Mr. Hall,

While I will be supporting Linda Smyth for re-election, I do thank you for running.  If anything, Primaries against fellow incumbent Democrats bring debate and interest.

That said, I feel it necessary to ask you to clarify your support for the tunnel under tysons.

From the beginning, Linda Smyth was an original supporter for tysonstunnel.org, and she has personally intervened with direct and personal conversations with Scott Monett and other tysonstunnel advocates.  Linda has also been the BoS's point-person on all direct communications and correspondence to the Governor's office, making her the most prolific local advocate for tysonstunnel.org.

Linda has personally met or spoken with every NoVA legislator who overlap Providence District.  I know this because I have spoken with every Delegate and State Senator about the tunnel issue--including even JMDD. 

Linda was also one of the original signers of the tysonstunnel.org petition.  I also know this because she signed my petition.  She signed it because the tunnel option was now feasible, and so long as the petition effort did not recklessly undermine the EXTREMELY IMPORTANT need for commuter rail to Reston, Herndon, Dulles, and beyond, then Linda was behind us 100%. 

Scott Monett and all of the organizers of tysonstunnel.org have advocated for a tunnel without derailing commuter needs.  Your above statements that infer a "no-tunnel, then no commuter relief for NoVa" is very concerning.

Finally, while Linda is on the petition, You do not appear to be:

http://www.tysonstun...

Why not?  And why have I never seen you at any of the tysonstunnel.org events?  In your defense, I may not have seen you--have you attended them, because several people who I have spoken with over the last two days do not recall ever seeing you? 

I do sincerely wish you well, yet I also advise you to consider transportation as a NoVA issue that affects millions, and not just the 100,000 of us fellow Providence residents.

 

To Tunnel Supporter, isn't it a bit unfair to give Linda all the credit for carrying the tunnel message to the Governor.  Funny, the Board minutes reflect that Connolly, DuBois, Kauffman. and Smyth JOINTLY moved that the Board direct the Chairman to send a third letter to the Governor. You seem to have a good command of the facts so maybe the Board minutes are "untruths." What do you think?

Attacking me instead of Mr. Hall answering the questions is your campaign's only way to deflect the obvious? 

You only marginalize yourself.

Someone who lives near Tysons Corner reports that they received a phone poll that asked a bunch of innocuous questions and then at the very end made insinuations about Charlie Hall that were posed as a question. This person said it sounded like a thinly veiled attempt to spread rumor and innuendo masked as a legitimate "poll".

Who other than Linda Smyth would have perpetrated this scheme?

Reject the slimy politics of Linda Smyth.

Vote for Charlie Hall.

seen a bill with cosponsors in the U.S. Congress?

So, by your logic, Senator Webb's Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2007 (S. 22) is less his because he has 13 cosponsors.  Interesting...

Mr. Hall,

Please respond to this question.  The tunnel is so important to all of us.  This issue will be with NoVA for so long, and it will affect how we and at least the next few generations get around here.

This is in response to the question from Tunnel Supporter.

Thanks for your comments, but I think you may have accidentally spread some misinformation.

I've been to a number of TysonsTunnel.org events, as recently as Friday morning when they hosted a briefing at the Tower Club for officials and candidates. I spoke publicly at each of these events, including at the  microphone at the group's Wolf Trap Barn town hall meeting. I might add I've only seen one Fairfax supervisor at any of these events, Dana Kauffman at Wolf Trap. Since you posed the question to me, can you name which TysonsTunnel.org events Linda Smyth has been to?

Finally, I want to make sure you understand I am fully committed to countywide mass transit.  Last October, I hosted a town hall meeting on a "Citizens' Agenda for Responsible Growth." (Link: www.fairfaxcitizensagenda.org) If the tunnel cannot receive needed federal funding, I believe the county has other cost-effective alternatives for providing true rapid-transit in Reston, Route 1, Route 66 and elsewhere, and should explore. It would be a terrible mistake to jump, out of fear and impatience, into a decision, like the elevated train, that could cause permanent and irreversible damage to Tysons Corner.

