Click this link to optimize Open Arlington for screen readers Skip to Content
An official website of Arlington County government
Open Arlington Logo

Do you have feedback on proposed affordable housing policies and tools?

72 responses on forum


Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes, this target is appropriate. 50.0% 36
No, this target is not appropriate. 38.9% 28
I am not sure. 11.1% 8

Comments (optional):

Answered
47
Skipped
25

Question: What are your thoughts regarding the approach to the geographic distribution of committed affordable housing?

Response Percent Response Count
I agree with the proposed policies. 31.9% 23
I agree with the proposed policies, but I would add other considerations (explain below). 34.7% 25
I do not agree with the proposed policies. 33.3% 24

Comments (optional):

Answered
53
Skipped
19

Question: Should Arlington County residents and workers receive a preference for committed affordable housing?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes, I agree that Arlington residents and workers should receive preference. 66.7% 48
I support preference for Arlington residents, but not for workers. 9.7% 7
I support preference for Arlington workers, but not for residents. 4.2% 3
No, I do not support giving preferences. 12.5% 9
I am not sure. 6.9% 5

Comments (optional):

Answered
31
Skipped
41

Question: Is it appropriate for this plan to address middle income ownership housing demands?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes, it is appropriate. 56.9% 41
No, it is not appropriate. 29.2% 21
I am not sure. 13.9% 10

Question: Should we be using public funds for higher-income households?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes, I agree. 15.3% 11
No, I do not agree. 63.9% 46
I am not sure. 20.8% 15

Question: Would it be more appropriate to address this demand through land use provisions rather than financing?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes, that is more appropriate. 46.5% 33
No, that is not more appropriate. 19.7% 14
I am not sure. 33.8% 24

Comments (optional)

Answered
28
Skipped
44

Question: Should opportunities for creating greater flexibility of housing types beyond the urban corridors that support both rental and ownership options be further studied?

Response Percent Response Count
Yes, I agree they should be further studied. 76.4% 55
No, I do not agree they should be further studied. 22.2% 16
I am not sure. 1.4% 1

Comments (optional):

Answered
36
Skipped
36

Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):

Answered
46
Skipped
26
Name not shown inside Arlington
April 10, 2015, 2:29 PM
  • Question: Is the 17.7% target for a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing appropriate?
    • No, this target is not appropriate.
  • Comments (optional):

    The target of 17.7% is much too high. High affordable housing targets attract low income people from other local jurisdictions. These people often work outside of Arlington. When they move to Arlington, they provide no services to the County, use taxpayer-funded social services and decrease educational achievement in Arlington's schools.

    High targets are therefore counterproductive. No matter how high the target is, there will always be people coming from other jurisdictions and nations that will fill the available affordable housing. These people join groups that demand more affordable housing and other social services and vote for politicians that promise to fulfill their demands..

    Further, these people will have no incentive to increase their incomes, as they will lose their subsidized housing and will need to pay for less desirable housing. Thus, high targets for affordable housing create disincentives for economic advancement and increase incentives for permanent dependency.

    The affordable housing target should therefore be less than 5% and should be limited to people with disabilities. This will assure that the disabled will have affordable housing, while the others will seek cheap or subsidized housing in other jursidictions, such as D.C., Alexandria, Fairfax County, Prince George's County and Montgomery County. Some of these jurisdictions have large amounts of affordable and/or subsidized housing. Their low-income residents can commute to Arlington if they wish to work here.

  • 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):

    The plan has a basic flaw. Arlington should try to preserve market-rate affordable housing that are open to all, but should reduce or eliminate its subsidized committed affordable (CAF) units. CAF units are discrimatory. They exclude people with incomes that are higher than the upper limit for occupancy. Further, they do not exclude people who have entered the U.S. illegally, even though the taxpayers subsidize the units.

    Even worse, the County has been concentrating CAF units in certain areas, such as in the western portion of Columbia Pike and in Buckingham by granting developers and affordable housing corporations bonus densities and zoning changes. This has led to the loss of much open space and tree canopies in their neighborhoods. It has also led to the decrease in educational achievement in neighborhood schools.

