APS: who is the best CB candidate on schools issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might write in Vistdaht (after I learn how to spell his name). I feel like that's enough of a protest vote without supporting somebody who disturbs me. He seemed to be the best I've seen as far as a board member caring about schools.

That will do nothing to stop the missing middle candidate. It’s a throwaway. It’s better to vote someone who may actually, possibly, please have a chance.

+1

"Protest votes" are irrational and don't accomplish anything except possibly ending up with an even worst candidate.

As I say with every election, grow up and vote like an adult. Pick the least bad option.

In my mind the least bad option is the one who opposed missing middle. I say that as a Democrat who supports smart growth.

same

[Anonymous]

Who opposses missing middle and is running now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who opposses missing middle and is running now?

Only Audrey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might write in Vistdaht (after I learn how to spell his name). I feel like that's enough of a protest vote without supporting somebody who disturbs me. He seemed to be the best I've seen as far as a board member caring about schools.

That will do nothing to stop the missing middle candidate. It’s a throwaway. It’s better to vote someone who may actually, possibly, please have a chance.

+1

"Protest votes" are irrational and don't accomplish anything except possibly ending up with an even worst candidate.

As I say with every election, grow up and vote like an adult. Pick the least bad option.

In my mind the least bad option is the one who opposed missing middle. I say that as a Democrat who supports smart growth.

How do you support smart growth, which requires density, and oppose missing middle? (Not a fake question -- I really don't understand how you make that work)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who opposses missing middle and is running now?

Only Audrey.

Oh man. I don't think I can make myself cross that bridge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who opposes missing middle and is running now?

Only Audrey.

Oh man. I don't think I can make myself cross that bridge.

Theo supports even fewer restrictions on MM, if that helps.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who opposses missing middle and is running now?

Only Audrey.

Oh man. I don't think I can make myself cross that bridge.

I'm holding my nose and doing it. I hate to do it, but I am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lots in Arlington are even big enough for an 8-plex?

As I understand it, the new zoning applies to all lots, R5-R20. So in theory, you could build an 8-plex on a smaller lot, just each unit is much smaller. Arlington has a presentation that shows you can build up to 4800 sq ft on an R5-R8 lot. They assume that would be two duplexes at 2400 sq ft each (each of which is bigger than most existing SFHs in Arlington). But as I read it, you could also built 6 800-ft units, or 8 600-ft units. There is no min size.

This is the kind of stuff I'm concerned about with wholescale changes like they are talking about. You may think it's unlikely, and Arlington may too, but if we don't want that to happen, we should not change the code in a way that this is permissible.

You are not quite understanding it. There is one proposal to allow 8-plexes everywhere, another that would allow them only on lots of 12K SF.

Opponents of MM are trying to run out the clock; the pace of teardowns hasn't slowed much, and eventually there won't be any properties left that are candidates, because no one is talking about tearing down a 10YO 6BR new build. I suppose someone could convert one, but that seems like more work, which is not what builders like.

The memo below is 40 pages; the table with the two options is on page 7.
https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/commissions/documents/zoco/lrpc-zoco-mmhs-2022-10-31.pdf

Yeah, I saw that. Note that the County released this document after my original post. But again, one of the proposals actually does allow up to an 8-plex on every lot in Arlington. That's theoretically on the table. Practically, yes, that would be very hard to accomplish, but that's the level of in-your-face-we-are-doing-what-we-want that this board is headed for.

And there is PLENTY of older housing stock left in Arlington where this will be quite profitable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who opposses missing middle and is running now?

Only Audrey.

Oh man. I don't think I can make myself cross that bridge.

I'm holding my nose and doing it. I hate to do it, but I am.

Yep. It's finally gotten to the point where she gets my vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might write in Vistdaht (after I learn how to spell his name). I feel like that's enough of a protest vote without supporting somebody who disturbs me. He seemed to be the best I've seen as far as a board member caring about schools.

That will do nothing to stop the missing middle candidate. It’s a throwaway. It’s better to vote someone who may actually, possibly, please have a chance.

+1

"Protest votes" are irrational and don't accomplish anything except possibly ending up with an even worst candidate.

As I say with every election, grow up and vote like an adult. Pick the least bad option.

In my mind the least bad option is the one who opposed missing middle. I say that as a Democrat who supports smart growth.

How do you support smart growth, which requires density, and oppose missing middle? (Not a fake question -- I really don't understand how you make that work)

I would support more flexibility and more smaller condo and apartment buildings (along with high rises) but not unlimited multifamily housing everywhere with no automatic breaks to adjust if schools get too overcrowded or water runoff get bad in a particular neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lots in Arlington are even big enough for an 8-plex?

