Arlington "missing middle"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But we are already putting in tons of new housing in Arlington. Look at how many units have been added in the R-B corridor and Pentagon City/Crystal City. There are a ton of 1-2 bedroom apartments being built. Why do we also need 4-6 plexes in SFH neighborhoods?

[Anonymous]

I don't want my neighbor to sell their house and have it developed into a behemoth 6 bedroom mansion that takes up the whole lot, and I also don't want it developed into a 6 plex.

When my immediate neighbor renovated their house to connect their garage and add more square footage to their home, within a month after they finished our basement flooded, because I assume their runoff changes affected the water table.

Building giant structures on quarter acre lots is awful and hurts the neighborhood, I don't want it in either direction, SFHs or multi-unit houses. It seems like these changes are most benefitting the developers who are getting rich while our schools and services get overcrowded and the county fails to appropriately plan.

Just three years ago before covid we were having an education crisis because our high schools were severely overcrowded and there was no space for a fourth comprehensive high school. In a way we got lucky with covid, but only because so many families sent kids over to private. But now it seems like the county is squandering the gains we made in seats and trying to get the population numbers back up to emergency levels without realistic accounting for how many kids will be added and where they'll go to school.

I want my kids teachers and firemen and librarians to be able to live in this county. I want real affordable housing options for the area. And I'm concerned that these big mansions aren't helping anyone. They're not helping me! But the "solutions" proposed don't actually seem to be solving the real problem.

I agree that higher density options multi-unit options are okay replacements for housing that's near public transit. And I'm glad 8-plexes are off the table for quieter residential streets -- I don't think it's fair to add all that traffic and hustle to a quiet area where kids play on the street. But I think I'd be okay if a SFH near me was turned into a duplex, or maybe even a triplex. A six-plex? No.

I'd like to see the county board working with the school board to make real projections for how these zoning changes will affect student populations (150 additional adults per year seems completely laughable to me but wtf do I know) and making real preparations for increased density. Make a REAL plan for how to actually build a fourth comprehensive school if the county actually needs it, because right now even though we were SO close to really needing one there is absolutely NO CONTINGENCY PLAN in place for getting one since the county does not have available land. So there is a potential problem with no solution but meanwhile the county goes blindly forward with increased density planning -- that's bonkers!!! And I would support greater restrictions on SFHs as well, because YIMBYs make great points about those and I agree they are awful. It's developers who benefit -- why are we allowing this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If we all just recognize this as a developer handout, rather than some legitimate government program, it's the only way it makes sense. Developers have always owned politicians in this area, and this is no different. One of the Arlington developers even got his 20-something daughter to write an article in some Washington magazine about how great MM would be. It was posted a while back in the Real Estate forum.

Who is handing what to developers? Please explain.

See my post on a property https://www.redfin.com/VA/Arlington/4192-39th-St-N-22207/home/11230402?&utm_source=google&utm_medium=ppc&utm_campaign=1023856&utm_term=aud-923999260716:dsa-1341488483656&utm_content=454669090002&adgid=111663012208&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI192BttXi_AIVh6_ICh3yiwlkEAAYASAAEgJSrvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds

2.9 m for a single family. 4 units at 1700 sq feet . 2 bed + 3rd flex as bed/office/den and 2.5 baths. 800k*4=3.2m minimum.

Omg, a 6 bedroom, 6.5 bath, 6,815 square foot, $2.9 million "single family house" with a cathedral for the bathtub. That's fine, but 2 attached houses with 3 bedrooms/3 baths and 3,400 sf each, that would be the end of the world?

How much street parking is available and how crowded are the schools for when you double the number of cars and kids on the lot?

But posters keep assuring us that no families with children will want to live in such housing! In which case, there will be no additional children in the schools.

Posters are also telling us that the housing will have to have garages to house the most important members of the family.

Yes, new units should be required to have at least one parking spot per unit and plan for the required infrastructure and public facilities of increased population. Not sure why you’re opposed to that. I live in a “missing middle” townhouse condo. Our row of 5 units has a combined 10 cars, one motorcycle, and 2 school age children… and this is within half a mile walk of the metro and right on a commuter ART line. It’s ridiculous to act like there are no negative externalities imposed on neighbors by upzoning, so planning is necessary.

Ah, so families with children actually do live in middle-type housing? Well, well.

1 house out of 5 is hardly staggering.

It’s still far more than Arlington was using to estimate the impact of the zoning change on schools. They used a laughably low estimate, not sure if I could find it again.

It fascinates me how much bait and switch goes on. For example, they pretend that the change will not be very successful in order to minimize concerns about impacts. If the proponents don’t believe it will be successful, then why do it? What’s the point?