    The County needs to change its policies to assure that does not permit the construction of new CAF units in areas that already have concentrations of CAF units and market-rate affordable housing units. It is not enough to distribute CAF units more equitably throughout the County.

    The Affordable Housing Plan needs to have a strategy that assures that the County will stop granting bonus densities and zoning changes that encourage the development of CAF units in and near neighborhoods that already have much affordable housing. These neighborhoods will become ghettos if the County does not change its policies.

    The County should definitely not encourage or permit the development of CAF units in proximity to transit and transportation corridors. Areas near Metro stations need to be off-limits to CAF units.

    When CAF units are near transit (especially when near Metro), many of their occupants commute to employment centers and shopping centers in other jurisdictions, such as Tysons Corner and downtown Washington, D.C. When this occurs, Arlington County taxpayers subsidize the housing and other social services of the residents of the County's CAF units, while Arlington employers and retailers obtain no additional workers or shoppers.

    Therefore, placing CAF units in and near transportation corridors and transit creates a lose-lose situation for the County. The County's taxpayers subsidize the housing and transportation costs of the CAF units' occupants, while County businesses and employers lose potential employees and shoppers. The only ones who gain are the CAF units' occupants and employers and retailers located in other jurisdictions.

    Affordable housing goals should not be part of future sector plans. Sector plans are limited to areas in the County's Metro corridors. There are few, if any sector plans outside of the Metro corridors.

    The County should not make plans to locate affordable housing within its Metro corridors, because, as stated above, many residents of these corridors commute to work in other jurisdictions. The number of such commuters will certainly increase in the future, as Fairfax County's planned new commercial development occurs near Tyson's Corner, Reston and other areas near Silver Line stations.

    When the Potomac Yards station opens in Alexandria, many Arlingtonians living in its Metro corridors will take Metro to commute to work in the densely developed area that will surround the new station.

    Including affordable housing goals in Arlington's sector plans will therefore create opportunities for more residents of County-subsidized CAF units to commute to work and retail centers in Alexandria and Fairfax County, as well as in downtown Washington, D.C. This is highly undesirable. Arlington employers and retailers will gain nothing from these taxpayer-subsidized residents.

  • 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):

    I agree that both Arlington residents and Arlington workers should receive a preference for committed affordable (CAF) housing. However, this is not sufficient. I consider it important that nobody who resides outside of Arlington should be eligible to receive housing in County-subsidized CAF units, regardless of their circumstances.

    Limiting occupancy of CAF units to County residents should therefore not be only a preference. It should be a requirement.

    Preferences enable creative landlords to find loopholes, exceptions and special circumstances that will enable them to quickly fill their vacant CAF units with people who live and work in other jurisdictions.

    Residents of CAF units will also take the opportunity to avoid any preferences by inviting relatives that live and work in other jurisdictions to join their households. This will enable the residents to share the costs of their rent and will enable their relatives to obtain County-subsidized housing.

    Similarly, nobody (including a County resident) who works in another jurisdiction should be able to find new housing in a CAF unit unless they have a job offer from an Arlington employer and agrees to accept that offer when they occupy the housing. Further, if a person who resides in a CAF unit obtains employment in another jurisdiction and stops working in the County, that person should not be permitted to remain in the CAF unit.

    All of the above are necessary to assure that the County's taxpayers subsidize only those people who already reside in the County and that will work in the County.

    Further, the County needs to assure that people who have entered the U.S. illegally and have not obtained documents that permit them to become permanent U.S. residents are not eligible to reside in County-subsidized CAF units. It is important that the County's CAF units do not serve as magnets that attract illegal immigration from other nations.

  • 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?
    • 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)

    The County should not change its land use plans to increase permissible densities for any reason related to income. Density increases should only be based on proximity to new transit services, and to nothing else.

    Land use plan and zoning changes that increase densities lead to the loss of open space, tree canopy and market-rate affordable housing. They also increase air pollution and energy use. The changes harm the environment more than any benefit that may accrue from their use to encourage the development of new affordable housing for people of any income.

    Further, it is important to recognize that the income range is based on a person's adjusted gross income on his or her tax return. This bears little relationship to a person's disposable income.