I hope this offers some clarification, and best regards. 

I could not be at the Tower Club on Friday morning, so I am glad that you were there.  I look forward to hearing about what you said.

I do not recall where you publicly spoke at Wolf Trap Barn, or any other forum.  Perhaps you were asking a question to the panel group, but I do not recall.  If you did ask them a question, then please forgive me for not remembering.

"Since you posed the question to me, can you name which TysonsTunnel.org events Linda Smyth has been to?"
--Don't take my word for her involvement, contact Scott Monett directly and ask him.  I urge you to do this because ANY inference or direct attack on Linda Smyth's commitment to the tunnel option is uninformative, at best. 

While you are speaking with Scott, I would encourage you to also sign the petition and get on the website list of candidates.  Better late than never.  The fact that, as of May 20, you are not listed as a candidate is very odd, considering your support for the tunnel.  Even your advocacy group does not appear to be listed.  That tells me something. 

Your last statement concludes that you and your advocacy organization seems willing to exclude $900M in federal funding if a tunnel agreement is not considered AND reached.  Clearly wrong, if you do believe that.  And as a taxpayer, I cannot imagine any reasonable locally-funded alternative(s) you may propose.  The Commonwealth sure isn't going to offer another dime for NoVA, and the million people who live and work in the Dulles and Greenway corridors will not stand by and let locally elected leaders simply discount federal funds.  To do so would be reckless representation.

 

Tunnel Supporter references Charlie's "advocacy group" several times, and to be honest the tone raised my eyebrows a bit.  The most logical conclusion is that this is a reference to Fairfax Citizens for Responsible Growth, aka FairGrowth, which Charlie co-founded.  But it's not exclusively "his" group.

I've been involved in FairGrowth and have learned a lot.  I've asked them about their positions on the tunnel, and mass transit alternatives, among other things.

From these discussions I've learned that FairGrowth is a pretty diverse group.  Individuals have different views on many issues, so as far as I can tell they focus on where they have consensus - a reasonable approach for a citizens' group made up of people with a polyglot of opinions on all sorts of topics.

What seems to unite FairGrowth are a few components of one issue - land use.  The public needs to be involved, deals should not be hashed out behind closed doors, and capacity (roads, transit, parks, schools, the environment, etc.) should be a primary consideration, not an afterthought in deference to density.

There are a lot of issues out there.  TysonsTunnel is right on many things imho and works to achieve its goals.  Unlike TysonsTunnel, FairGrowth has no corporate sponsorship (not that there's anything wrong with having that), is citizen-driven and has its own focus.  I don't think either group is wrong to stick to its own specialty.

While others may have other views, I think Charlie is right to question the efficacy of elevated rail, as it would defeat the very purpose of the "pedestrian-friendly" design that is necessary for "transit-oriented development" or "smart growth."  If you can't have TOD - real TOD, not as its been mis-implemented by Fairfax thus far - near transit, then considering alternatives and asking probing questions strikes me as simply the responsible thing to do.

your objections to "Smart Growth"?  Is this something specific to what they were doing in Vienna West, is this something to do with the way that it is being proposed for Fairfax County, or do you have more fundamental objections?

So, who's for dumb growth? But are you for responsible growth?

Smart growth tenets state that you put growth in areas that have the infrastructure in place. You don't just increase densities around metro stations - you also have to decrease it somewhere else to prevent overloading of the roads, schools, parks, sewer systems, etc. This is not what the  supervisors are doing - they are increasing densities everywhere, irrepective of their impacts and proximity to transit. And, I'm not talking about decreasing densities by 30 homes elsewhere when they have added 2248 units at metro west. I laugh everytime I get on I-66 at Nutley. I think, another 2248 homes right here will make this traffic "better" for one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening! Nevermind that we're already nose to armpit on the trains, currently.

I'm astounded that the board of supervisors have the audacity to critize the Army on the BRAC relocation. What's the problem...did the US gov't forget to put money into local campaign coffers? This belly-aching about the Army overloading the infrastructure - roads, schools, parks - has not been a concern by our Providence supervisors in their past land use decisions. They keep on approving it.

