The current community engagement process is perceived by many to marginalize or stifle substantive criticism from residents about proposed County policies by such methods as not recording public comments, using “push poll” surveys that are structured to support a single point of view, providing on-line only presentations that do not allow for two-way communications, encouraging selected advocacy group support, not recording or posting public minutes, and failing to include some letters from the public record.
- Staff appears to ask select community leaders to “control” the community.
- The County Board, County Manager and Staff use techniques to skew the results of processes and to make them falsely appear that there was inclusive and transparent engagement as well as a consensus.
- County Board appears to strategically appoints Commissioners from the same advoacy group (YIMBYs of NOVA).
- County survey questions often appear to be biased, worded to lead to a specific answer outcome and sent to a limited number of people.
Staff appears to ask select community leaders to “control” the community.
Staff seems to make implied threats that they will not work with the residents who object and vocalize their concerns over a Plan.
County planner sends the following message to community leaders, excluding the concerned residents mentioned:
A response (above) from the former President of the Civic Association, Scott Miles, called staff’s message “disturbing;” and cited that the “negative characterization of residents without citing specific examples is not only unhelpful, but also damaging to this process and future county processes…” Additionally stating, “this reads as an implied threat that community leaders are expected to join in minimizing the voice of residents and opinions you may not like, otherwise our outstanding community priorities have little chance of being considered.”
The County Board, County Manager and Staff use techniques to skew the results of processes and to make them falsely appear that there was inclusive and transparent engagement as well as a consensus.
County Board and staff appear to work with very limited and selected advocacy group(s) to pass plans and initiatives despite general community concerns.
Katie Cristol Tweet encouraging the pro-development “YIMBY” advocacy group to attend a meeting on reducing parking.
YIMBY group is being encouraged to attend a meeting458, 459 on a topic that had limited community education, outreach, or input to Arlington residents.
459 https://twitter.com/YIMBYarlington/status/888052408999448577
YIMBY group members appear to provide “cover” for the County Board elected officials to approve projects that are heavily contested by communities.
“This is a situation [Pentagon City Sector Plan] where I think just a few more voices, even if it’s not a majority of speakers, will give the County Board the push it needs…” –B, active in YIMBYs of NOVA Facebook group.
“…if we keep it positive and focus on the facts we will give the County Board enough cover to pass the [Pentagon City Sector] plan in the next couple of weeks.” – L, Alexandria resident, founder of YIMBYs NOVA in the YIMBYS NOVA Facebook group.
“Let’s hope all we have to do is cover the spread, so to speak” – L, Alexandria resident, founder of YIMBYs NOVA in the YIMBYS NOVA Facebook group.
Group uses aggressive tactics to undermine and discredit anyone who raises concerns opposed to County up-zoning policy or projects.
YIMBYs are often aggressive on social media and in their in-person engagements with civic organizations. They have posted personal attacks on those who question, inquire or muse about costs of increased density and accuse them of ignorance and bigotry…While YIMBYs attack opponents, they have attempted to co-opt the diversity messaging. Recently, they used the “welcome diversity” yard signs as a model for their own messaging. Yet the overwhelming majority of YIMBYs of NOVA are young, white, college-educated men. The YIMBYs of NOVA affordability message also has been changing to “attainability,” as most of the new construction is in the luxury market.
Chair of the Arlington County Planning Commission on Twitter.
Appointed by the County Board to Commissioner and then Chair, Daniel Weir’s Twitter account prominently states his position regarding a significant change to county-wide zoning policies and appears to also publicy imply a bigotry label towards residents who don’t agree with the policy change.
Weir Tweets, “When Black Lives Matter, just, you know. Somewhere else.” (refer to screenshot) referring to the yard signs opposing the zoning policy changes.
Opponents to the zoning changes reference new construction townhomes high prices, such as $935k on 2134 S Nelson; $925k on S Taylor Court; and $930k 24th Road S. Median household income in 2020 dollars for Black or African American Arlingtonians is $64k and is $135k for White Arlingtonians.482 See also October 2020 affordable housing and racial concerns in section 3.6.2 for Columbia Pike housing. At the time of this posting, Weir is active with the YIMBYs of NOVA group.
482 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Projects/Data-Research/Demographics/Race-Ethnicity-Dashboard data pull as of 9/18/2022
County Board appears to strategically appoint Commissioners from the same limited and selective advocacy group(s).
- County Board mobilizes YIMBYs of Arlington group to attend community meetings. See example in Section 6.2.1.1.
- The YIMBY of NOVA group strategized to attend County Board meetings to provide “cover” for the County Board to pass heavily contested projects (example in 6.2.2), including non- Arlington resident participation, (example in Section 8)
- County Board appoints members of the YIMBY of NOVA group to key commissions Planning460 and Transportation Commissions461 including the Chair positions. Commissions have dismissed resident input and engagement in their decision-making. See examples in 4.2 and Section 7.
