Our community survey clearly showed that residents continue to want trails. I agree with that. I took the survey myself and indicated that trails are a high priority for me as well. I strongly support trails, walkability, and safe options for biking and transportation.
However, the survey did not ask residents whether they supported a project that would cut through a forest, remove more than 600 trees, significantly impact wildlife and insects, and place a roughly 30-foot-wide road through the woods. Those are two very different
things, and it’s important to be honest about that distinction.
I also believe it is my responsibility to serve our community in a way that ensures long-ago voted-on projects, plans, and decisions remain relevant to today’s population whenever possible. What began more than 20 years ago as a stone-dust trail with broad
support gradually evolved into a transportation project, with very little new community input along the way. That evolution created a pivotal moment for us to pause, listen, and reassess what our community wants now.
While I value being a good partner to our neighboring jurisdictions, our first responsibility is to our residents—the people who elected us to make thoughtful, informed decisions on their behalf. Good government listens, adapts, and is willing to ask hard questions,
even when funding or momentum already exists.
I will continue to support trails and safe transportation options, while also standing up for our environment and the voices of our community.
Councilmember Hall says she “supports trails” – just not the one that actually connects Metro to downtown and reduces car traffic. Classic NIMBY move!
That’s not supporting trails. That’s supporting decorative trails that don’t inconvenience anyone important.
The “600 trees and a 30-foot road” argument is a masterpiece of selective outrage. Somehow parking lots, road widenings, and new developments never trigger this level of eco-panic. Funny how trees only become sacred when they stand between a wealthy neighborhood and the rest of the city.
Meanwhile, this project was 90% funded by outside sources and designed to cut congestion and smog for thousands of commuters. Instead, Fairfax taxpayers now get to eat millions in sunk costs so a few well-connected homeowners can keep their private buffer.
You didn’t “pause and reassess.” You chose to protect the property values of a select few rich boomers over mobility, clean air, and common sense, and called it environmentalism, with NO plan to repay the $3M or to provide an alternative trail.