Let's vote for Responsible Growth. Phase development with the improvements to the infrastructure first. I can truly appreciate Charlie Hall's message.

There are many aspects to the "Smart Growth" issues and projects around the Vienna Metro station, including the one that has been extensively publicized for several years as "Metro West".

Apparently you are not very familiar with these issues, since there is no proposed project called "Vienna West".

Charlie Hall has worked endlessly on the "MetroWest" issue on behalf of the average citizen.

In addition to Charlie weighing in, I would like to hear the details of your opinions about the project. Do you think it's "Smart Growth" and why or why not?

First heard of it here, as a matter of fact, but when I hear someone belittling Smart Growth, I wanted to know more about what they mean.

"smart growth."  Transit-oriented development is excellent, but of course the transit has to be there.  And all else being equal, high density is good, but not in the absence of infrastructure to handle that density.  As with everything, the devil's in the details.  Unfortunately, in the case of Metro to Dulles, no-bid contracts to Bechtel, secret deals, and the idiotic "aerial option," I'm not sure that what we've got is "smart growth" so much as "no lobbyist left behind."

I am in the middle of moving from Mason district to Hunter Mill, so I feel a bit disconnected at the moment.  The Metro through Tysons thing is on my radar, but I am only vaguely aware of anything going on at Vienna Metro.  Something to do with Tom Davis's wife, but that's about it.

Lowell is right on the money. High density around a transit station is not necessarily smart growth. Smart growth requires a complete package that includes such things as the right mix of use, proximity to the transit hub, and limiting parking for residents and businesses. The Fairfax Board of Supervisors has not shown the same kind of discipline as has Arlington in requiring this complete package.

Hi, Eric.

As a newspaper reporter, I covered Arlington County and am very familiar with successful models of transit-oriented development, also known as "Smart Growth."

My concern in Fairfax has been with the execution, and with the lack of public discourse. Arlington literally took years to work with surrounding communities and iron out concerns. They limited the high-rises to very specific corridors to protect neighborhoods.

Equally importantly, all the basic road, school and park networks in Providence are stressed to the max. These new high-rise communities need good on-site open space, and we need adequate roads and schools to serve them. Fairfax, and Linda Smyth, have been very weak in acknowledging or addressing those concerns.

To take one example, MetroWest will have a population greater than one-third the size of Vienna. And yet its ground-level green space is barely more than an acre. Much of the "open space" is in the form of fifth-floor terrace space that the general public can't access. That will force these residents to seek out already crowded parks.

Charlie

I've heard Charlie speak a number of times at public meetings.  I agree with what he says (or as I recall him saying):  "Smart Growth" is good, but it means far more than just density at transit.  It means consensus, input from the community and accounting for the concerns of all stakeholders.

My own observations is that doesn't happen in Fairfax.

MetroWest was discussed in a closed process by a handpicked participants; entire neighborhoods a stone's throw away were not even informed, much less asked for input.  Interested parties that tried to participate, like the Town of Vienna and the Providence District Council, were shut out (although Vienna was permitted an "observer" who could not speak).

Even the recent Tysons Task Force "public" meetings were limited to pre-selected scenarios; the paid consultants were clearly trying to steer participants to high density outcomes. 

At the Planning Commission's Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) committee, many heard about other jurisdictions' weeks-long open meetings to get input (not limited to pre-selected scenarios), with many weekend hours.  The Tysons Task Force crammed six meetings into three weekdays, with half during working hours.  That meant it was easy for the developers, their paid consultants and attorneys to go.  Ordinary residents with jobs outside of the development industry found it far more difficult.  But of course the county will hail these compressed meetings as "public involvement."

Smarth Growth is fine.  Smart Growth in Fairfax is a farce.
If you think Smart Growth - genuine smart growth - is beneficial, Hall is the clear choice.  If you want density and nothing but density, dressed in the sheep's clothing of Smarth Growth, stay with Smyth.

