North Hill

  Concerns and opinions regarding this issue have been expressed by numerous members of our association. The majority of our association feels that affordable housing and workforce housing are important issues facing the future of the Mount Vernon District. Providing housing for those less fortunate is the morally correct thing to do. However, opinions differ as to where and how this type of community assistance should be provided.

   While a few have maintained the firm opinion that the property known as “North Hill”, or portions thereof, should be developed into affordable housing and/or single-room occupancy (dormitory style) housing, the vast majority opinion of our membership feels that this particular location is probably the worst possible location for such a project.

   This 35 acre wooded property (located at the corner of Route 1 and Dart Drive) was originally purchased in the early 1980s by the Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RHA) with the intent of benefitting those of low income. The money for the purchase came from Housing and Urban Development (HUD) with the stipulation that the property used to benefit of low income wage earners. Many have assumed that this “benefit” must legally be housing which is a complete misunderstanding of the HUD block grant program. The land did, however, previously contain a trailer park, so RHA constructed “Phase I”.  Phase I, consisting of over 100 trailers, was unexpectedly expensive to build because of marine clay soil problems. Each pad alone cost about $90K not counting the actual structure. The unacceptably high cost of development on sloping marine clay, along with the already high concentration of poverty in that area, prevented Phase II development at that time. Over the years, the Mount Vernon community at-large repeatedly expressed the opinion that the best use for this property would be parkland. Justification for this parkland desire was bolstered by the following facts:

1. ‣ the lack of parkland serving the already-existing low income residents in that area,
   

2. ‣ the area surrounding North Hill is already 50% low to moderate income and adding more would further concentrate and isolate that economic group,
   

3. ‣ numerous other properties along Route 1, such as certain motels, are havens for prostitution and drugs; these properties are far better suited for redevelopment,
   

4. ‣ the Mount Vernon Planning District already has a disproportionately high amount of lower priced housing units when compared to the rest of the County (8.8% of the population yet 24.5% of the lowest priced houses),
   

5. ‣ the current plan of only 65 manufactured homes on a property valued at $15M (estimated) violates that portion the RHA mission statement regarding “fiscal responsibility”,
   

6. ‣ the current plan will likely require substantial and expensive soil stabilization techniques such as a drill shaft wall (essentially deep concrete piles) and retaining walls to level the ground for trailer pads,
   

7. ‣ environmental issues such as air quality and water quality for which Fairfax County cannot meet EPA clean air standards and Chesapeake Bay Act clean water standards,
   

8. ‣ the property contains numerous old growth trees, many in excess of 100 years, prompting some to refer to this property as the “North Hill Forest”.
   

   In 1994, voters opted to change the Comprehensive Plan for the property to that of “parkland”. Several times over the years the Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Associations (MVCCA) has expressed and reaffirmed their position that the best use for this property is parkland, and that whatever value the land has should be transferred to the RHA so that they may fulfill their mission to the largest extent possible. In 2006, a task force under the direction of the Mount Vernon District Supervisor arrived at the same conclusion - maintain the open green space - and rejected the out-of-turn amendment to develop the property. Viable alternatives which would retain the RHA property value for future projects along the Route 1 corridor, such as land swaps and Park Authority bonds, have been politically dismissed. The County Executive (in 2001) stated that it is legally possible to transfer the North Hill property to the Park Authority, in fact via two possible paths. The majority citizenry opinion reflects 1) the desire to extract the monetary value for this property so that the RHA may fulfill its mission while 2) maintaining this remarkable property as a visual green space (parkland) serving the needs of the local North Hill community.

   Despite these facts, the Mount Vernon District Supervisor has rejected the overwhelming opinion of the Mount Vernon citizenry and forged ahead with his own “compromise” solution. This solution involves using our tax dollars to develop 11 acres of steeply sloped marine clay hillside into 65 “manufactured houses” more commonly known as trailers. [At the Fairfax County Board of Supervisor’s meeting in August when $1.8M was released to contract a development plan, our Supervisor was reported saying that, in his opinion, preferential occupancy for these homes should be given to those displaced from the Penn Daw trailer park when Kings Crossing becomes a reality. UPDATE: Since the Kings Crossing redevelopment plan has been withdrawn, Supervisor Hyland has not publicly stated who he believes should populate these trailers.]

   A resolution to support this plan (printed in the April Record of the MVCCA) was brought before the Mount Vernon Council in April of 2007. Much discussion surrounded this resolution. However, opinions could not be formed since no plan had been advanced by the RHA. This resolution was tabled until an actual development plan became available, at which time the resolution could be reintroduced to the floor for continued discussion. Despite the voting membership’s desire to not comment on any proposal until a plan was presented, another similar resolution was brought before the Council in May of 2007. This resolution passed by a slim margin, however, with the MVCCA reserving the right to examine any plan set forth by the RHA and re-evaluate its position.

   Your president voted against this second resolution because it does not reflect the feelings of the majority of the WHCA. Our membership correctly believes this plan is

1. ‣fiscally irresponsible - marine clay mitigation efforts alone will cost 2 million dollars and only 65 homes will be provided on a property valued at almost 15 million dollars,
   

2. ‣socially irresponsible - the housing will be given preferentially to existing trailer owners in Penn Daw, not senior citizens or others in greater need, and will also continue to concentrate a lower income demographic in that area, and
   

3. ‣environmentally irresponsible - the property contains 128 “outstanding specimens” of more than 14 different species of trees, according to the county arborist, many of which will be lost, and also the amount of concrete needed to stabilize the hillside against catastrophic failure is enough to build a sidewalk over 4.6 miles long, not to mention the devastation that a drill shaft wall* will impose on the proposed park portion of the property,
   

4. ‣politically motivated - since much of the planning and timetable coincided with the planned development at Kings Crossing. The Kings Crossing project would have displaced approximately 65 low income units and the proposed North Hill project would have provided a political safety net. With the demise of Kings Crossing, this safety net is no longer needed and the North Hill project should likewise be abandoned.
   

   Again, while most of our membership is sympathetic to the plight of those less fortunate, and that community assistance is morally correct, we agree that the North Hill location for a trailer park is simply wrong.

* drill shaft wall - an engineering technique whereby 30” diameter holes are drilled 40+ feet into the ground and filled with reinforced concrete. The effect is to stabilize the marine clay hillside to prevent a landslide.

~ Return to WHCA Issues page ~