News

FFXnow

By Matt Blitz

Concerns over equity and the recommendation of specific sites have delayed Fairfax County’s push into sports tourism.

At last week’s Board of Supervisors meeting, Springfield District Supervisor Pat Herrity proposed that the county start advertising that it’s seeking proposals from private entities to develop sports tourism facilities.

However, he pulled the motion when it became clear that there wasn’t enough support from other supervisors to move forward. When he made the request in May, the board voted instead to have staff reassess a consultant’s report to ensure equity is considered when evaluating future projects.

“We’ve been sitting on the sidelines far too long. It’s time for us to get in the game or not,” Herrity said. “This is something the board has clearly expressed that it would benefit both our sports community, our taxpayers, our hotelers, our restaurants, our hospitality industry. We need to move forward and stop trying to find ways not to do it.”

Board Chairman Jeff McKay argued that Herrity, in fact, had “delayed the process.”

“I want to make it crystal clear that this board supports sports tourism…What we are doing is trying clean up the fact that it wasn’t done right,” he said. “Equity was left behind.”

A consultant hired by the county released a report in August 2020 recommending how the county could “more effectively compete within the sports tourism marketplace,” including specific sites where a large facility could go in the county.

The Park Authority-backed study identified nine different sites that it said could support facilities like a rectangle field complex with 16 fields or an ice complex, comparable to the one in Ballston.

However, as several supervisors brought up, none of the sites were vetted for equity, environmental impacts, or even the land’s current ownership.

Many of the preferred sites are in the north and northwest part of the county, while none are located in the south. Several sit in protected watershed areas, while a few others are privately owned, like George Mason University property, as opposed to county-owned.

The equity review requested in May was finished over the summer. Last month, the Sports Tourism Task Force recommended proceeding with an advertisement and “to consider the equity impact review as it reviews potential public-private partnerships” instead of at this stage in the process.

This didn’t sit well with several supervisors, including McKay, who wanted to make sure that the advertisement made clear that the recommended sites in the study were not county-approved.

“Frankly, I wish the consultant report didn’t exist. I think it was created under false pretense…It had no look at equity,” said McKay. “I don’t necessarily support any sites in there…They are in no way in any shape or form an endorsed list of locations by this board.”

Herrity accepted an amendment that the ad include language urging developers to be “creative” and recommend a site not on the consultant’s list.

Additionally, McKay asked that the entire board look at the advertisement to vet the language prior to it being released.

The plan now is to have staff update the report before Herrity resubmits the motion. While he hoped to have it by the board meeting on Tuesday (Oct. 25), Herrity told FFXnow that November now looks more likely, though he “was ready six months ago.”

He said this is the first program, in his recollection, “forced” to have an equity review as well as the first time that he remembers where the board will review the language for a request for proposals.

Nonetheless, he’s ready for Fairfax County to get in the game and build facilities that could help bring more revenue to the county, particularly with increased hotel occupancy.

The rest of the board appears to agree with the idea of exploring sports tourism, but it has to be “done right.”

“We have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get this done right that will permanently…affect the long-term sustainability of sports and sports tourism in this county,” McKay said.

Bollyinside

By Patrick Huston

While declining — at least temporarily — to make it unlawful to engage with anyone in a county-owned road or median, Fairfax County is once again debating how to deter “panhandling.”

According to Herrity’s board case, soliciting for money in the middle of the road or in the median not only “generates considerable public concern,” but also puts both the solicitors and drivers at risk.

Pat Herrity, the Springfield District Supervisor, brought up the topic again at this week’s board meeting after it had come up several times in recent years.

According to a board resolution from Herrity, “Anyone who stands in the median of our busy crossroads seeking to engage with cars puts themselves in danger and offers a dangerous distraction to vehicles.”

A recent county study, however, partially challenges this claim. The board instructed staff to perform a study in May to determine whether there are “public safety issues” associated with persons standing in the middle of the road soliciting donations at Herrity’s suggestion.

This rule applies to everyone using the medians, including panhandlers, fundraisers, marketers, and others.

The study’s findings were sent to the board in July, and it was noted that, in part because that information wasn’t being gathered with sufficient detail, staff members were “unable to uncover a major public safety issue related to or originating from panhandling.”

The FCPD data is not consistent with claims that panhandlers are more likely to be hurt or killed than other pedestrians or that areas with panhandlers present have a higher risk of traffic accidents, the study concluded, despite the fact that panhandling appears dangerous and causes a lot of public outrage.

Herrity disagreed with the evaluation, arguing that “common sense” shouldn’t be replaced by a study. “I am truly horrified that we have not done more to protect our neighbours on this issue, given the horrible pedestrian fatalities we have had in this County, including one panhandler. What is common sense should not require a research to be determined, Herrity wrote in the board matter.

