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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

1 out of 5 people with equal votes is not going to be able to do anything other than be very annoying and ask questions that the establishment does not want to answer. I’m on the Audrey train.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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 !

This is what I hate about Boston. Three family houses? Just gross.

[Anonymous]

Audrey won’t control the board she would be a pain in their side. And even if she loses it’s a huge thumb to try nose at the Dems if she gets a large share of the vote.

Imagine, all you people who built your new large craftsmans via tear downs. Imagine if instead of another large hime next to you, it ends up being a 4-plex. Literally that could start happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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 !

I live in Lyon Village and the new SFHs have created small lots, no green space or trees (just enough yard for an It's Not Affordable and a Protect the Tree Canopy sign), impermeable hardscaping -- No thanks. Put at least two families in them or GTFO

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

First of all, Clement is not Trump.
Second of all, Clement would be only ONE of FIVE, whereas Trump was one of ONE. Her vote on any issue would only be 1/5. Any time she votes against the hive, the majority would still win 4-1.
Third of all, Trump wasn't just a protest vote. He genuinely aroused a sleeping sentiment/movement waiting for it's moment. Clement would merely be a very strong statement against the current elephant among the donkeys: missing middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

AC would be one member among 5. This is not a Trump situation. This is a way to make it harder for the CB to continue to push for things that many, many Arlingtonians don't want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 !

I live in Lyon Village and the new SFHs have created small lots, no green space or trees (just enough yard for an It's Not Affordable and a Protect the Tree Canopy sign), impermeable hardscaping -- No thanks. Put at least two families in them or GTFO

I don't understand this. MM is all these same issues, but 4x as many people now. Or 8. Plus no parking. How is that better?

This proposal literally eliminates SFH zoning in all of Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 !

I live in Lyon Village and the new SFHs have created small lots, no green space or trees (just enough yard for an It's Not Affordable and a Protect the Tree Canopy sign), impermeable hardscaping -- No thanks. Put at least two families in them or GTFO

Some of those large homes you complain about actually do house more than one family - multi-generations and/or siblings and their families.
All MM will do is create the same large (or even larger) structure that you loathe, while shrinking your street surface with more cars, more trash and recycling bins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 !

I live in Lyon Village and the new SFHs have created small lots, no green space or trees (just enough yard for an It's Not Affordable and a Protect the Tree Canopy sign), impermeable hardscaping -- No thanks. Put at least two families in them or GTFO

Some of those large homes you complain about actually do house more than one family - multi-generations and/or siblings and their families.
All MM will do is create the same large (or even larger) structure that you loathe, while shrinking your street surface with more cars, more trash and recycling bins.

Builders already build to the max. MM won’t change that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 !

I live in Lyon Village and the new SFHs have created small lots, no green space or trees (just enough yard for an It's Not Affordable and a Protect the Tree Canopy sign), impermeable hardscaping -- No thanks. Put at least two families in them or GTFO

Some of those large homes you complain about actually do house more than one family - multi-generations and/or siblings and their families.
All MM will do is create the same large (or even larger) structure that you loathe, while shrinking your street surface with more cars, more trash and recycling bins.

Builders already build to the max. MM won’t change that.

People keep saying this, but I don't think it's true. We built a house and could have built a larger structure based on the size of the lot. I think MM will be bigger than most new construction is now. It will absolutely always be max size. My guess is what's build now is 85-90% of max size.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 !

I live in Lyon Village and the new SFHs have created small lots, no green space or trees (just enough yard for an It's Not Affordable and a Protect the Tree Canopy sign), impermeable hardscaping -- No thanks. Put at least two families in them or GTFO

Some of those large homes you complain about actually do house more than one family - multi-generations and/or siblings and their families.
All MM will do is create the same large (or even larger) structure that you loathe, while shrinking your street surface with more cars, more trash and recycling bins.

Builders already build to the max. MM won’t change that.

People keep saying this, but I don't think it's true. We built a house and could have built a larger structure based on the size of the lot. I think MM will be bigger than most new construction is now. It will absolutely always be max size. My guess is what's build now is 85-90% of max size.

