Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
Yes, this target is appropriate.
Comments (optional):
No response.
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?
Yes, it is appropriate.
Question: Should we be using public funds for higher-income households?
I am not sure.
Question: Would it be more appropriate to address this demand through land use provisions rather than financing?
Yes, that is more appropriate.
Comments (optional)
No response.
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):
As a member of VOICE, I know from talking with many people in the community how broad and deep the concern is about affordable and workforce housing. The Implementation Framework must be adopted as proposed to ensure the County has the greatest number of tools from which to choose to meet demand. Co-location of affordable housing with community facilities (not on County-designated green space) MUST be one of those tools; with appropriate community input, it can work well as a cost-effective way to achieve different, but compatible, community goals.
Geographic distribution of affordable housing is desirable; however, location of affordable housing should take into account adequate transit options for residents, as well as the County's longstanding land-use plans that, appropriately, concentrate more dense development around high-traffic corridors.
Concerns about impact on schools are understandable, but should not derail this plan. The majority of school growth is coming, not from multifamily rentals, but from single-family neighborhoods. In rental communities, reliable affordable housing adds to family stability, in turn helping to ensure student success.
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):
No response.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)
No response.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):
As a member of VOICE, I know from talking with many people in the community how broad and deep the concern is about affordable and workforce housing. The Implementation Framework must be adopted as proposed to ensure the County has the greatest number of tools from which to choose to meet demand. Co-location of affordable housing with community facilities (not on County-designated green space) MUST be one of those tools; with appropriate community input, it can work well as a cost-effective way to achieve different, but compatible, community goals.
Geographic distribution of affordable housing is desirable; however, location of affordable housing should take into account adequate transit options for residents, as well as the County's longstanding land-use plans that, appropriately, concentrate more dense development around high-traffic corridors.
Concerns about impact on schools are understandable, but should not derail this plan. The majority of school growth is coming, not from multifamily rentals, but from single-family neighborhoods. In rental communities, reliable affordable housing adds to family stability, in turn helping to ensure student success.