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 far too specific, especially given the 25 year time frame. If there is no vibrant private market in 2040 to provide most of the units at the 60% AIM level, it difficult to imagine how Arlington County could afford to subsidize enough housing to fill the void. This target needs to be assessed and reset every five years based on realtime observations of current conditions within the County. It is vital to maintain an economically diverse population, but foolish to tie it to an inflexible goal.

Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?

• I agree with the proposed policies, but I would add other considerations (explain below).

Comments (optional):

It is far easier to move an ART bus route than it is to find affordable housing options along the Orange line -and it provides a service to the community as a whole. Preservation of existing CAFs and MARKs is laudable. Production of new units will be the challenge, especially if they are located only in geographic areas that have seen increased density in their neighborhoods with no consideration given to the impact of that density on schools, transportation, parkland, and other amenities.

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):

I only support providing a preference to Arlington residents who who are forced out of existing affordable housing due to circumstances like redevelopment of their existing homes.

Question: Is it appropriate for this plan to address middle income ownership housing demands?

• No, it is not 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?

• I am not sure.

Comments (optional)

"land use provisions" pretty vague.

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):

Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):

The lack of affordable housing is a regional issue that needs to be addressed through creative regional initiatives. Fairfax is floating a proposal to turn the Seven Corners area on Arlington's western border into three urban villages based on the Shirlington model, not only depriving Arlingtonians of easy access to both DIY materials and Asian produce, but also displacing the low-income tenants who have formed a vibrant community with access to transportation, schools, shopping, parks, and other amenities. They will not be able to live among the friends they have made. Can this Master Plan be tweaked to address avoid a repetition of this situation in Arlington? It is one thing to provide housing options - and Arlington has a good track record on this- But, are we also looking at ways to preserve the vital micro-communities within our own borders? A unit here/a unit there; a bonus density here/a bonus density there is not the same thing as creating community.

I ask that certain language be removed from the Master Plan before it moves forward: Policy 3.5.2 creates a level of tension and anxiety within the community that deflects the positive actions that this document is trying to achieve and also creates unnecessary roadblocks to the goal of its public acceptance:

“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.”

While the first sentence, emphasizing neighborhood context, is a reasonable inclusion, the second sentence is not and devolves to the uncomfortable last century discussions of what the meaning of "is" is. While "stand-alone" affordable housing projects are not being considered for our parkland, "co-located" affordable housing is. Central Arlington and south Arlington have watched the "densification" of our neighborhoods. We are still awaiting the additional parkland, community centers and schools that will support the additional population and give all Arlington residents a reason to believe that we are in this together.
There is no reason to create a wedge issue. Arlingtonians support affordable housing, and they want excellent schools and they love parks and woods. All these things are possible in this small county.