Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
Yes, this target is appropriate.
Comments (optional):
No response.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
I agree with the proposed policies.
Comments (optional):
No response.
Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?
Yes, I agree that Arlington residents and workers should receive preference.
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?
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):
Absolutely. When I lived in Ann Arbor, I saw small apartment buildings with double-loaded corridors in the middle of neighborhoods of single-family houses, and they worked quite well. They didn't "conflict with the residential character of the neighborhood," and they didn't "destroy all of the charm in the area," as opponents of such buildings routinely predicted. The truth is, they provide needed housing for people to live in desirable places - many more people than houses alone could accommodate. I once toyed with the idea of building a small second house in my back yard, for the dual benefits of rental income and reduced yard work. I think municipalities should allow that kind of thing to happen, as it's good for the property owners and for the occupants of the new units.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
Since I've moved back to Arlington, I've seen good proposals for apartments built over neighborhood-serving retail blocked by neighborhood groups who actually thought they were doing the right thing for the community by keeping new residents out. So disappointing! The best way to achieve housing affordability is to increase the supply of housing. Arlington's land use policies should encourage development of well designed, high-density residential projects that are walkable to retail and transit. Arlington is nationally recognized for excellence in smart growth, and I think that's something we should all be able to take pride in. It's good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for public health and our quality of life. Let's not pay undue attention to the minority anti-growth neighbors who happen to have time to dominate the sparsely attended civic association meetings.
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):
No response.Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
No response.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):
Absolutely. When I lived in Ann Arbor, I saw small apartment buildings with double-loaded corridors in the middle of neighborhoods of single-family houses, and they worked quite well. They didn't "conflict with the residential character of the neighborhood," and they didn't "destroy all of the charm in the area," as opponents of such buildings routinely predicted. The truth is, they provide needed housing for people to live in desirable places - many more people than houses alone could accommodate. I once toyed with the idea of building a small second house in my back yard, for the dual benefits of rental income and reduced yard work. I think municipalities should allow that kind of thing to happen, as it's good for the property owners and for the occupants of the new units.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
Since I've moved back to Arlington, I've seen good proposals for apartments built over neighborhood-serving retail blocked by neighborhood groups who actually thought they were doing the right thing for the community by keeping new residents out. So disappointing! The best way to achieve housing affordability is to increase the supply of housing. Arlington's land use policies should encourage development of well designed, high-density residential projects that are walkable to retail and transit. Arlington is nationally recognized for excellence in smart growth, and I think that's something we should all be able to take pride in. It's good for the economy, good for the environment, and good for public health and our quality of life. Let's not pay undue attention to the minority anti-growth neighbors who happen to have time to dominate the sparsely attended civic association meetings.