of land; it is also an opportunity. It’s so close to a dense population area that in future years—even now—we’ll want open space.”35 Hickel’s deepening interest in the case was a major federal commitment to land conservation at a time of rising environmental consciousness that blended environmental objectives.36 Also, the fact that the property was nearby made it easier for him to be involved and to potentially use the Burling case as a primer for publicizing the value of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
On February 9, the county planning commission approved the conservation agreement and development proposal, which sent the project to the board of supervisors for final approval. However, the commission urged concerned parties to continue seeking funding to buy the property for use as a park.37 By the time the supervisors held their first public hearing in mid-March, civic concern about the Burling tract had expanded beyond the neighborhood level.
Marian Agnew, who became one of the most prominent “sewer ladies” working to clean up the Potomac during the 1970s, got her start in environmental activism with the Burling case. Agnew, the wife of an air force pilot, was looking for a place to walk her two dogs one day when she realized how little park space, not to mention wooded areas, was left in Fairfax. While working as a substitute teacher at Langley High School, she advised a group of students, including her son, on a school project to plan a system of bike trails for McLean. Agnew and the students soon learned about the Burling case and decided to get involved based on their interests in outdoor recreation. Over the next several months, she and the students were at the center of a grassroots movement that called not simply for reducing the density of development at the Burling tract but for protecting the entire site as a park and nature preserve. In an interview after the case was over, Agnew explained the approach she came to adopt in her environmental activism: “I realized that confrontation is often the only way to get action.”38
The board of supervisors hearing on March 11 was the first of several high-profile events in a burgeoning campaign to protect the Burling tract from suburban development. The hearing began with testimony from Miller & Smith representative John “Til” Hazel, a staunch growth advocate who was fast becoming the most prominent land use and zoning lawyer for developers in Northern Virginia. Hazel acknowledged civic interest in mitigating the impact of building on the hilly terrain and harming its flora and fauna. To that end he stressed the developer’s unusually robust conservation measures: clustering housing to keep half the land as open space; creating a hiking trail; building ponds to collect soil runoff during construction; and grading small sections of land at a time to control erosion.39
Nearly everyone else at the hearing had strong reservations about the project. A representative from the Interior Department reiterated its commitment to help buy the Burling tract for conversion into a park.40 Of the two-dozen residents in attendance, only three supported the developer’s proposal. The rest, which included several high school students associated with Agnew, argued that developing the site would erode its steep slopes and asked the board of supervisors to find a way to preserve the property.41 The appearance of the students marked the beginning of the sustained involvement of young people in debates about the Burling tract. Their concern came from the loss of recreational open space associated with suburbanization and was enhanced by the rise of environmental education in the United States.42
Despite growing civic opposition, the board of supervisors unanimously accepted the developer’s plans. Harriet S. Bradley, who represented the district where the Burling tract was located, believed that the project aligned with long-term plans for single-family housing in the area. While having a reputation for being critical of developers, she suggested that in this case, local officials had “‘a unique opportunity to work with a developer who is sufficiently concerned with the [environmental] problems of development.’” Finally, she noted that McLean already had a large park—the Turkey Run Recreational Area—that was adjacent to the Potomac.43
An equally important rationale was the high cost of buying the property from Miller & Smith. While the Department of the Interior had offered up to $1.2 million, that money was contingent on the county and the state matching the offer. Fairfax’s share was 20 percent, which translated to nearly half a million dollars, while the state would have to contribute over $700,000. Although Fairfax was a rather wealthy county, it was struggling to pay the bills for an ever-widening array of services as residents settled farther out and sought to lower their tax rates. Dedicating such a considerable amount of money to preserve land that would not generate tax revenue seemed a losing proposition, even though the prospective development of the Burling tract threatened the amenities that many residents saw as contributing to a high quality of life.44
The differing viewpoints of public officials and environmentalists highlighted the challenges of translating the value of the environmental goods and services that land offered into the economic calculus of the real estate market. Public officials continually searched for revenue-generating development to pay for public services.45 In doing so, they were disinclined to support robust environmental policies that might ward off developers because of their costs for compliance and because of the high costs of paying for land preservation in “hot” real estate markets.46 Given that the developer was looking to align its project with the single-family residential character of the community and was willing to offer relatively strong environmental safeguards, it made sense that local officials were open to the site’s development.
In contrast, members of the Old Georgetown Pike and Potomac River Association were critical of the decision for setting a bad precedent. As group member John Adams asked, “If you develop this piece of land now, what is to keep other pieces from being developed later?”47 Adams’ question echoed of “the tragedy of the commons,” a phrase popularized by Garrett Hardin in a 1968 article about global population pressures that also spoke to the issues surrounding growth and environmental protection in modern America.48 It questioned how the law and the mechanisms of the market privileged individual actors and their private property rights, particularly in the short-term pursuit of profit, over a robust commitment to ensuring the public’s investment in long-term access to environmental goods and resources.49 Thus, the development of a single property would be interpreted as a rational, individual act rather than part of a broader pattern of growth with a cumulative environmental impact. The concept of the tragedy of the commons cut to the heart of modern environmentalism, which insisted that law, policy, and cultural values needed to evolve to promote a more ecologically sound and equitable use of nature to counterbalance the selfish tendencies underlying private property.50
Although citizens who supported preservation of the Burling tract felt that this served the public good more than building yet another housing development, their claims were not immune to scrutiny. Most were predominately middle- and upper-class professionals, or their children, who could afford to live in communities where large amounts of open space increased housing values.51 This charge was quite valid for groups such as the Old Georgetown Pike and Potomac River Association and reflected the tendency for higher income areas experiencing rapid growth to see popular support for open space preservation.52 Moreover, many residents who supported preservation failed to acknowledge how postwar housing and land use policies had privileged white middle-class interests over others.53 This led a columnist for the Washington Post to recommend that the local money to help buy the Burling tract could be better spent on expanding housing and social services for lower-income residents.54 For supporters of preserving the Burling tract to be successful, they would have to position their environmental interests as more important than the imperative for growth.55
The Possibility of a Park
Over several months, a small but growing coalition of residents had opposed plans to develop the Burling tract. Initially, they sought to mitigate the ecological impact of building homes on the site but soon concluded that the property’s natural features should be preserved for public enjoyment. As local