Ok, found it. The estimate is 9-13 students per year generated by 94-108 new units, a peak generation of .12 per unit. They got there by using the garden apt and garden condo student generation factors (rather than the higher duplex/townhouse factors) and then subtracting out hypothetical students that lived in the redeveloped SFH (even though houses sold to developers tend to have older residents and no children). It’s the kind of methodology that sounds accurate but doesn’t make sense at all if you think about it a little bit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But we are already putting in tons of new housing in Arlington. Look at how many units have been added in the R-B corridor and Pentagon City/Crystal City. There are a ton of 1-2 bedroom apartments being built. Why do we also need 4-6 plexes in SFH neighborhoods?

Because there is more to new housing, and people's housing wants/needs, than 1-2 bedroom apartments in big apartment buildings on big streets with apartment buildings. That's what the "middle" in "missing middle" refers to - all the kinds of housing that currently is not allowed to be built. For example, small multi-unit buildings in neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But you are using hyperbole here yourself. Anyone who asks reasonable questions is just against housing. Period. There will be no questions about what will happen, just approve my housing plan, in it's entiety with no revisions or you are NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But we are already putting in tons of new housing in Arlington. Look at how many units have been added in the R-B corridor and Pentagon City/Crystal City. There are a ton of 1-2 bedroom apartments being built. Why do we also need 4-6 plexes in SFH neighborhoods?

Because there is more to new housing, and people's housing wants/needs, than 1-2 bedroom apartments in big apartment buildings on big streets with apartment buildings. That's what the "middle" in "missing middle" refers to - all the kinds of housing that currently is not allowed to be built. For example, small multi-unit buildings in neighborhoods.

So the housing exists and is available, but it’s not to some imaginary new resident’s preference? Oh I’m sorry, I would also like a pony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

So only poor people deserve housing?
Why? Because the poor people make you feel better?

Do middle class families deserve housing?
If not, why?
Are you willing to tell your kid's teacher/a colleague/ etc - yeah sorry, I realize you and your spouse could afford a $500K home but wow I don't want to have you kind of people living near me. You don't make me feel better about myself and I can't give you charity so you serve no purpose....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But we are already putting in tons of new housing in Arlington. Look at how many units have been added in the R-B corridor and Pentagon City/Crystal City. There are a ton of 1-2 bedroom apartments being built. Why do we also need 4-6 plexes in SFH neighborhoods?

Because there is more to new housing, and people's housing wants/needs, than 1-2 bedroom apartments in big apartment buildings on big streets with apartment buildings. That's what the "middle" in "missing middle" refers to - all the kinds of housing that currently is not allowed to be built. For example, small multi-unit buildings in neighborhoods.

So the housing exists and is available, but it’s not to some imaginary new resident’s preference? Oh I’m sorry, I would also like a pony.

Are you sad that your neighborhood might have middle class families living in low rises?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But we are already putting in tons of new housing in Arlington. Look at how many units have been added in the R-B corridor and Pentagon City/Crystal City. There are a ton of 1-2 bedroom apartments being built. Why do we also need 4-6 plexes in SFH neighborhoods?

Because there is more to new housing, and people's housing wants/needs, than 1-2 bedroom apartments in big apartment buildings on big streets with apartment buildings. That's what the "middle" in "missing middle" refers to - all the kinds of housing that currently is not allowed to be built. For example, small multi-unit buildings in neighborhoods.

So the housing exists and is available, but it’s not to some imaginary new resident’s preference? Oh I’m sorry, I would also like a pony.

The housing does not exist. It is not available. And it's actual, current residents. Other than that, though...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But we are already putting in tons of new housing in Arlington. Look at how many units have been added in the R-B corridor and Pentagon City/Crystal City. There are a ton of 1-2 bedroom apartments being built. Why do we also need 4-6 plexes in SFH neighborhoods?

Because there is more to new housing, and people's housing wants/needs, than 1-2 bedroom apartments in big apartment buildings on big streets with apartment buildings. That's what the "middle" in "missing middle" refers to - all the kinds of housing that currently is not allowed to be built. For example, small multi-unit buildings in neighborhoods.

So the housing exists and is available, but it’s not to some imaginary new resident’s preference? Oh I’m sorry, I would also like a pony.

I live in S Arl in what is refereed to as "missing middle" housing. We have some space to add more of it but not as much as N Arl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But you are using hyperbole here yourself. Anyone who asks reasonable questions is just against housing. Period. There will be no questions about what will happen, just approve my housing plan, in it's entiety with no revisions or you are NIMBY.

