Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?

• No, this target is not appropriate.

Comments (optional):

The target percentage of 17.7% is not appropriate and should rather be a fluid percentage, recognizing that Arlington County should not decrease the importance of other high-priority County programs, specifically, schools, parks, and public safety. These three areas should have a higher priority. We cannot sacrifice other important programs that benefit all Arlington County citizens merely to serve the community requiring affordable housing. While Arlington’s efforts to provide affordable housing are commendable to a degree, Arlington alone cannot resolve the Metro area’s regional demand for affordable housing. In the Washington Metro area, thousands live in one jurisdiction yet work in another jurisdiction. Consequently, setting a specific target percentage of affordable housing units does not recognize this intra-jurisdictional issue and looks at the housing supply in isolation. Furthermore, to assume that Arlington County can provide 15,800 new CAFs by 2040 is unrealistic and would require significant reductions in other county programs. The County Board seems more intent on achieving national awards for creating affordable housing than on maintaining programs that benefit all County residents.

Additionally, as specified in the Arlington County Affordable Housing Implementation Framework, the Columbia Pike Tax Incremental Financing has resulted in Columbia Pike quickly becoming Arlington County’s unofficial affordable housing ghetto, thus producing schools in this part of Arlington County that suffer in relation to schools in other more affluent areas of Arlington County and creating an area of the county that is not conducive to greater economic development. This can be seen in the “Columbia Pike Form Based Code-Commercial Centers.” There is no Form Based Code for any other areas in Arlington County. By targeting the Columbia Pike corridor for affordable housing initiatives, the County is not achieving its sacred mantra of DIVERSITY and is, indeed, doing just the opposite, i.e., creating the affordable housing ghetto as well as an economic ghetto within Arlington County. There is no plan to evenly distribute affordable housing options throughout the County

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):

Proximity of affordable housing close to public transportation is important, yet current incentives would locate affordable housing only along the Columbia Pike corridor. Other Metro areas within the County should also be considered for location of future affordable housing projects.

Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?

• No, I do not support giving preferences.

Comments (optional):

In the Washington Metro area, thousands live in one jurisdiction yet work in another. For Arlington County to state that housing must be provided for all who work in the County is not realistic and can only be described as a fantasy. This also seems to ignores the concurrent proposal to locate affordable housing close to public transportation.

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

• I am not sure.

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?

• No, that is not more appropriate.

Comments (optional)

It is imperative that current park land be preserved and not be re-zoned to allow any type of affordable housing, i.e., no new construction nor any reconstruction of existing buildings on parkland. It is also imperative to maintain the characteristics of neighborhoods that are currently zoned as Single-Family Residential.

Question: Should opportunities for creating greater flexibility of housing types beyond the urban corridors that support both rental and ownership options be further studied?

• No, I do not agree they should be further studied.

Comments (optional):

I am a resident of Forest Glen. In the last 8-10 years, four single-family detached homes in Forest Glen have been purchased and turned into rooming houses, with landlords renting rooms illegally by the night. Arlington County has ignored our complaints and pleas for help in preventing such tenements. As a result of such transient renters, Forest Glen has seen additional vehicles, an increase in trash thrown into streets, and an increase in noise during late-night hours. A review of the housing types beyond urban corridors to create flexibility in housing types will further increase these types of rental homes and eventually destroy the neighborhood character. To allow further flexibility would provide legitimacy to Arlington County's extant yet unpublished policy of deferring to illegal landlords and illegal tenants to the detriment of neighborhoods of single-family detached homes.

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

Within the Affordable Housing Implementation, the "Affordable Housing Parking Standards" states that "national and local precedents have demonstrated that there are reduced parking needs for occupants of affordable units." As a resident of Forest Glen, a neighborhood of single-family detached homes adjacent to high-density housing developments and also near new affordable housing developments (Arlington Mill and the Shell), my experience and that of my neighbors is that occupants of affordable units (CAFs or Marks), rather than paying for parking spaces located at the affordable housing developments, cruise our neighborhood looking for free parking. Rather than assuming that occupants of affordable housing have reduced parking needs, County policy should provide there is sufficient free parking for these residents as well as their visitors. Proposals regarding affordable housing and considerations for parking and land use should clearly study and account for the effects of additional populations density, including parking and traffic, on adjacent neighborhoods. With the problematic issues affordable housing creates, many times the perception is that affordable housing has become the primary goal of Arlington County officials (hoping for national awards?) to the detriment of the County's homeowners who purchased home in residential single-family neighborhoods with expectations of a certain quality of life.