April 2003

• Don't look a Gift horse in the mouth: Ben Blankenship
  
  Don't look a gift horse in the mouth, not even down at the stables.
  
  Even so, we've got a beaut of a contradiction, right here in the Harbour.
  
  There is this stupid federal law, see. I mean really stupid. It says that when any new construction must destroy existing wetland acreage, twice that amount must be created somewhere else nearby.
  
  It so happens that Aquia Harbour is near enough to the construction of the new Wilson Bridge over the Potomac River at Alexandria to qualify. Also, unlike a lot of other areas similarly situated, it seems we have some land where new wetland acreage can be "created."
  
  Specifically, it is creekside frontage, just beyond the end of Delaware Drive, consisting of nearly two pristine acres hardly anyone has ever seen. Understand, the plot isn't wet by any means. The land is high and dry now, but that's no disqualification. Not at all.
  
  Again, you see, although the Harbour has lots of wetland acreage (just glance downstream from the marina soon at all the lily pads), none of it can qualify. Candidate acreage, to qualify under the law, must not be existing wetlands.
  
  No siree. Instead, they'll take our pristine two acres and strip them down to a depth of six or more feet so that high tide from Aquia Creek? will inundate them. That stripping will involve the removal of some 8,000 cubic yards of dirt, officials say, and carting it to a disposal site elsewhere. Elsewhere, says GM Chuck Halt, is on our land north of Harpoon and east of Bosun Cove, where our developers originally had set aside a site for a school, and where a second-gate entrance to the Harbour could someday be cut (dream on).
  
  Then they'll establish wetland plants suitable for the area, erecting a bulkhead nearby, plus a canoe launch site and a nice path and stuff like that.
  
  Guess how much this whole cockamamie deal is going to cost. Halt says it could be as much as $500,000. Who'll pay? No need to guess: We 1040-fied taxpayers in general.
  
  But wait. We local fortunates will benefit, in a way, since the "creation" of the environmentally correct two acres as wetlands comes at a price to be paid in cash to AHPOA. To wit: Us here. How much? About $72,000. Not bad, right?
  
  Good for us, but bad for the country, I'd say, unless what we have here is an example of wise environmental stewardship despite the cost.
  
  The Virginia Department of Transportation, which funnels taxpayers' money into such projects, has agreed to pay us the $72,000 for a 10-year lease of the land. By the time you read this, the cash may already be in the bank. VDOT also must pay about $25,000 for the Harbour's legal expenses and such for closing the deal. VDOT had already incurred costs of geologists, archeologists and others who scrutinized the property repeatedly to make sure it qualified.
  
  As I said, it's not totally a loss to the U.S. taxpayer if you think wetlands are that environmentally precious. Also, Interstate travelers and local commuters should benefit from an improved Wilson Bridge.
  
  And we Harbourites will have two more wetland acres to harbor extra Canada geese, snakes and beavers.
  
  The well-organized environmentalists nationally and locally can? chalk up another victory in the battle to promote their idea of a sustainable ecology, and hang the cost.
  
  For what it's worth, it ain't worth it. Don't you agree?
  
  *********

November 2002

• The Second Gate: William M Carpenter
  
  The "second gate!" We have all heard about the plan, someday, to have a second gate. The story began a long time ago. when we bought our lot in 1970, the salesman for American Realty, the original developer, said there would be a second gate in the second section in about six months. When we started building our house on Aquia Drive in the first section in 1971, the word was still "a second gate in about six months." When the house was finished in June of 1972, and we moved in, the second gate was reported to be coming very soon. The place had been picked out, aross Harpoon from Admiral Drive, and thus out to U.S. 1 near the crucifix. Ther is, in fact, if you look down among the trees off Harpoon across from Admiral, the remnants of an old road, and it could be used as the base for the road leading out from the second gate.
  
  And so it went, until 1975 when American Realty went bankrupt and we took over the AHPOA to run the Harbour ourselves, as we have been doing ever since. In the crisis atmosphere of having to take over and to raise the dues to pay for all our amenities (roads, security force, marina, pools, golf course, tennis courts, stables, office staff, and other expenses)it was a shock for many when we raised the dues to $180 from $60 that the developer had been charging. There wasn't much intrest then to talk about spending more money for a second gate. We sent the executive committee of our newly-elected board down to Memphis to the bankruptcy court, and they came back with $580,000 which American Realty had been honest enough to save for us out of all the dues paid up to that time and put in escrow.
  
  Some of us on the board then wanted to take the money from the court and put it into a reserve fund, and begin to charge dues enough to meet the actual costs of running the Harbour. But that was too much for the majority of the board and so we ate up the escrow over the next two or three years by taking from it the difference from the $180 and the real cost of operations.
  
  But the second gate issue gradually revived, and we actually began to talk about how it might be done. By then we had created our own police force to take over from the weaker coverage by the security contract organization that we took over from the developer. A second gate would have to be manned by gate guards, as is the main gate. Some of us went out and walked the route of the second gate, and information was obtained about what property we would have to acquire to get out of U.S. 1. One problem we encountered was a piece of property owned by a man and his wife, who were separated, and wouldn't talk to each other. I had a plan in mind to overcome the impasse: just take our road equipment and cut a right of way, taking small slices of property that belonged to others--the owners could have sued us, and the court would have awarded them fair compensation for the land, and we could have paid it, and the result would have been that we had a road for exit out a second gate. But our lawyer said no, we can't do that, so we did nothing.
  
  The story of the years since then is one we all generally know, that we talk now and again about a second gate and as each year passes, the cost goes up, and we get scared by the numbers. Meanwhile, the traffic pouring in and out of our one gate gets heavier by the day. But the issue is not going away.
  
  For reasons of alleviating traffic, and for emergency exit if something should happen to the present gate, a second gate is something we ought to have. It's food for thought.