Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
No, this target is not appropriate.
Comments (optional):
This target is unrealistic and means that Arlington expects that nearly half of all new housing units in Arlington County through 2040 will be affordable housing units. The master plan does not include an analysis of the costs of this growth on schools and other infrastructure and means that middle class housing costs will increase significantly. Maybe the county should stop approving new high-end housing in locations where affordable housing units used to exist -- see fir example the Buckingham neighborhood.
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):
While I do agree with the goal of geographic distribution of affordable housing units, the description above does not adequately convey what is under consideration by the county. The designation of only racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty as those in which funds would be used for the preservation of current affordable housing units would likely apply to limited areas of the county -- GIVEN Arlington's poverty is racially and ethnically diverse and not concentrated.
Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?
No, I do not support giving preferences.
Comments (optional):
Rather than preferences, providing Arlington County workers with a housing subsidy makes more sense than encouraging county workers to use affordable housing units better used by others in more need.
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?
No, I do not agree.
Question: Would it be more appropriate to address this demand through land use provisions rather than financing?
Yes, that is more appropriate.
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):
No response.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
I am very concerned by the change in language to section 3.5.2 -- “3.5.2 Consider affordable housing needs and goals when planning for major capital investment in new or redeveloping existing major community facilities, taking into account the neighborhood context. The County Board does not support the placement of stand-alone affordable housing in officially designated parks or existing natural areas.” The addition of the word "stand-alone" implies that the county board continues to believe that adding affordable housing units to community centers in officially designated parks remains an option. This is highly inappropriate. Community centers and parks in Arlington are there for the benefit of ALL citizens. Housing is a private use and should not be allowed on park and community center property. Housing should never be added to parks or to land purchased with money raised from the sale of bonds. Housing should NOT be considered part of the plan to revitalize existing community centers like Lubber Run where it would completely overtake the character and use of the property, which in this particular case needs to remain parklike given its adjacent to Lubber Run Park. If the county board were truly concerned about affordable housing, it would do more to retain current affordable housing units rather than allowing them to be converted to high-end housing. The board would also be looking to achieve true geographic distribution of affordable housing units rather than using language in the plan that really allows continued concentration of affordable housing only in certain areas of the county. And the county board should be more interested in ensuring that everyone who has voted for park bonds is not subject to a bait and switch by the county now trying to build affordable housing in areas citizens voted to keep as natural park areas. I recommend eliminating section 3.5.2 entirely or alternatively eliminating the word "stand-alone." Thank you.
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.
75
Translate
Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
Comments (optional):
This target is unrealistic and means that Arlington expects that nearly half of all new housing units in Arlington County through 2040 will be affordable housing units. The master plan does not include an analysis of the costs of this growth on schools and other infrastructure and means that middle class housing costs will increase significantly. Maybe the county should stop approving new high-end housing in locations where affordable housing units used to exist -- see fir example the Buckingham neighborhood.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
While I do agree with the goal of geographic distribution of affordable housing units, the description above does not adequately convey what is under consideration by the county. The designation of only racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty as those in which funds would be used for the preservation of current affordable housing units would likely apply to limited areas of the county -- GIVEN Arlington's poverty is racially and ethnically diverse and not concentrated.
Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
Rather than preferences, providing Arlington County workers with a housing subsidy makes more sense than encouraging county workers to use affordable housing units better used by others in more need.
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):
No response.Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
I am very concerned by the change in language to section 3.5.2 -- “3.5.2 Consider affordable housing needs and goals when planning for major capital investment in new or redeveloping existing major community facilities, taking into account the neighborhood context. The County Board does not support the placement of stand-alone affordable housing in officially designated parks or existing natural areas.” The addition of the word "stand-alone" implies that the county board continues to believe that adding affordable housing units to community centers in officially designated parks remains an option. This is highly inappropriate. Community centers and parks in Arlington are there for the benefit of ALL citizens. Housing is a private use and should not be allowed on park and community center property. Housing should never be added to parks or to land purchased with money raised from the sale of bonds. Housing should NOT be considered part of the plan to revitalize existing community centers like Lubber Run where it would completely overtake the character and use of the property, which in this particular case needs to remain parklike given its adjacent to Lubber Run Park. If the county board were truly concerned about affordable housing, it would do more to retain current affordable housing units rather than allowing them to be converted to high-end housing. The board would also be looking to achieve true geographic distribution of affordable housing units rather than using language in the plan that really allows continued concentration of affordable housing only in certain areas of the county. And the county board should be more interested in ensuring that everyone who has voted for park bonds is not subject to a bait and switch by the county now trying to build affordable housing in areas citizens voted to keep as natural park areas. I recommend eliminating section 3.5.2 entirely or alternatively eliminating the word "stand-alone." Thank you.