Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
No, this target is not appropriate.
Comments (optional):
If Arlington currently has 17,000 renter households at 60% AMI or below, but only 9,500 homes affordable to these households, where and how are the other 7,500 household living? Are they getting government support (section 8 or other subsidies) that allows them to rent more expensive units, but pay what they can afford? Are they sharing a dwelling with other families to split costs? While I support affordable housing, I don't believe that Arlington has to meet the needs of everyone earning 60% AMI or below. I would suggest a target of 10-15%, regardless of the number of households in the county that earn 60% AMI or below.
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):
Produce committed affordable rental units in the County consistent with the County’s adopted land use plans and policies along or near current transit corridors (1.1.8). Transit is prevalent throughout Arlington, yet there is an over abundance of affordable rental units (both committed and market rate) on the Columbia Pike corridor. Any plans for additional affordable units need to be located in other areas of the county (Ballston, VA Square, Rosslyn, Clarendon, Courthouse, Washington, Blvd, Pentagon City, Lee Hwy, Route 50, N Glebe Rd, N. George Mason Dr, to name a few). All of these areas have excellent transportation, but few affordable housing units. Columbia Pike doesn't need any more affordable housing, it already has enough. True diversity means making the ENTIRE county diverse, not just S Arlington (which is already plenty diverse). More effort needs to go into helping N Arlington become more diverse.
Integrate affordable housing goals and policies into County sector plans, economic development strategies, Master Transportation Plan and other County planning efforts (3.5.1) Yes, integrate goals and policies (not just unenforceable targets) into plans, strategies and efforts for ALL areas of the County, not just S Arlington. N Arlington needs to have their fair share, and by that I mean an EQUAL percentage. If the goal is to have nearly 18% of affordable housing in the county, then half of that, or 9%, needs to be in N Arlington, no ifs, ands, buts or excuses. The County Board needs to realize that S Arlington is not a step child where they aim all their "good intentions" for helping the less fortunate, while at the same time ensuring that they keep the less fortunate out of N Arlington where they are not wanted. It's always NIMBY for N Arlington and they get away with it, while S Arlington suffers all the unintended consequences of the County Board's "good intentions" (higher crime, school overcrowding, schools struggling with performance and lower test results, lower property values, slower increases in property values, and second rate transportation options - i.e. the Streetcar or enhanced bus service instead of underground Metro)
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?
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)
Even those households above the middle-income thresholds find it difficult to purchase a home in Arlington. I'm speaking from experience as we are one of those household and had to stay in S Arlington because we could not afford anything in N Arlington. Even in S Arlington, we had very little stock to choose from in our price range. We make good money, but refuse to be saddled with a mortgage that would be around 50% of our net salary. The main hindrance is the available of enough liquid funds to cover a 20% downpayment, so maybe a program that would help with downpayment in terms of a grant or low-interest rate loan would be beneficial.
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):
Ensure the study equally includes neighborhoods in N Arlington, not just S Arlington. Definitely review the ordinance for creating a rental unit within a single-family home. This would be a wonderful option for us, as my mother currently also resides in Arlington, and having us be able to move into a single-family home with a separate rental dwelling would be an excellent option for us to combine our households.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
No response.
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):
If Arlington currently has 17,000 renter households at 60% AMI or below, but only 9,500 homes affordable to these households, where and how are the other 7,500 household living? Are they getting government support (section 8 or other subsidies) that allows them to rent more expensive units, but pay what they can afford? Are they sharing a dwelling with other families to split costs? While I support affordable housing, I don't believe that Arlington has to meet the needs of everyone earning 60% AMI or below. I would suggest a target of 10-15%, regardless of the number of households in the county that earn 60% AMI or below.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
Produce committed affordable rental units in the County consistent with the County’s adopted land use plans and policies along or near current transit corridors (1.1.8). Transit is prevalent throughout Arlington, yet there is an over abundance of affordable rental units (both committed and market rate) on the Columbia Pike corridor. Any plans for additional affordable units need to be located in other areas of the county (Ballston, VA Square, Rosslyn, Clarendon, Courthouse, Washington, Blvd, Pentagon City, Lee Hwy, Route 50, N Glebe Rd, N. George Mason Dr, to name a few). All of these areas have excellent transportation, but few affordable housing units. Columbia Pike doesn't need any more affordable housing, it already has enough. True diversity means making the ENTIRE county diverse, not just S Arlington (which is already plenty diverse). More effort needs to go into helping N Arlington become more diverse.
Integrate affordable housing goals and policies into County sector plans, economic development strategies, Master Transportation Plan and other County planning efforts (3.5.1) Yes, integrate goals and policies (not just unenforceable targets) into plans, strategies and efforts for ALL areas of the County, not just S Arlington. N Arlington needs to have their fair share, and by that I mean an EQUAL percentage. If the goal is to have nearly 18% of affordable housing in the county, then half of that, or 9%, needs to be in N Arlington, no ifs, ands, buts or excuses. The County Board needs to realize that S Arlington is not a step child where they aim all their "good intentions" for helping the less fortunate, while at the same time ensuring that they keep the less fortunate out of N Arlington where they are not wanted. It's always NIMBY for N Arlington and they get away with it, while S Arlington suffers all the unintended consequences of the County Board's "good intentions" (higher crime, school overcrowding, schools struggling with performance and lower test results, lower property values, slower increases in property values, and second rate transportation options - i.e. the Streetcar or enhanced bus service instead of underground Metro)
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)
Even those households above the middle-income thresholds find it difficult to purchase a home in Arlington. I'm speaking from experience as we are one of those household and had to stay in S Arlington because we could not afford anything in N Arlington. Even in S Arlington, we had very little stock to choose from in our price range. We make good money, but refuse to be saddled with a mortgage that would be around 50% of our net salary. The main hindrance is the available of enough liquid funds to cover a 20% downpayment, so maybe a program that would help with downpayment in terms of a grant or low-interest rate loan would be beneficial.
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):
Ensure the study equally includes neighborhoods in N Arlington, not just S Arlington. Definitely review the ordinance for creating a rental unit within a single-family home. This would be a wonderful option for us, as my mother currently also resides in Arlington, and having us be able to move into a single-family home with a separate rental dwelling would be an excellent option for us to combine our households.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
No response.