Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
Yes, this target is appropriate.
Comments (optional):
But CAFs at 60% AMI should not be the only target. We need a goal of maintaining middle income households as well. The CAF units don't include police, firefighters and teachers. If 5% of Arlington's budget goes for low income housing we must allocate another 5% for middle income housing.
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):
All of Arlington can be in proximity to public transportation with a more robust ART system. Arlingtonians can walk .5 miles to a bus stop.
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):
All CAFs should be for Arlington residents or workers. The County and Schools should fund rental and homeownership programs for their employees up to 120 % AMI. Arlington will benefit by having them as engaged stakeholders and consumers.
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?
Yes, I agree.
Question: Would it be more appropriate to address this demand through land use provisions rather than financing?
I am not sure.
Comments (optional)
Both land use provisions and financing are needed to enable middle income workers as residents. Our local economy will benefit. The full range of housing needs should be addressed not just low income housing. We are a wealthy community and can achieve this.
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):
Small shared townhouses with first floor for seniors and top two floors for families would be ideal with the front garden for 1st floor and back garden for the others. Expanded possibilities for accessory dwelling units over garages and in back yards would provide affordable housing for seniors and millenials.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
This can be an excellent component for the Comprehensive Plan. It will be better with some proposals to address the questions on this survey.
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):
But CAFs at 60% AMI should not be the only target. We need a goal of maintaining middle income households as well. The CAF units don't include police, firefighters and teachers. If 5% of Arlington's budget goes for low income housing we must allocate another 5% for middle income housing.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
All of Arlington can be in proximity to public transportation with a more robust ART system. Arlingtonians can walk .5 miles to a bus stop.
Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
All CAFs should be for Arlington residents or workers. The County and Schools should fund rental and homeownership programs for their employees up to 120 % AMI. Arlington will benefit by having them as engaged stakeholders and consumers.
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)
Both land use provisions and financing are needed to enable middle income workers as residents. Our local economy will benefit. The full range of housing needs should be addressed not just low income housing. We are a wealthy community and can achieve this.
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):
Small shared townhouses with first floor for seniors and top two floors for families would be ideal with the front garden for 1st floor and back garden for the others. Expanded possibilities for accessory dwelling units over garages and in back yards would provide affordable housing for seniors and millenials.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
This can be an excellent component for the Comprehensive Plan. It will be better with some proposals to address the questions on this survey.