Arlington County Board - 3 days out and still undecided

[Anonymous]

About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

[Anonymous]

If you want to send a message to the County Board, the only vote that will do that is a vote for Clement. Matt De Ferranti isn’t really compromising - he has only said no to 8 plexes. And he has had NO impact of the draft proposals moving forward. 8 plexes are still included, and minimum parking isn’t included in the new proposal either. So he hasn’t done anything (he has not successfully advocated to address the concerns of his constituents, which he has acknowledged, because he has changed his messaging to try to get re elected). And the only reason he made this concession is because he is running for re-election. The County Board makes decisions and then holds “listening sessions” to give the appearance that they are taking their constituents’ views into consideration, when that is clearly not true. The new proposal shows no compromise.

[Anonymous]

The board has a long history of pretending to listen and then doing whatever they want. Matt has been pretending to listen and agree on MM but hasn’t actually made any changes. F them, I’m voting for Audrey.

[Anonymous]

I know Audrey a little bit, and she is actually quite smart and really knows her stuff She has a bossy pants personality that doesn't do well when running a campaign, but I think she would actually be good on the board. The current board just does what ACDC wants them to do, so I think Clement would be a thumb in the eye of the ACDC.

I wish there were more people who cared about Arlington, like Vihstadt, and people who used to be on the board when I was growing up in Arlington and learning about the Board at school.

The people were smart, earnest, worked out differences, and moved forward. That is no longer the case.

We are out of Arlington in a few years, and the YIMBYs and all their fellow travelers can wreck the place as far as I am concerned.

[Anonymous]

I agree with OP that current SFH zoning (which would also apply to MMH) is responsible for the damage to our tree canopy and stormwater problems. Approving MMH won’t change that.

It’s difficult to have a discussion of MMH based on facts and in reality, I don’t see much MMH being constructed. It makes the most sense in neighborhoods like lyon park and lyon village but most tear downs in those neighborhoods have already been converted to McMansions. The board is 20 years late.

I would never vote for Audrey based on something I witnessed. I appreciate Theo’s enthusiasm but he’s too liberal. I’m voting for Matt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

Uhhhh, lower income Hispanics live with 3 or 4 genrations and they all have cars. Drive around South Arlington and look at the 1300sqf houses with 6 cars out front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

Uhhhh, lower income Hispanics live with 3 or 4 genrations and they all have cars. Drive around South Arlington and look at the 1300sqf houses with 6 cars out front.

Yet MM say there will be a half parking space per unit because people use bikes rather than cars

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

Uhhhh, lower income Hispanics live with 3 or 4 genrations and they all have cars. Drive around South Arlington and look at the 1300sqf houses with 6 cars out front.

Yet MM say there will be a half parking space per unit because people use bikes rather than cars

They reduced the parking minimum because of complaints about the tree canopy. The board does listen and in this case responded to a complaint that wasn’t genuine. Opponents should be honest about why they oppose MMH. It’s not affordability or the tree canopy. It’s a feeling of ownership over publicly owned property (street parking) and concern about property values. Now you’ll respond and say property values will rise faster with MMH and maybe they will, on average. But opponents aren’t concerned about average property values, they’re worried about the value of their specific lot and concerned that a duplex next door will decrease the value of their home relative to a SFH without MMH next door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

Uhhhh, lower income Hispanics live with 3 or 4 genrations and they all have cars. Drive around South Arlington and look at the 1300sqf houses with 6 cars out front.

Yet MM say there will be a half parking space per unit because people use bikes rather than cars

They reduced the parking minimum because of complaints about the tree canopy. The board does listen and in this case responded to a complaint that wasn’t genuine. Opponents should be honest about why they oppose MMH. It’s not affordability or the tree canopy. It’s a feeling of ownership over publicly owned property (street parking) and concern about property values. Now you’ll respond and say property values will rise faster with MMH and maybe they will, on average. But opponents aren’t concerned about average property values, they’re worried about the value of their specific lot and concerned that a duplex next door will decrease the value of their home relative to a SFH without MMH next door.

Who are you to demand that they reveal their finacial concerns to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

Uhhhh, lower income Hispanics live with 3 or 4 genrations and they all have cars. Drive around South Arlington and look at the 1300sqf houses with 6 cars out front.

Yet MM say there will be a half parking space per unit because people use bikes rather than cars

They reduced the parking minimum because of complaints about the tree canopy. The board does listen and in this case responded to a complaint that wasn’t genuine. Opponents should be honest about why they oppose MMH. It’s not affordability or the tree canopy. It’s a feeling of ownership over publicly owned property (street parking) and concern about property values. Now you’ll respond and say property values will rise faster with MMH and maybe they will, on average. But opponents aren’t concerned about average property values, they’re worried about the value of their specific lot and concerned that a duplex next door will decrease the value of their home relative to a SFH without MMH next door.

Who are you to demand that they reveal their finacial concerns to?