Not everyone who objects to some specific aspect of some specific housing plan is a NIMBY. Everyone who demands impossible preconditions for certain types of housing to be built near them? Yep, NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But we are already putting in tons of new housing in Arlington. Look at how many units have been added in the R-B corridor and Pentagon City/Crystal City. There are a ton of 1-2 bedroom apartments being built. Why do we also need 4-6 plexes in SFH neighborhoods?

Because there is more to new housing, and people's housing wants/needs, than 1-2 bedroom apartments in big apartment buildings on big streets with apartment buildings. That's what the "middle" in "missing middle" refers to - all the kinds of housing that currently is not allowed to be built. For example, small multi-unit buildings in neighborhoods.

So the housing exists and is available, but it’s not to some imaginary new resident’s preference? Oh I’m sorry, I would also like a pony.

The housing does not exist. It is not available. And it's actual, current residents. Other than that, though...

The 1-2 bedroom unit exists in a high rise. It is interchangeable with a 1-2 bedroom unit in a 4 plex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But we are already putting in tons of new housing in Arlington. Look at how many units have been added in the R-B corridor and Pentagon City/Crystal City. There are a ton of 1-2 bedroom apartments being built. Why do we also need 4-6 plexes in SFH neighborhoods?

Because there is more to new housing, and people's housing wants/needs, than 1-2 bedroom apartments in big apartment buildings on big streets with apartment buildings. That's what the "middle" in "missing middle" refers to - all the kinds of housing that currently is not allowed to be built. For example, small multi-unit buildings in neighborhoods.

So the housing exists and is available, but it’s not to some imaginary new resident’s preference? Oh I’m sorry, I would also like a pony.

The funny thing is that there are property owners who want to build a fourplex on their own property in the North Arlington neighborhood you live in, and there are people who would want to live in that fourplex, but the only thing that's stopping them is that you don't want to allow property owners to build a fourplex on their own property in the North Arlington neighborhood you live in, because you don't want to live near a fourplex, and you thing that should take priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Actually I am.

I am for building more homes. I am not a NIMBY by any means.

But I also dont have my head in the sand about that that will do.

If we just ignore that there will be more cars on the roads, more kids in schools and summer camps, more trash cans on the curb, etc etc. And I dont pretend like these 750k condos/duplexes/triplexes will be for our teachers and cops. They wont be. Thats a lie.

So you want to build more units? OK- I can get on board with that. Provided we do it correctly.

That's a standard response. I'm for more units; i just oppose this proposal for more units. I'm for sidewalks; I just oppose this sidewalk. I'm for bike lanes; I just oppose this proposed bike lane.

DP. This is so disingenuous that you sound very immature.

I personally don’t think that it’s too much to ask that when they approve a policy that they know will overtax existing infrastructure that they should also pass a complimentary capital improvement plan to address those foreseen needs. For most people, that’s what planning is about.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and it's been many decades since I worried about being immature.

The reality is that this is the standard opposition to every proposal for more housing: I'm for more housing, just not this housing, here. Because it won't be affordable for poor people, because poor people will live there, because families won't live there, because families will live there, because it will be rental housing, because it won't be rental housing, because it will cut down trees, because it's too far from transit, because it's too far from transit except for buses but they don't count, because people will have cars they will park in front of my house, because the building will be too big, because it will overwhelm the water treatment system, etc. etc. etc. etc.

It's meaningless to be for hypothetical housing proposals. At some point, in order to be for more housing, you have to actually support some actual housing proposals.

But we are already putting in tons of new housing in Arlington. Look at how many units have been added in the R-B corridor and Pentagon City/Crystal City. There are a ton of 1-2 bedroom apartments being built. Why do we also need 4-6 plexes in SFH neighborhoods?

Because there is more to new housing, and people's housing wants/needs, than 1-2 bedroom apartments in big apartment buildings on big streets with apartment buildings. That's what the "middle" in "missing middle" refers to - all the kinds of housing that currently is not allowed to be built. For example, small multi-unit buildings in neighborhoods.

So the housing exists and is available, but it’s not to some imaginary new resident’s preference? Oh I’m sorry, I would also like a pony.

The housing does not exist. It is not available. And it's actual, current residents. Other than that, though...

The 1-2 bedroom unit exists in a high rise. It is interchangeable with a 1-2 bedroom unit in a 4 plex.

Sure, and a 3-bedroom house in North Arlington is interchangeable with a 3-bedroom house in Prince William County or a 3-bedroom house in Emporia, Kansas.

Location, location, location, eh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not sure about missing middle, but we know that the Cleveland-Woodley Park ANC doesn't have many missing middle fingers.

The middle finger ANC commissioners all ran on the same ticket put together by the Trump-Manfort operative turned Smart Growth lobbyist. Ick.