See additional example of in Section 9 of an undisclosed, non-residency with misleading consensus comment to Arlington County Planning Commission
460 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Commissions-and-Advisory-Groups/Planning-Commission/Members
461 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Commissions-and-Advisory-Groups/Transportation-Commission/TC- Members
County survey questions often appear to be biased, worded to lead to a specific answer outcome and sent to a limited number of people.
Courthouse West Survey potential missteps.
The project appears to demonstrate a number of missteps in engaging with the community including: no direct notification to local residents and a general online survey462 did not validate that respondents were Arlington County residents. The survey itself only allowed selection between 3 options set by County Staff models: 6 story multi- use structure, 12 story and 16 story. The majority of the respondents selected 6 story. There was no option allowed for selecting the current zoning which allows 1-4 stories nor was there an opportunity for comments. See examples 4.2, 7.4.1.
462 https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/commissions/documents/lrpc/chw-dec-2021-jan-2022- online-engagement-session-survey-responses.pdf
Expert review of County surveys appear to show questions confirm survey writer biases.
“Joan Fitzgerald, a local resident who works in surveying populations, says county survey questions are often worded to confirm the biases of the survey writers, while the questions can be jargon-dense.”463 “That said, responses from people who understand the jargon are valuable when the county is hammering out policy details, argues Chris Slatt, a transportation advocate who highlighted the lopsided demographic response to the survey via Twitter.” 464
Questions often appear worded to lead to a specific outcome. Diverse perspectives may not be consistently sought or included. Use of jargon seems to result in questions and/or topics to be understood by a limited number of individuals.
464 Ibid.
Arlington County’s 2022 Community Survey465 with limited participants.
There were approximately 1,300 survey “participants”. It is unclear how perspective respondents were identified to reduce biases. The definition and numbers of “participants” invited to respond and “respondents” is unclear. Yes, “We encourage everyone who receives an invitation to participate to do so.”466
Among the areas for improvement identified467, 468, 469, 470, 471 are:
- Transparency of the County’s decision-making process
- Efforts to manage and plan for growth and development
- Promoting availability, accessibility, and quality of affordable childcare and mental health services
It is difficult to determine whether the results were from a truly random sample/response and whether all segments were able to participate.
Few community members were aware of the survey and opportunity to participate. The Board seems to discount the community’s responses regarding the lack of transparency. Therefore, the community’s perspective is that there may be limited actions based on the feedback. The County should develop a plan to improve each identified area for improvement as well as each area within the survey as part of the Board’s duty472 to monitor the implementation of policy.
466 https://www.arlingtonva.us/About-Arlington/News/Articles/2022/Arlington-Measuring-Community-Satisfaction-in-County-Services
467 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/Departments/CMO/Resident-Satisfaction-Survey-2022-Results
468 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EHQEW1U3fE&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=3527
469 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EHQEW1U3fE&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=3655
470 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EHQEW1U3fE&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=3813
471 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4EHQEW1U3fE&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=4088
472 https://www.arlingtonva.us/Government/County-Board/About-the-County-Board
Policy impact on seniors and the disabled appears to have limit notice despite easily available contact information.
The County is proposing changes to the Specialized Transportation for Arlington Residents (STAR)473 program, which serves Arlington residents who have difficulty using public fixed route transit due to the effects of age, disability or environmental conditions474. Despite having the names, addresses and contact information for users/riders, the County has not reached out to the users to ensure they are aware of the proposed policy changes and related feedback form475. As a result, those who are most impacted by the changes may not be able to provide feedback on the proposed policy changes. This may further erode faith and trust in government.
473 https://www.arlingtontransit.com/star/
474 https://www.arlingtontransit.com/star/star-rider-guide/#what
475 https://www.arlingtontransit.com/star/proposed-star-policy-changes-for-fy-2023/
The Residential Parking Program (RPP) survey’s methods and results appear to lack transparency.
Residents sought to understand which people received the survey and associated details about those individuals, access to see the survey, and the methodology in how the survey participants were chosen. There was additional complexity due to the County’s failed website conversion (Section 13.2). Ultimately, the survey raised many questions about the county’s goals and commitments to fair parking in Arlington476. The community also felt that the survey was biased and survey availability was not well communicated.477
The outcome resulted in a significant change to the number of permits each home can receive and a change in the fees associated with residential parking in Arlington. These policy changes may have been based primary on a survey478, 479 sent to 60,000 of which there were 4,539 respondents480. There appears to be little to no information on its validity and accuracy.
476 https://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&event_id=1614&meta_id=200960
477 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxm3YX9RV1k&feature=share&si=ELPmzJkDCLju2KnD5oyZMQ&t=4837
480 https://s26551.pcdn.co/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Survey-Results_Infographic_ENG_FINAL.pdf