Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
No, this target is not appropriate.
Comments (optional):
I disagree with the premise of the introduction and the assertion that it is the duty of government to provide CAF's. I reject the notion that some people (those in certain income brackets) are somehow more worthy of housing opportunities than others.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
I do not agree with the proposed policies.
Comments (optional):
This plan ignores basic market forces, choosing lucky beneficiaries to the detriment of everyone else.
Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?
I support preference for Arlington workers, but not for residents.
Comments (optional):
I would also insist that beneficiaries be citizens, or at least legal residents. And I would be wildly enthusiastic about housing dedicated only to Arlington police, firefighters, and EMS, all of whom are vital components of our community. Someone who works for a restaurant is most definitely not.
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?
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):
I favor the idea of making housing options more feasible for older people, who do not cost us anything in the way of schools.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
When computing the cost of CAF's, attention must be paid to the additional huge cost of educating the children who are part of the package. This is never discussed and developers who obtain permission for increased density in exchange for building some CAF's are not required to contribute to school funding. We taxpayers are stuck with the problem of overcrowded schools.
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):
I disagree with the premise of the introduction and the assertion that it is the duty of government to provide CAF's. I reject the notion that some people (those in certain income brackets) are somehow more worthy of housing opportunities than others.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
This plan ignores basic market forces, choosing lucky beneficiaries to the detriment of everyone else.
Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
I would also insist that beneficiaries be citizens, or at least legal residents. And I would be wildly enthusiastic about housing dedicated only to Arlington police, firefighters, and EMS, all of whom are vital components of our community. Someone who works for a restaurant is most definitely not.
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):
I favor the idea of making housing options more feasible for older people, who do not cost us anything in the way of schools.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
When computing the cost of CAF's, attention must be paid to the additional huge cost of educating the children who are part of the package. This is never discussed and developers who obtain permission for increased density in exchange for building some CAF's are not required to contribute to school funding. We taxpayers are stuck with the problem of overcrowded schools.