I think one important aspect of the whole process initiated by Supervisor Nohe this week of taking a second look at both the 234/Purcell intersection improvements and at the long-range planned new connection to the Prince William Parkway is how each component affects the other. In other words, when the Department of Transportation and VDOT were deciding on design requirements for this intersection, was the Purcell connection to the parkway included in the long range plan for the county, and if so was that taken into consideration for the design? It would seem that the expanded highway would result in higher expected traffic volumes and cause more capacity to be built into the intersection. If, after the public process, a decision is made to remove the extension and four-laning of Purcell from the plan, would the 234/Purcell intersection design requirements change (be downgraded)? These are questions that I think should be answered before we go much further on finalizing and moving forward on the 234/Purcell intersection design.

I think it's important to note that, although it may seem that MIDCO is often opposing projects or specific aspects of projects, we aren't against growth or development. We just want to see the growth happen where it makes sense and helps the county to prosper. Our county is blessed, in that although we have areas of intense density such as the Route 1 corridor and the Manassas area, we still have green havens such as mid-county and the rural crescent. We feel that it's important that we preserve this dichotomy as the county grows. There are plenty of places in need of revitalization that also have the transportation and service support readily available that we should steer new office and intense residential development to. This isn't a NIMBY situation, it's just good policy for the county, and especially for taxpayers.

 While raw undeveloped land in the SRR area may be a good value (relatively cheap!) for the developer, it's not such a great deal for the taxpayer. When that office building or housing development on 1/2 acre lots is built in the SRR, the taxpayer picks up the tab for much of the road, school, environmental, etc., costs. The proffers simply don't cover all the costs incurred, particularly long-term costs. Revitalizing the more downtrodden areas can be a net gain for taxpayers, as the road and service costs are lower and taxes are higher on the newer, more opulent  buildings. Not to mention the benefits of a revitalized area where each new project will encourage others to jump in with their best effort.

It all works together as pieces of a puzzle. We need the green areas and the concrete areas. If we do this thing right, we can keep taxes low, quality of life high, and this county can be the jewel of the Washington, D.C. area.