Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
No, this target is not appropriate.
Comments (optional):
First, the 17.7% target is based on the assumption that every person with AMI below 60% needs to LIVE in Arlington in order to WORK in Arlington. The assumption is false. Arlington business say they want workers to live "nearby" to be reliable workers, but in a region with extensive public transportation, "nearby" does not necessarily mean living in Arlington. Some of this could be resolved by improved public transportation (with subsidies for Arlington employees) rather than by housing. Second, whatever percentage is used WILL NOT create "social diversity" in Arlington UNLESS the housing plan keeps as a goal, and enforces the goal, of GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION of affordable housing throughout the county, rather than concentrated within certain neighborhoods, as exists now.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
I do not agree with the proposed policies.
Comments (optional):
The policies are skewed and uncreative. You do NOT need to locate affordable housing near existing transportation routes. The county can and should CREATE transportation routes, by expanding ART bus services as needed, and align them with affordable housing, rather than the other way around. By largely limiting affordable housing to the metro corridor or existing major bus routes the county artificially makes it impossible to carry out the goal of GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION of affordable housing.
Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?
I support preference for Arlington residents, but not for workers.
Comments (optional):
No response.
Question: Is it appropriate for this plan to address middle income ownership housing demands?
Yes, it is appropriate.
Question: Should we be using public funds for higher-income households?
I am not sure.
Question: Would it be more appropriate to address this demand through land use provisions rather than financing?
I am not sure.
Comments (optional)
No response.
Question: Should opportunities for creating greater flexibility of housing types beyond the urban corridors that support both rental and ownership options be further studied?
Yes, I agree they should be further studied.
Comments (optional):
I agree with exploring this proposal, but ONLY if the flexibility is provided throughout the county, and not limited to certain neighborhoods with existing concentrations of affordable housing.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
The master plan should not abandon the goal of geographic distribution of affordable housing. Affordable housing is already over-concentrated, particularly along Columbia Pike, as measured by the county's own 2011 goals. Columbia Pike's goal was 15% of affordable housing, while the reality is 38% (and 75% of all new affordable housing in 2009-12). North Arlington, by contrast, is under-represented. The goal was 25%, the reality is 7%. This has two principal negative effects. First, the housing policy does not truly bring diversity to Arlington, but concentrates low-income household in certain areas, rather than providing income integration in the county. Second, by concentrating low-income households, the housing policy creates school districts with high concentration of poverty, which decades of research shows has a detrimental effect on student performance. If the county works comprehensively, it can come up with solutions -- opening up new areas (by changing zoning, if necessary) to affordable housing, shifting the emphasis on FAMILY-oriented affordable housing to other areas, supplementing affordable housing policy with a transportation plan to bring in employees to Arlington from nearby jurisdiction, expanding choice schools (ATS, HBW) and north Arlington schools to include more children from affordable housing, etc. The housing plan should also explicitly recognize that building as much affordable housing as possible for the least amount of money is NOT the most desirable goal -- that some balance of geographic distribution must be maintained, even if this means slightly less affordable housing at a higher costs, but which more evenly balances all community goals, including school and student performance, and not just exclusively serving the goal of more affordable housing.
Open Arlington is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open Arlington is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials.
Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
Comments (optional):
First, the 17.7% target is based on the assumption that every person with AMI below 60% needs to LIVE in Arlington in order to WORK in Arlington. The assumption is false. Arlington business say they want workers to live "nearby" to be reliable workers, but in a region with extensive public transportation, "nearby" does not necessarily mean living in Arlington. Some of this could be resolved by improved public transportation (with subsidies for Arlington employees) rather than by housing. Second, whatever percentage is used WILL NOT create "social diversity" in Arlington UNLESS the housing plan keeps as a goal, and enforces the goal, of GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION of affordable housing throughout the county, rather than concentrated within certain neighborhoods, as exists now.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
The policies are skewed and uncreative. You do NOT need to locate affordable housing near existing transportation routes. The county can and should CREATE transportation routes, by expanding ART bus services as needed, and align them with affordable housing, rather than the other way around. By largely limiting affordable housing to the metro corridor or existing major bus routes the county artificially makes it impossible to carry out the goal of GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION of affordable housing.
Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
No response.Question: Is it appropriate for this plan to address middle income ownership housing demands?
Question: Should we be using public funds for higher-income households?
Question: Would it be more appropriate to address this demand through land use provisions rather than financing?
Comments (optional)
No response.Question: Should opportunities for creating greater flexibility of housing types beyond the urban corridors that support both rental and ownership options be further studied?
Comments (optional):
I agree with exploring this proposal, but ONLY if the flexibility is provided throughout the county, and not limited to certain neighborhoods with existing concentrations of affordable housing.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
The master plan should not abandon the goal of geographic distribution of affordable housing. Affordable housing is already over-concentrated, particularly along Columbia Pike, as measured by the county's own 2011 goals. Columbia Pike's goal was 15% of affordable housing, while the reality is 38% (and 75% of all new affordable housing in 2009-12). North Arlington, by contrast, is under-represented. The goal was 25%, the reality is 7%. This has two principal negative effects. First, the housing policy does not truly bring diversity to Arlington, but concentrates low-income household in certain areas, rather than providing income integration in the county. Second, by concentrating low-income households, the housing policy creates school districts with high concentration of poverty, which decades of research shows has a detrimental effect on student performance. If the county works comprehensively, it can come up with solutions -- opening up new areas (by changing zoning, if necessary) to affordable housing, shifting the emphasis on FAMILY-oriented affordable housing to other areas, supplementing affordable housing policy with a transportation plan to bring in employees to Arlington from nearby jurisdiction, expanding choice schools (ATS, HBW) and north Arlington schools to include more children from affordable housing, etc. The housing plan should also explicitly recognize that building as much affordable housing as possible for the least amount of money is NOT the most desirable goal -- that some balance of geographic distribution must be maintained, even if this means slightly less affordable housing at a higher costs, but which more evenly balances all community goals, including school and student performance, and not just exclusively serving the goal of more affordable housing.