed in their cause.60 The prominent role that students would play in the Burling case confirmed their bona fide environmental interests.
Even with vocal civic support, the board of supervisors voted five to two to reject a civic appeal to consider its approval of the site plan. Residents in attendance loudly voiced their disapproval, forcing the board to take a fifteen-minute recess before resuming its agenda. During the break, John Adams cornered two of the supervisors who had voted against the appeal, asking them to change their votes. When the hearing resumed, one of the supervisors asked the board to reconsider its decision. In a highly unusual turn of events, the precise reasons for which are not clear, the two supervisors that Adams had lobbied changed their votes, helping to pass a 4-3 motion that retracted the board’s support for development of the Burling tract.61
Following the decision, the board asked the county’s park authority to consider the feasibility of buying the Burling tract to serve as the district park for the Dranesville District.62 If it reached a positive conclusion, the board would put the property on the county’s public facility map, giving it the ability to issue $600,000 in bonds that had been approved by voters in 1966 for a district park.63 Three weeks later, and just a few days after the first Earth Day was celebrated in communities across the United States, the Fairfax Board of Supervisors held a hearing on the results of the district park study. The park authority concluded that the Burling tract had the qualities needed for a district part, emphasizing its natural features, its location adjacent to the Potomac, and its accessibility to over seven thousand residents within a two-mile radius.64 Even with the county park authority’s endorsement, which allowed the county to issue $600,000 in bonds, and the offer of $1.2 million from the Interior Department, the existing financing was still not enough to buy the land.
Elected officials remained unconvinced of preservation. Harriet Bradley reaffirmed her support for the developer’s project for its compliance with the local master plan and for offering several measures to mitigate the impact of development, including fifty-six acres of parkland. She was also skeptical about of the petition drive undertaken by Fairfax Students for Preservation of the Burling Tract, insisting that residents did not know they were expressing support for paying part of the costs for acquiring the Burling tract.65 The students responded by conducting another petition drive, obtaining 2,350 signatures over the next month.66
The growing movement to preserve the Burling tract suggested that people were more responsive to environmental