    Any calculations based on the modified adjusted gross income are therefore worthless. It is disposable income that counts when considering eligibility for affordable housing benefits.
    .
    Disposable income excludes income lost to taxes (especially income taxes, which rise to higher brackets as income increases) and medical care. Disposable income includes income from the low-income tax credit, welfare, food stamps, and long-term loans.

    It is important to preserve market-rate affordable housing. It is detrimental to create committed affordable housing for people of any income. CAF housing creates a disincentive for economic improvement. Even worse, CAF housing creates dependency that can be transferred from one generation to the next.

  • 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):

    Neighborhoods with single family housing contain most of Arlington's open space and tree canopy. To protect the County's environment, it is important that the County not change zoning to permit increased densities for any reasons related to housing types.

    Any such considerations should be off the table and not be further discussed.

  • Additional comments on the Draft Affordable Housing Master Plan & Implementation Framework (optional):

    The Master Plan and Implementation Framework has the wrong direction. The County should seek to preserve existing market rate affordable housing by decreasing planned densities.

    Instead, the Plan and Framework propose to increase permissible densities, thus degrading the environment. Even worse, the permissible density increases raise property values and property taxes. To remain solvent, landlords then increase their rents, even if they do not sell their properties to developers. The resulting loss of market rate affordable housing inevitably exceeds any increases in affordable housing that the new development may create, even when the new development creates CAF units.

    Further, the creation of CAF units in new housing does not increase new market-rate affordable housing. As a result, the outcome of the Master Plan and Implementation Plan will be a decrease in the County's economic diversity. As already seen in the County's Metro corridors, the County will become affordable to only the rich and the poor. The middle class will depart to the suburbs, where housing is less expensive.

    That is the reason that the County has lost nearly all of its affordable housing in its Metro corridors. The Master Plan and Implementation Plan needs to attempt to stop this loss, rather than to increase it (which it will do if not drastically revised).

    I have the following objection to a specific element in the Master Plan that the questions above do not address:

    Section 3.5.2 of the Master Plan states: "Consider affordable housing needs and goals when planning for major capital investment in new or redeveloping existing major community facilities, taking into account the neighborhood context."

    The County needs to remove this section. Community facilities are located on public property and are accessible to all County residents. In contrast, private corporations construct and manage affordable housing. Further, CAF units exclude a majority of the population and are occupied by private individuals.

    The County should not permit the use of any public property to benefit private interests that exclude large portions of the County's population. This would be a classic example of "Public Land for Private Use".

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.

Your answers will NOT be saved

This is the form that was used to collect responses. It's here so you can try it and see how it worked when the topic was open.

The topic is now closed, and anything you enter into this form will not be saved.

Question 1 of 5: SUPPLY OF RENTAL HOUSING

Objective: Produce and preserve a sufficient supply of affordable rental housing to meet current and future needs. Preserve the economic and social diversity of our community.

Proposed Target: By 2040, have 17.7% of the housing supply affordable to households earning below 60% AMI. 

Background: Preserving the economic and social diversity that Arlington currently has is important for the long-term sustainability of our community. Current gaps in affordable housing needs and supply threaten our community’s ability to maintain our diversity.

Based on the study’s housing needs analysis, the greatest area of unmet need was rental housing for households with incomes below 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). 60% AMI is equal to a family of four with income up to $65,520 or a single-person household with income up to $45,900.

Today, 17,000 households (16.4% of Arlington) are renters with incomes at or below 60% AMI. There are only 9,500 apartments affordable to that income group. By 2040, forecasts show 17.7% of households in Arlington will be renters at or below 60% AMI. The Plan proposes to close this affordability gap and meet the forecasted need.

Current Affordability GapProposed Target

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many units is that? Forecasts show that 17.7% of the housing supply will be equal to 22,800 units in 2040. To meet the proposed target, the share of housing considered affordable includes both market rate apartments and committed affordable units (CAFs). If the private market does not provide units at this affordability level, these households will depend on the County’s CAFs. Today there are approximately 7,000 CAFs in the County.

Choose at least 1 option
* required
Check out our guidelines for civility

Fields marked with * are required

  Page 1 of 7