Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
No, this target is not appropriate.
Comments (optional):
It would be appropriate to support the existing 16.4%, but to add additional residential units at a below-market rate may set up those residents for failure. This is an expensive area; even if housing is made affordable, other basic costs - food, clothing, transportation, activities, utilities - will make it difficult to ever get ahead. I support the County's CAFs, but that designation should attach to existing properties, not additional building. I do not accept the premise that the County's astronomical growth should continue.
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?
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?
No, that is not more appropriate.
Comments (optional)
The goal of supporting middle incomes households seems to come at the cost of introducing additional density. Under no circumstances should the County make exceptions to the building code to give "bonus density" to builders. These gifts to builders are a breach of the contract that the County made to the residents who purchased their homes twenty years ago. One troubling result is that our schools are suffering from overcrowding.
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):
This question appears to begin with a false premise. Multi-generational living arrangements do not create the need for rental units within a single family home. Accessory dwelling ordinances seem to facilitate increased residential density by allowing multiple families to live in one home. Under no circumstances should density increase outside of urban corridors. Such increases are a breach of the County's contract with long-term residents.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
I appreciate the efforts of the Working Group. It is imperative that the final plans and policies that the County adopts support existing residents and keep the promises made to long term residents. That includes preserving single family neighborhoods and protecting our existing resources. Over more than 20 years, I have watched green space disappear and schools become crowded. It is a mistake to assume that our schools and neighborhoods will maintain their world class status regardless of how crowded they become.
A false choice seems to have emerged, whereby we must either accept greater density or sacrifice affordable housing and diversity. Building more housing so that "bonus density" can be added to provide affordable housing mostly serves the builders. If County planners are serious about the availability of affordable housing, then they should be willing to pay the cost of it rather than force existing residents to suffer ever-increasing density. Rather than incentivizing big developers to build more and more, the County should be converting existing housing stock and providing tax and other incentives to support a modest level of economic diversity and to promote affordable housing. More is not the answer.
While I think that growth in the County should be significantly slowed, I think that public transportation should be at the center of any plan for growth. More cars will be just another urban plight. I would support extension of the Metro, a proven, underground solution.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
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.
Translate
Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
Comments (optional):
It would be appropriate to support the existing 16.4%, but to add additional residential units at a below-market rate may set up those residents for failure. This is an expensive area; even if housing is made affordable, other basic costs - food, clothing, transportation, activities, utilities - will make it difficult to ever get ahead. I support the County's CAFs, but that designation should attach to existing properties, not additional building. I do not accept the premise that the County's astronomical growth should continue.
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)
The goal of supporting middle incomes households seems to come at the cost of introducing additional density. Under no circumstances should the County make exceptions to the building code to give "bonus density" to builders. These gifts to builders are a breach of the contract that the County made to the residents who purchased their homes twenty years ago. One troubling result is that our schools are suffering from overcrowding.
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):
This question appears to begin with a false premise. Multi-generational living arrangements do not create the need for rental units within a single family home. Accessory dwelling ordinances seem to facilitate increased residential density by allowing multiple families to live in one home. Under no circumstances should density increase outside of urban corridors. Such increases are a breach of the County's contract with long-term residents.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
I appreciate the efforts of the Working Group. It is imperative that the final plans and policies that the County adopts support existing residents and keep the promises made to long term residents. That includes preserving single family neighborhoods and protecting our existing resources. Over more than 20 years, I have watched green space disappear and schools become crowded. It is a mistake to assume that our schools and neighborhoods will maintain their world class status regardless of how crowded they become.
A false choice seems to have emerged, whereby we must either accept greater density or sacrifice affordable housing and diversity. Building more housing so that "bonus density" can be added to provide affordable housing mostly serves the builders. If County planners are serious about the availability of affordable housing, then they should be willing to pay the cost of it rather than force existing residents to suffer ever-increasing density. Rather than incentivizing big developers to build more and more, the County should be converting existing housing stock and providing tax and other incentives to support a modest level of economic diversity and to promote affordable housing. More is not the answer.
While I think that growth in the County should be significantly slowed, I think that public transportation should be at the center of any plan for growth. More cars will be just another urban plight. I would support extension of the Metro, a proven, underground solution.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.