Thank you for getting the idea to blog because for those people like me who don't pay attention to the local issues.  Just the other day, I read that it has been decided that for smart growth and controlling traffic that is congested till the cows come home, there's going to be an I -66 expansion in Arlington. I wish I had been there when the decision was made. Politicians do dumb things like concluding that metro can't be extended to Dulles and lets displace a lot of people to build more roads.  I feel people's pain, but I don't drive. And yet this could throw me out of house and home. Why should I be penalized for a problem I haven't contributed to?

What would you do in regards to the I-66 proposal?

Reading these comments is troubling

It seems many people speak without factual knowledge

Specifically on I-66

It is well known that on I-66 heading west bound there are routine delays

Also, after the Dulles toll road split traffic picks up again so Zimmerman's comments about shifting bottlenecks are not valid.

This proposal will add much needed additional merge space in several key locations to facilitate traffic flow

There will be no loss of housing and no disruption to the bike trail system.

This is a commonsense sloution everyone should get behind

is against it.  Reason: because it's a terrible idea that will solve absolutely nothing, cost a lot of money, and simply INCREASE the incentives for sprawl.  Why on earth would we do that?!?

PS  It also breaks the original promise to Arlington when I-66 was built not to make it wider than 2 lanes each way inside the Beltway.  I thought you Republicans were "promise keepers." Ha.

The promise to Arlington to not widen 66 has been under pressure for many years.  For good or ill (esp. depending on where you live and your commuting patterns), it has held thus far, not without controversy.

So what about the promise to end the tolls on the Dulles Toll Road?  Why no outcry about that?  The promise was, once the road was paid for, the tolls would go away.

Instead, the tolls are rising to pay for rail to Tysons and its cost over-runs, which the state's own studies show won't really help traffic.  But it will benefit those large Tysons landowners who contribute the most to, and in fact employ, Chairman Connolly.

Some might say that relieving congestion on the toll road via rail makes it worth toll road users' while to keep paying, and in fact to pay more.  But since it's been shown the rail line won't help traffic, and really won't help given the massive upzonings we've already seen at Tysons I not to mention the scads of other proposals on the table, one must wonder - why was the promise to Arlington kept so long while the one to Fairfax never kept at all, and is even being broken anew in return for no gain to residents?
Why the double standard?

Mr. Hall,

You have very clearly given much thought to your positions, but - based on your rhetoric - I am not sure that there is a lot of sunlight between you and Supervisor Smyth.

Some of the things in which you both believe in holding developers to account for impacts on neighborhoods, you both believe in applying TOD to appropriate neighborhoods, and both believe that developers are not doing enough.  Considering that proffers in a rezoning are by agreement between the developers and the county and negotiated on a case by case basis, how do you actually propose to make developers do more?

As you are well aware from your newspaper work, Fairfax does not have the same leverage over developers that Arlington County does.  In the latter, proffers are required and there is no question about developers'duties.  In Fairfax, and much of the rest of the Commonwealth, including Loudon and Prince William, developers are not legally bound to do more than they choose to do.

So, my other question for you is, what - within the framework of applicable law - will you be able to do that differs from Supervisor Smyth?

Mr. Hall,

You, your campaign staffers, and others on RK have indicated that Supervisor Smyth is inaccessible.  That simply does not fly with me or many of the people I talk with.

As I previously asked here on RK, how frequently have you spoken with Supervisor Smyth?  Is there is a number of rejected meetings that you can cite for us?  How many times have you met with her?

has an open invitation to appear on Blog Talk Radio this evening.  Making herself accessible to an internet debate or just to engage in a discussion regarding FxCo matters would certainly help the impression that she is accessible. 

While this certainly isn't the end-all be-all of accessibility, it IS an opportunity.  We'll see shortly if Supervisor Smyth decides to take advantage of this opportunity or not.

I know that I once spent well over an hour begging Linda to let me attend a "community" meeting she had planned to address concerns about a nearby development.  Supervisor Smyth's argument was that she had already selected the individual who would be representing my neighborhood.  I was not alone among my neighbors in noticing that the selected individual was a longtime supporter of Linda and had a viewpoint very different from many in the neighborhood on the issue at hand.  Constinuents shouldn't have to beg to be included in "community" meetings.

