Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
Yes, this target is appropriate.
Comments (optional):
Assuming trends continue and there will be no new market rate affordable units, and then doing the math implied above, that averages to a need to add 632 CAF units per year. This is ambitious but necessary.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
I agree with the proposed policies.
Comments (optional):
Because sector plans don't all happen at once, the development of new affordable housing may seem uneven from year to year. Theoretically, a robust geographic distribution will be achieved over time. In the short term, new development may seem to concentrate in certain areas with more recent sector plans.
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):
This does not go far enough. County government should lead by example, giving incentives to its employees to live in Arlington. Then encouraging local businesses to follow suit will be easier.
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?
Yes, that is more appropriate.
Comments (optional)
Specifically targeting attention and assistance to owners associations in condominiums and other developments is appropriate. Many associations are poorly run and do not always comply with all the necessary paperwork. Getting help with this from a management company is often expensive. The county could and should help with this and other association management resources.
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):
No response.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
The success or failure of this plan will depend on its integration with all other aspects of county government. Without integrating transportation development, economic development, schools capacity planning, etc., there will be understandable community opposition. Nothing here exists in a vacuum.
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):
Assuming trends continue and there will be no new market rate affordable units, and then doing the math implied above, that averages to a need to add 632 CAF units per year. This is ambitious but necessary.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
Because sector plans don't all happen at once, the development of new affordable housing may seem uneven from year to year. Theoretically, a robust geographic distribution will be achieved over time. In the short term, new development may seem to concentrate in certain areas with more recent sector plans.
Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
This does not go far enough. County government should lead by example, giving incentives to its employees to live in Arlington. Then encouraging local businesses to follow suit will be easier.
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)
Specifically targeting attention and assistance to owners associations in condominiums and other developments is appropriate. Many associations are poorly run and do not always comply with all the necessary paperwork. Getting help with this from a management company is often expensive. The county could and should help with this and other association management resources.
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):
No response.Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
The success or failure of this plan will depend on its integration with all other aspects of county government. Without integrating transportation development, economic development, schools capacity planning, etc., there will be understandable community opposition. Nothing here exists in a vacuum.