You are absolutely correct. People THINK all the new McMansions are built to the maximum allowed...they are not. The new builds will necessarily build to the max in order to fit in the # of units desired and/or the size of units desired. And don't be naive: the County will ABSOLUTELY grant waivers to height or setbacks in order to get 6 units instead of 4, or to "enable" the developer to provide the off-street parking without sacrificing units. AB. SO. LUTE. LY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 !

I live in Lyon Village and the new SFHs have created small lots, no green space or trees (just enough yard for an It's Not Affordable and a Protect the Tree Canopy sign), impermeable hardscaping -- No thanks. Put at least two families in them or GTFO

Some of those large homes you complain about actually do house more than one family - multi-generations and/or siblings and their families.
All MM will do is create the same large (or even larger) structure that you loathe, while shrinking your street surface with more cars, more trash and recycling bins.

Builders already build to the max. MM won’t change that.

People keep saying this, but I don't think it's true. We built a house and could have built a larger structure based on the size of the lot. I think MM will be bigger than most new construction is now. It will absolutely always be max size. My guess is what's build now is 85-90% of max size.

I wish you guys lived in my neighborhood of non-conforming 5000 square feet lots. People are definitely building to the max here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 !

I live in Lyon Village and the new SFHs have created small lots, no green space or trees (just enough yard for an It's Not Affordable and a Protect the Tree Canopy sign), impermeable hardscaping -- No thanks. Put at least two families in them or GTFO

Some of those large homes you complain about actually do house more than one family - multi-generations and/or siblings and their families.
All MM will do is create the same large (or even larger) structure that you loathe, while shrinking your street surface with more cars, more trash and recycling bins.

Builders already build to the max. MM won’t change that.

People keep saying this, but I don't think it's true. We built a house and could have built a larger structure based on the size of the lot. I think MM will be bigger than most new construction is now. It will absolutely always be max size. My guess is what's build now is 85-90% of max size.

Most new construction are builder spec houses. They build to the max. You are the exception.

And 90% of max is still huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 !

I live in Lyon Village and the new SFHs have created small lots, no green space or trees (just enough yard for an It's Not Affordable and a Protect the Tree Canopy sign), impermeable hardscaping -- No thanks. Put at least two families in them or GTFO

Some of those large homes you complain about actually do house more than one family - multi-generations and/or siblings and their families.
All MM will do is create the same large (or even larger) structure that you loathe, while shrinking your street surface with more cars, more trash and recycling bins.

Builders already build to the max. MM won’t change that.

People keep saying this, but I don't think it's true. We built a house and could have built a larger structure based on the size of the lot. I think MM will be bigger than most new construction is now. It will absolutely always be max size. My guess is what's build now is 85-90% of max size.

You are absolutely correct. People THINK all the new McMansions are built to the maximum allowed...they are not. The new builds will necessarily build to the max in order to fit in the # of units desired and/or the size of units desired. And don't be naive: the County will ABSOLUTELY grant waivers to height or setbacks in order to get 6 units instead of 4, or to "enable" the developer to provide the off-street parking without sacrificing units. AB. SO. LUTE. LY.

Tell me you have zero experience with BZA without telling you have zero experience with BZA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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 !

I live in Lyon Village and the new SFHs have created small lots, no green space or trees (just enough yard for an It's Not Affordable and a Protect the Tree Canopy sign), impermeable hardscaping -- No thanks. Put at least two families in them or GTFO

Some of those large homes you complain about actually do house more than one family - multi-generations and/or siblings and their families.
All MM will do is create the same large (or even larger) structure that you loathe, while shrinking your street surface with more cars, more trash and recycling bins.

Builders already build to the max. MM won’t change that.

People keep saying this, but I don't think it's true. We built a house and could have built a larger structure based on the size of the lot. I think MM will be bigger than most new construction is now. It will absolutely always be max size. My guess is what's build now is 85-90% of max size.

Most new construction are builder spec houses. They build to the max. You are the exception.

And 90% of max is still huge.

Yes, but we are doing math here.

100% max > 90% of max

If your concern is large structures on residential lots, MM only makes the problem worse.

If your concern is affordability, MM also will not solve that.

If your concern is teachers having a place to live, MM will also not solve that.

If your concern is our racist history as a nation, I don't see how MM will solve that either.

So I don't see what it's supposed to solve. I see people arguing about climate change, but MM does not solve climate change either.

MM will make our schools more crowded and residential parking harder.