Mr. Hall,

Education is very important to me.  Outside of the land use process, could you please explain how you will make a difference in education for Providence?

Mr. Hall,

Your supporters on RK have issued many objections to the way that Supervisor Smyth has fulfilled her role as our Providence District Supervisor.

As a proud progressive and member of the reality-based community, I am concerned that most complaints here (made by others) have been couched in personal grievances.  While I appreciate your laying out your platform in terms of your macro-level policy positions, I would better understand your vague opposition to Supervisor Smyth if it was clearer what specific decisions you disagreed with.

It is one thing to seize on traffic as an issue, but you might as well say that Supervisor Smyth loves traffic.  Obviously, we all hate our traffic-clogged roadways.

Laying the blame for our transportation woes at the feet of a Fairfax County Supervisor in a Dillon rule state in the Nation's capital seems disingenuous to me.  More importantly, it makes me question your qualifications for the Board of Supervisors.

Hall will fix traffic and Smyth will continue it?  It seems to me the readers of RK and the voters of Providence are presented with a false choice.  How would you respond?

The Dillon Rule does not bind Fairfax County to the extent that Pauline (or Gerry Connolly - Linda Smyth) suggests. Go ask Senator Janet Howell. When she was head of the Reston homeowners association in the 1980s, that group negotiated $200 million in transportation proffers in connection with the rezoning of what is now Reston Towne Center. Janet will add that the developers also threw in an art center. I've heard Janet tell that story many times -- and she will point you to others who can and will verify this fact. (Keep in mind that those are 1980s' dollars too.) The Dillon Rule was in effect in those days too. It didn't stop Fairfax County from obtaining the proffers negotiated by the residents of Reston. The difference is: when citizens groups negotiated proffers in the past, Fairfax County supervisors of both political parties backed them. The late Jack Herrity would tell the same basic story as Senator Howell. Why? Because it was true. Today's Fairfax County Board of Supervisors simply put campaign contributions ahead of the welfare of the ordinary residents of the County. The bottom line is: Linda Smyth has failed repeatedly to use the statutory authority available to her and the rest of the Board of Supervisors to vote for reasonable land use policies and to obtain fair cash proffers. Keep in mind that she voted to approve Macerich's rezoning that only obtained $570 from each high-bracket condo for Fairfax County Public Schools. There is no way that Charlie Hall would have approved such a taxpayer giveaway for Macerich. It's time for a change; it's time for Charlie Hall. The Virginia Supreme Court, in a case involving Fairfax County, has said: "Under the private enterprise system, land use is influenced by the profit motive. Profit flows from investments of time, talent, and capital. Landowners venture investments only when the prospects of profit are reasonable. Prospects are reasonable only when permissible land use is reasonably predictable. The Virginia landowner always confronts the possibility that permissible land use may be changed by a comprehensive zoning ordinance reducing profit prospects; yet, the Virginia statutes assure him that such a change will not be made suddenly, arbitrarily, or capriciously but only after a period of investigation and community planning." 214 Va. 655. 657. Similarly, the same court held: "The legislative branch of a local government in the exercise of its police power has wide discretion in the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances. Its action is presumed to be valid so long as it is not unreasonable and arbitrary. The burden of proof is on him who assails it to prove that it is clearly unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious, and that it bears no reasonable or substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. The court will not substitute its judgment for that of a legislative body, and if the reasonableness of a zoning ordinance is fairly debatable it must be sustained." 200 Va. 653, 660. With the proper record, the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors could have not only rejected the added density at Metrowest, it could have downzoned the property. Even if most of the evidence did not favor downzoning, it could still have done so long as the matter was fairly debatable -- a very low standard.

This is the best explanation that I have seen about the interpretation of the Dillion Rule.

It should be a reading requirement for all Supervisors, including Linda Smyth. 

When citizens asked Smyth why such large overplanned development projects are being approved, we are told that the "hands of the supervisors are tied."