Herrity proposed asking staff to “draught a curb-to-curb safety ordinance that would prohibit anyone from engaging with motorists between the curbs of a road with the exception of recognised public safety entities” at the board meeting on October 11. This would include for the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department’s yearly “Fill the Boot” campaign. Subsequently 2013, Loudoun County has had a comparable ordinance in effect; however, it has since been modified.

However, the motion was not seconded, and it was defeated before a vote could be taken. The concept has already been rejected by courts, but board chairman Jeff McKay said he is not opposed to continue the topic in a secret session.

Despite the fact that the last board resoundingly rejected this, McKay told Herrity, “I don’t oppose to having that dialogue, but I do think that conversation should happen before the staff begins crafting an ordinance for the benefit of your colleagues who weren’t on the previous board.” Herrity had a little more success when she asked for a public awareness campaign to tell neighbours that there are better ways to assist the less fortunate than simply giving them money. Additionally, it sought to educate property owners about their legal options for limiting the act on their property.

No supervisor had an opposition to that motion, so it was approved. Tony Castrilli, the county’s public information officer, mentioned during the meeting that the county has previously published materials that discouraged “panhandling” and provided the best ways to assist those in need.

FFXnow

By Matt Blitz

Fairfax County is once again discussing how to discourage “panhandling” while also declining — at least for the moment — to make it illegal to engage with anyone in a county-owned road or median.

The subject was revived at last week’s board meeting by Springfield District Supervisor Pat Herrity after cropping up a number of times over the last several years.

Herrity’s board matter argued that people in the road or median asking for money not only “generates considerable public complaint,” but is a safety risk for both those individuals and motorists.

“Anyone who stands in the median of our busy intersections trying to engage with motorists puts themselves in danger and presents a dangerous distraction to motorists,” Herrity’s board matter said. “This applies to panhandlers, fundraisers, marketers, and anyone else in the medians.”

However, a recent study by the county somewhat disputes this assertion. At Herrity’s urging, the board directed staff in May to conduct a study into if there are “public safety risks” in relation to people being in roads asking for money.

Sent to the board in July, the study results concluded that staff was “unable to find a significant public safety risk related to or stemming from panhandling,” mostly because that data wasn’t being collected at that level of specificity.

“While panhandling appears dangerous and generates considerable public complaint, available FCPD data does not support a determination that panhandlers are more likely to be injured or killed than other pedestrians, or that locations where panhandlers are present have an increased risk of traffic accidents,” the study said.

Nonetheless, Herrity disagreed with the assessment by saying a study shouldn’t replace “commonsense.”

While this is a step in the right direction, my colleagues would not approve my related motion that would have directed our staff to have a draft panhandling ordinance prepared for discussion in a Public Safety Committee meeting and/or Closed session.

— Supervisor Pat Herrity (@PatHerrity) October 13, 2022

“With as many tragic pedestrian fatalities as we have had in this County, including one panhandler, I am frankly appalled that we have not done more to protect our residents on this issue. We should not need a study to determine what is commonsense,” Herrity wrote in the board matter.

At the board’s Oct. 11 meeting, Herrity proposed directing staff to “draft a curb-to-curb safety ordinance that would restrict anyone from engaging with motorists between the curbs of a road with the exception of recognized public safety entities,” including for the Fairfax County Fire and Rescue Department’s annual “Fill the Boot” campaign.

A similar ordinance has been in place in Loudoun County since 2013 but has since been tweaked.

The motion, however, did not receive a second and died before going to a vote.

Board Chairman Jeff McKay said he’s not opposed to continuing the discussion in a closed session but cautioned that courts have already ruled against the proposal’s legality.

“I don’t object to having that conversation, but I do think that conversation should happen before the staff goes about drafting an ordinance to the benefit of your colleagues who weren’t on the last board, knowing that the last board soundly rejected this,” McKay told Herrity.

Herrity had a bit more luck with a request for a public information campaign to let community members know there are better ways to help those in need other than physically handing out cash. It also looked to inform business owners of their rights in restricting the act on their property.

That motion passed without objection from any supervisors.

As noted by the county’s public information officer Tony Castrilli during the meeting, the county has put out materials in the past that discouraged “panhandling” and shared best practices to help folks who are in need.

As part of the passed motion, the Board directed staff to update those materials.

McKay advised residents to donate money to nonprofits and community organizations, as opposed to handing out cash to those standing in roads or on sidewalks.

“The best way to stop this is for residents to stop giving money to panhandlers. That’s a difficult task to accomplish,” McKay said. “If we are really going to make a dent in this…it’s for people to give money to legitimate organizations that can help deal with the homelessness problem in the county. The folks that are giving money are doing what they think is the right thing, but they are creating even larger challenges.”