Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
No, this target is not appropriate.
Comments (optional):
I think this target is too ambitious. First, a lot can change in the next 25 years, so setting a target that far off is dicey. Second, the amount of funding to more than triple the number of affordable units needs to be weighed in, and that does not seem to be considered in the target. At $100,000 in AHIF subsidy per CAF in today's dollars, another 15,800 units would cost $1.58 billion or an average of $63.2 million per year. in subsidy. I am a strong advocate for affordable housing, but setting unrealistic goals will lead to strong opposition and obvious failure.
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):
Accessory unit restrictions must be loosened now - not studied and obfuscated further. The County cannot realistically rezone and assemble enough land in single family zoned neighborhoods to make room for significant multifamily projects. Most multifamily and single family neighborhoods are already well-served by transit. Let's do what we can while we can and quit procrastinating!
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):
Yes, to the extent that it is legal, or seek legislative change if not. We are providing far more affordable housing per capita than all of our neighboring jurisdictions, so let's take care of our own.
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)
Programs already exist to assist middle income homeowners up to 100% AMi. We have not done a good job in marketing or promoting what is already available.
There is too much need among low to moderate income households already - to try to assist housing for those over 100% and higher is unfair to those who have such greater need. Land use and zoning provisions as well as financing programs already exist in a relatively well balanced way, so it is not very clear what land use provisions are being proposed - community benefits are there, so it seems like there is some unspoken redirection of those benefits being proposed...
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):
No, there are easy ways to go about this without wasting more time and money to study it further. We have taken 3 years for this housing study to date, and little practical improvement to show for it. Simple changes to the rules for accessory units have been recommended for years, but staff and the Board lack the courage to move forward. This is pathetic.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
There are relatively simple ways to use existing tools to cost-effectively create more affordable housing. We need to do less studying and take more action to build this inventory, before we study it into oblivion. We are seeing a newfound era of taxpayer backlash, and need to do a better job of messaging the successes to the broader community, rather than spending so much time & energy preaching to the choir.
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 think this target is too ambitious. First, a lot can change in the next 25 years, so setting a target that far off is dicey. Second, the amount of funding to more than triple the number of affordable units needs to be weighed in, and that does not seem to be considered in the target. At $100,000 in AHIF subsidy per CAF in today's dollars, another 15,800 units would cost $1.58 billion or an average of $63.2 million per year. in subsidy. I am a strong advocate for affordable housing, but setting unrealistic goals will lead to strong opposition and obvious failure.
Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
Accessory unit restrictions must be loosened now - not studied and obfuscated further. The County cannot realistically rezone and assemble enough land in single family zoned neighborhoods to make room for significant multifamily projects. Most multifamily and single family neighborhoods are already well-served by transit. Let's do what we can while we can and quit procrastinating!
Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?
Comments (optional):
Yes, to the extent that it is legal, or seek legislative change if not. We are providing far more affordable housing per capita than all of our neighboring jurisdictions, so let's take care of our own.
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)
Programs already exist to assist middle income homeowners up to 100% AMi. We have not done a good job in marketing or promoting what is already available.
There is too much need among low to moderate income households already - to try to assist housing for those over 100% and higher is unfair to those who have such greater need. Land use and zoning provisions as well as financing programs already exist in a relatively well balanced way, so it is not very clear what land use provisions are being proposed - community benefits are there, so it seems like there is some unspoken redirection of those benefits being proposed...
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, there are easy ways to go about this without wasting more time and money to study it further. We have taken 3 years for this housing study to date, and little practical improvement to show for it. Simple changes to the rules for accessory units have been recommended for years, but staff and the Board lack the courage to move forward. This is pathetic.
Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):
There are relatively simple ways to use existing tools to cost-effectively create more affordable housing. We need to do less studying and take more action to build this inventory, before we study it into oblivion. We are seeing a newfound era of taxpayer backlash, and need to do a better job of messaging the successes to the broader community, rather than spending so much time & energy preaching to the choir.