When Charlie Hall gets elected, would suggest among the first actions that he puts in place is to have a review of the Dillion Rule.  Recall that TV show, "Move that Bus"  ...well Charlie untie those hands.  Citizens are tired of that excuse.  That is why we want a change in supervisors.  I am for Charlie Hall.

To Pauline:

Thank you for comments and questions. If others have questions like these, please feel free to visit my web site, www.charliehall2007.org.

I'm afraid I have to say, in the actual realm of decisions, there has been large, significant differences between me and Linda, not the "little sunlight" that you suggest. Trust me when I say, if there weren't big differences, I wouldn't be running. I'd be voting for Linda, as I did in 2003.

Your questions actually get at the root of what has gone so wrong in the last four years.

Fairfax supervisors, including Linda Smyth, like to spread the idea that Virginia law gives them little or no power to scale back growth that we can't accommodate, and therefore we have almost no leverage over developers. Two questions for you: if this is true, how did Loudoun County say no to a 30,000-home proposal last summer, because it couldn't afford the needed road improvements? How did Prince William, during the same summer, say no to a large development because it provided no land for a new school? As one Prince William supervisor said in the Washington Post, "If you're willing to say no every now and then, you can drive a better bargain."

Especially on big, high-rise projects, Fairfax County has considerable power to assess infrastructure needs before voting for new development. So that's one big difference between me and Linda. I will use every power available to make sure we protect our infrastructure. This board, and Linda Smyth, hasn't. They'd prefer to claim a fictitious powerless than use the power they have.

Second, I have attended many meetings in Linda's office, but that's a very passive, limited way to think of public leadership. Where she has failed is in making any proactive attempts to bring the community together.

However one feels about specific land use proposals, Providence is going through historic change. More than in recent memory, we've needed a supervisor who can step to the front and call disparate groups together--to explain the reasons we are facing so many urban high-rise proposals, to assess our ability to absorb them, and to ask people in public settings, what do you think about this?

Has Linda Smyth agreed to meet with small groups who come to her office? Generally, yes. Has she heard and factored in what was said? That's a matter of very divided opinion.

Did she ever once during the nearly two years MetroWest was dominating public attention call a public meeting and try to convene the competing viewpoints, hopefully creating some desperately needed community consensus in the process? That's a matter of record. She did not.

The same is true on the Tysons train question, by the way. This is the biggest decision of her four years. Has she ever called a public meeting to solicit her voters' opinion on this? She hasn't. From my perspective, she has seat back and let TysonsTunnel.org take the lead, and  contrary to the suggestions of an earlier writer, I have yet to see her any of that group's events.

To be fair, she has finally started organizing events of the type I'm describing--recently at Merrifield and this week concerning HOT lanes. Both meetings occurred in her fourth term of office, shortly after I announced my candidacy. I and other citizens have been hosting town hall meetings on traffic and development issues for several years. We have seen their value firsthand, and I would make this a central form of public discussion if I am elected.

On education, I'd refer you to www.fairfaxcitizensagenda.org. I think it's critical that the physical conditions of our schools be protected, and that the county make a greater attempt to reduce the number of stand-alone trailers our children are forced to live in.

I thank you and all others for your questions on RaisingKaine. I do have one request for those who would like to hear from me personally. You can visit my web address at www.charliehall2007.org, but if you wish to ask questions of me in RaisingKaine, please attach your full name, for the sake of full and open dialogue.

Thanks, and best regards to all.

Charlie

When Linda and Gerry Connolly have approved hundreds of thousands of square feet of additional "smart growth" density across the county, they have made completely inadequate provisions for needed additions to public facilities:  parks, libraries, schools, hospitals, police and YES, ROADS. These new occupants WILL need to drive places in cars. Many of them will NOT be able to take Metro to work. They will have many, many places they will need and want to go to outside of their own high density development.

But Linda and Gerry never require the developers to build adequate facilities to accommodate these masses of new people. We the citizens are supposed to foot the bill for the needed infrastructure as well as deal with the immense increase in traffic congestion, with school trailers, with growing turmoil over playing fields, etc. Why? Because Linda and Gerry are owned by the developers and landowners who profit from uncontrolled development.