As I understand it, the new zoning applies to all lots, R5-R20. So in theory, you could build an 8-plex on a smaller lot, just each unit is much smaller. Arlington has a presentation that shows you can build up to 4800 sq ft on an R5-R8 lot. They assume that would be two duplexes at 2400 sq ft each (each of which is bigger than most existing SFHs in Arlington). But as I read it, you could also built 6 800-ft units, or 8 600-ft units. There is no min size.

This is the kind of stuff I'm concerned about with wholescale changes like they are talking about. You may think it's unlikely, and Arlington may too, but if we don't want that to happen, we should not change the code in a way that this is permissible.

You are not quite understanding it. There is one proposal to allow 8-plexes everywhere, another that would allow them only on lots of 12K SF.

Opponents of MM are trying to run out the clock; the pace of teardowns hasn't slowed much, and eventually there won't be any properties left that are candidates, because no one is talking about tearing down a 10YO 6BR new build. I suppose someone could convert one, but that seems like more work, which is not what builders like.

The memo below is 40 pages; the table with the two options is on page 7.
https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/commissions/documents/zoco/lrpc-zoco-mmhs-2022-10-31.pdf

Yeah, I saw that. Note that the County released this document after my original post. But again, one of the proposals actually does allow up to an 8-plex on every lot in Arlington. That's theoretically on the table. Practically, yes, that would be very hard to accomplish, but that's the level of in-your-face-we-are-doing-what-we-want that this board is headed for.

And there is PLENTY of older housing stock left in Arlington where this will be quite profitable.

Plenty? OK, how many 3BR 2BA SFHs are currently for sale for less than $1.2M? That's the sort of thing anti MM claim people could just move into, only they get bought by builders who put up those 6BR 4BA houses instead of duplexes. That's the stock I see disappearing from my neighborhood (Clarendon)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might write in Vistdaht (after I learn how to spell his name). I feel like that's enough of a protest vote without supporting somebody who disturbs me. He seemed to be the best I've seen as far as a board member caring about schools.

That will do nothing to stop the missing middle candidate. It’s a throwaway. It’s better to vote someone who may actually, possibly, please have a chance.

+1

"Protest votes" are irrational and don't accomplish anything except possibly ending up with an even worst candidate.

As I say with every election, grow up and vote like an adult. Pick the least bad option.

In my mind the least bad option is the one who opposed missing middle. I say that as a Democrat who supports smart growth.

How do you support smart growth, which requires density, and oppose missing middle? (Not a fake question -- I really don't understand how you make that work)

I would support more flexibility and more smaller condo and apartment buildings (along with high rises) but not unlimited multifamily housing everywhere with no automatic breaks to adjust if schools get too overcrowded or water runoff get bad in a particular neighborhood.

You can start with transit corridors - like they assured everyone they were going to do at the beginning of all this.
You can limit it to duplexes (and triplexes on the medium sized lots); and 4-8 units on the R-20 lots.
You can increase the density in the Langston Blvd plan.
You can plan for schools and public transit now and start developing a real mass transit system now.
You can require AT LEAST one full off-street parking space per unit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might write in Vistdaht (after I learn how to spell his name). I feel like that's enough of a protest vote without supporting somebody who disturbs me. He seemed to be the best I've seen as far as a board member caring about schools.

That will do nothing to stop the missing middle candidate. It’s a throwaway. It’s better to vote someone who may actually, possibly, please have a chance.

+1

"Protest votes" are irrational and don't accomplish anything except possibly ending up with an even worst candidate.

As I say with every election, grow up and vote like an adult. Pick the least bad option.

In my mind the least bad option is the one who opposed missing middle. I say that as a Democrat who supports smart growth.

How do you support smart growth, which requires density, and oppose missing middle? (Not a fake question -- I really don't understand how you make that work)

I would support more flexibility and more smaller condo and apartment buildings (along with high rises) but not unlimited multifamily housing everywhere with no automatic breaks to adjust if schools get too overcrowded or water runoff get bad in a particular neighborhood.

You can start with transit corridors - like they assured everyone they were going to do at the beginning of all this.
You can limit it to duplexes (and triplexes on the medium sized lots); and 4-8 units on the R-20 lots.
You can increase the density in the Langston Blvd plan.
You can plan for schools and public transit now and start developing a real mass transit system now.
You can require AT LEAST one full off-street parking space per unit.

Yes to all of this

[Anonymous]

I grew up in the Boston area. Many of the surrounding/close-in cities with lax zoning are truly hideous—small lots, no green space or trees, covered by structures (quads, triples, duplexes), small driveways… No thanks !

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who opposses missing middle and is running now?

Only Audrey.

Oh man. I don't think I can make myself cross that bridge.

I'm holding my nose and doing it. I hate to do it, but I am.

Yep. It's finally gotten to the point where she gets my vote.

People wondered how Trump got lectern. This. If you have to hold your nose, then don't vote for them. Whoever, which ever side. Come on people.