Land Swapping and Reston Association

                                  The View From Over Here

          The proposal to trade an acre-plus of community-owned, park quality upland woods for an inferior lowland lot has caused quite a Reston uproar.  The firm redeveloping the Crescent Apartments and part of the Lake Anne Village Center would clear most or all of the trees to construct a 120-car parking lot needed by local merchants.  The parking lot is a small piece of the large Crescent and Lake Anne redevelopment project that the community has embraced.  I have testified publicly on several occasions in favor of the redevelopment plan.

          The controversy grows out of both the question of the necessity of cutting down quality stands of mature trees when there are other options available for a parking lot, and, the way the swap deal has been managed by the Reston Asssociation.  Given the available options available (3) right on the Lake Anne property in spitting distance from the Plaza,  I am pretty confident the issue can be resolved so that it works for all parties.   That is, the merchants get the lot they need; the developer gets land needed so the project goes forward; and, RA keeps the upland woods for beneficial community use like a small park.

          Hopefully, some lessons will be learned from this controversy that can be applied to future land swap deal proposals.  The current controversy might not have happened if RA had acted differently.  Let’s hope that the Reston Association manages deal-making very differently moving forward.  Without again going through all the missteps outlined in this blog last week, here are key things RA should do differently to avoid such controversy while getting the job done:

1-    Make transparency inside and outside the Association Rule Number One.  This tentative deal was kept from RA staff, the relevant community advisory committee, some Board members, and the community for 5 months.  Trust has been damaged with all these groups.  The Board of Directors should commit to all that this will not happen again.

2-    The Community looks to our homeowners association to be responsible for our Environmental and Natural Resource Stewardship.  This deal would have resulted in a net loss of community tree cover and permanent park land contrary to RA’s own policy.  Stick with the policy.

3-    Beware of potential conflicts of interest  by Board members.  Here is where the RA legal counsel comes in.  If there is any question of conflict, financial or other interest, Board leadership should seek the formal opinion of counsel regarding what is allowed, from involvement in arranging deals to voting on the final action.

4-    The Board should assure to provide the community with the best objective information.  The opinion offered as to the relative values of the plots to be swapped left many listeners thinking the presentation was carefully structured to present the swap in the best possible light.  Information provided to the community should always objectively inform, not be wired to sell a proposal.

I’ve served on the RA Board and been impressed with the Association’s work over the years.  Let’s put this issue behind us and return to form.