Do NOT believe Linda's lie about how she has no choice but to approve every development application that comes before her. A few months ago the Dranesville supervisor voted against the proposal to build a ring of high rise towers around Tysons I on the existing surface parking lots because, she said, this was not what her constituents wanted. The reason they didn't want it is that the extensive road improvements mandated for Tysons in the 1994 Comprehensive Plan had never been built and the Tysons Task Force was still working hard on a plan for the entire Tysons area. The developer was in a big hurry to get his mishmash of 20-story buildings approved before he to conform to a coherent plan that would increase the pedestrian access and the aesthetic appeal of Tysons.

Linda may claim that denying rezoning applications will result in lawsuits against the county. But similar lawsuits in the 80s and 90s were uniformly unsuccessful. The supervisors have a legal right to deny upzonings in density.

Please folks! Think!! The Gerry-Linda approach is not consistent with Tim Kaine's positions on land use. 

The Hall candidacy is a sign that the Democratic resurgence in NoVA, underway for a while now, has truly permeated to the street level.

The irony is that people like Gerry Connolly and his handpicked successor Linda Smyth are standing in the way.  Sure, it's great to be a moderate, reasonable Democrat who can attract independent voters.  Nothing wrong with being "pro-business" as long as that doesn't come at the expense of the people you're supposed to serve.

But something changed when Connolly decided to run for chair; in both him and Smyth, as evidenced at Merrifield, where 22,000 people will be crammed in.  Note the City of Fairfax has 21,000 people.  The equivalent of another Fairfax City will be jammed between the beltway and Fairfax City - and Metro, 66, parks, etc. are supposed to handle this?  It would be funny if not so sad.  The former, healthy "getting the people's business" done attitude was replaced, behind closed doors at first then increasingly starkly, with a kowtowing to developers approach.  Sure, once in a while the developers are knocked back for appearances sake.  Or, in the case of Hunter Mill, when they propose something so indisputably stupid that it can't pass any laugh test.

But overall, a lot of Fairfax Democrats have been worried about the undue influence of developers in our party for the last 5 years or so.  We need to be honest with ourselves and admit that the Democrats of Fairfax have, with a few exceptions like Steve Shannon, become what the Republicans of Loudoun are - the pals of developers first, servants of the people second.

As the Providence Planning Commissioner and candidate for supervisor, Linda Smyth was openly opposed to MetroWest as presented.  She campaigned openly against developments that were not compatible with surrounding neighborhoods.  She gained the trust of hundreds of voters with that promise.  Providence is replete with voters who were confident that Linda Smyth would work tirelessly for consensus, for a compromise that would be acceptable, even if it wouldn't make everyone happy.  But she didn't even try for consensus; that's where Charlie Hall's campaign is as on target as it can possibly be.

The developer openly declared that there would be "no compromise" on the density at MetroWest.  "I'm going to put as much as I can on that site," he said.  We never thought Linda would let that stand.  Yet behind closed doors, she gave him more than 95% of what he wanted.  Yes, some toothless traffic control measures were put in.  But the county admits it has a horrible track record of enforcing those.  I'm involved in compromises all the time, and where I come from, 95% plus is a resounding win, not a compromise.

Linda never said what changed her mind.  Instead of pointing to new facts, or explaining a change of heart, she strained credibility beyond the breaking point by saying she'd been consistent, saying that the densest development in the county was "compatible with nearby neighborhoods" after all just because there was a Metro stop nearby. 

I can respect a politician who can offer reasons for changing their mind even if I don't agree.  I cannot respect a politician who breaks a promise and treats me like an idiot by pretending they've stayed consistent.  That's just what Linda did to hundreds of voters who trusted her.

In Charlie Hall, we have a chance to take our party back.  Let's not let this chance pass us by out of misguided loyalty to the apparatus.

Go IMMEDIATELY to the front page of Raising Kaine and look in the left margin, near the top.  Until about 2pm Saturday you can vote for which candidate (or neither) you think that Raising Kaine should endorse.

Guess who I voted for -- go ahead, just guess!