The poster sounds like one of the YIMBYs whobtried to take over a community conversation I attended on missing middle housing. When someone raised a concern, he accused them of living on illegal land, racism, greed, and being selfish for being more concerned about their money then the refugees from Arlington. It was the greatest demonstration of projection until I saw Trevor Noah try to claim that Brits were appalled that Rishni Sunak became prime minister. He was trying to project America’s racism on the British just as the YIMBYs are trying to project their financial motives on owners of single family homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

Uhhhh, lower income Hispanics live with 3 or 4 genrations and they all have cars. Drive around South Arlington and look at the 1300sqf houses with 6 cars out front.

Yet MM say there will be a half parking space per unit because people use bikes rather than cars

They reduced the parking minimum because of complaints about the tree canopy. The board does listen and in this case responded to a complaint that wasn’t genuine. Opponents should be honest about why they oppose MMH. It’s not affordability or the tree canopy. It’s a feeling of ownership over publicly owned property (street parking) and concern about property values. Now you’ll respond and say property values will rise faster with MMH and maybe they will, on average. But opponents aren’t concerned about average property values, they’re worried about the value of their specific lot and concerned that a duplex next door will decrease the value of their home relative to a SFH without MMH next door.

My street doesn’t have sidewalks. Unsurprisingly, it isn’t close to public transportation. 16 or more cars and trash cans is going to have an impact on safety on the street. And before you say anything, lots on either side of my house are big enough for an 8 plex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

Uhhhh, lower income Hispanics live with 3 or 4 genrations and they all have cars. Drive around South Arlington and look at the 1300sqf houses with 6 cars out front.

I would definitely prefer that to the 9 or 10 cars that my SFH neighbors park in front of their house and my house. (I'm spatially illiterate, so I can't even guess how big their house is in square feet, but it's bigger than all the capes and colonials in the neighborhood.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

Uhhhh, lower income Hispanics live with 3 or 4 genrations and they all have cars. Drive around South Arlington and look at the 1300sqf houses with 6 cars out front.

Yet MM say there will be a half parking space per unit because people use bikes rather than cars

They reduced the parking minimum because of complaints about the tree canopy. The board does listen and in this case responded to a complaint that wasn’t genuine. Opponents should be honest about why they oppose MMH. It’s not affordability or the tree canopy. It’s a feeling of ownership over publicly owned property (street parking) and concern about property values. Now you’ll respond and say property values will rise faster with MMH and maybe they will, on average. But opponents aren’t concerned about average property values, they’re worried about the value of their specific lot and concerned that a duplex next door will decrease the value of their home relative to a SFH without MMH next door.

My street doesn’t have sidewalks. Unsurprisingly, it isn’t close to public transportation. 16 or more cars and trash cans is going to have an impact on safety on the street. And before you say anything, lots on either side of my house are big enough for an 8 plex.

Do trash cans attack people? I also live on a street without sidewalks and with housing considered MM. I’d rather we had sidewalks but the existence of MMH doesn’t make not having sidewalks less safe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

This sounds made up

Uhhhh, lower income Hispanics live with 3 or 4 genrations and they all have cars. Drive around South Arlington and look at the 1300sqf houses with 6 cars out front.

Yet MM say there will be a half parking space per unit because people use bikes rather than cars

They reduced the parking minimum because of complaints about the tree canopy. The board does listen and in this case responded to a complaint that wasn’t genuine. Opponents should be honest about why they oppose MMH. It’s not affordability or the tree canopy. It’s a feeling of ownership over publicly owned property (street parking) and concern about property values. Now you’ll respond and say property values will rise faster with MMH and maybe they will, on average. But opponents aren’t concerned about average property values, they’re worried about the value of their specific lot and concerned that a duplex next door will decrease the value of their home relative to a SFH without MMH next door.

Who are you to demand that they reveal their finacial concerns to?

The poster sounds like one of the YIMBYs whobtried to take over a community conversation I attended on missing middle housing. When someone raised a concern, he accused them of living on illegal land, racism, greed, and being selfish for being more concerned about their money then the refugees from Arlington. It was the greatest demonstration of projection until I saw Trevor Noah try to claim that Brits were appalled that Rishni Sunak became prime minister. He was trying to project America’s racism on the British just as the YIMBYs are trying to project their financial motives on owners of single family homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:About me: Really don't have strong feelings about MMH. Super-large SFHs have already negatively impacted flooding, lack of diversity, on-street parking (because people who can afford these homes often have more cars than they do drivers), so I see the damage as being done, regardless of whether these large houses have one family or 4.

If Vihstadt or someone similar were on the ballot, I would vote for that person because I think we need alternative voices on the board. I'm not sure Clement's voice is anything other than a naysayer. And Theo is a non-starter for other reasons.

My understanding is that de Ferranti has made statements indicating he supports compromise, at least on MMH. But who is behind all those homemade signs accusing him of dishonesty?

I guess I'm currently leaning toward MDF, but I do want to send the message that the CB does not have carte blanche and needs to listen to constituents.

Your best bet is MDF. I say that as a Theo supporter. MDF is committed to scaling back the missing middle plan, even though he knows it costs him support from voters like me. He has refused contributions from developers. It created a minor controversy when he publicly said he was returning a contribution, so maybe that’s what those signs are about? I don’t like MDF constantly compromises on major issues, but he is honest and genuinely tries to find consensus. You can feel good about voting for him.