Arlington "missing middle"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At the end of the day, no middle class families are moving into 4-plexes. Like everyone else, they want a SFH, not some lame townhouse with zero parking.

Adding density just brings in more young people, mostly those that used to live in DC but now want a bigger place to support WFH.

Yep.

And its fine to debate the merits of increasing the density, but its insulting to suggest families are going to be buying these 750k duplexes or condos. It will be young yuppies. Lets at least ne honest about that.

Middle-class families aren't going to move into unaffordable fourplexes, they are going to hold out for even more unaffordable detached houses?

But also those fourplexes are going to be loud because of all of the families living in them?

No... they are going to get their SFH where they can afford to! Like always.

No they don't always! What are you talking about? Many, many families around here live in townhouses or condos! Get out of your bubble.

Yes, yes they do.

But not at those price points.

I lived with my family in a townhouse too. It wasnt 750k.

The people, with families, paying 750k do not choose multi family.

Yes, they do. This missing middle is 1.7. It’s in a 8 plex complex ranging in price from 1.4 - 1.7 million. People will pay 2 mil to live in a townhouse. This is where we’re at in this area. I got a couple of calls from realtors offering 1.6 and 1.7 mil last summer to sell my 2300sf townhouse

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2114-18th-St-N-Arlington-VA-22201/333840191_zpid/?mmlb=g,31

1731 N. Veitch St. /1700 N. UhleSt. The Veitch lot was 9405 square feet Ended up with seven (7) new townhouses with two (2) garage parking
spaces and two (2) parking spaces in the driveway. https://www.google.com/maps/place/1731+N+Veitch+St,+Arlington,+VA+22201/@38.8945418,-77.0862593,3a,75y,98.34h,91.91t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s7WoqpgTNM640mhVW1sbqTQ!2e0!5s20180401T000000!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x89b7b663d0747db9:0x8157b7b3e0ff3911!8m2!3d38.8945102!4d-77.0859902

Garages open to an exisiting Colonial Village parking lot. 6 townhouses in less dense same acreage under missing middle are not going to have Colonial Village parking lot. Missing middle on rezoning is at max 6 so this developer project could have been what in MM? 4- so they'd be 4 townhouses -garages and small yards. Actually considering the local neighborhood density it would have been great to use the lot as a park with an 8 unit apartment/condo building with underground parking.

[Anonymous]

Is there any possibility that none of the proposals get adopted? This has felt like a done deal for a long time, with the remaining procedure being used to just iron out details. Seriously - the board has made clear they want to pass this and I’m not seeing any real roadblocks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any possibility that none of the proposals get adopted? This has felt like a done deal for a long time, with the remaining procedure being used to just iron out details. Seriously - the board has made clear they want to pass this and I’m not seeing any real roadblocks.

That sounds just like Thrive. The review and assessment was completely performative…it was getting rammed through no matter what. At this point we can only learn from past mistakes and do our best to slow and shape the execution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Where did you see this about the 8-plexes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Where did you see this about the 8-plexes?

Nm, I just saw the Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/26/arlington-missing-middle-zoning-eightplex/

It's a start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any possibility that none of the proposals get adopted? This has felt like a done deal for a long time, with the remaining procedure being used to just iron out details. Seriously - the board has made clear they want to pass this and I’m not seeing any real roadblocks.

That sounds just like Thrive. The review and assessment was completely performative…it was getting rammed through no matter what. At this point we can only learn from past mistakes and do our best to slow and shape the execution.

The fact that thrive still passed unanimously, 1 week after the planning board resigned in disgrace after about 4 scandals- tells you all you need to know about that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why do you think that you’re entitled to live in Arlington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any possibility that none of the proposals get adopted? This has felt like a done deal for a long time, with the remaining procedure being used to just iron out details. Seriously - the board has made clear they want to pass this and I’m not seeing any real roadblocks.

Why would the Board want to pass something that nobody asked for and is also being heavily protested? Oh yeah, b/c none of the give a crap about the county, only leaving their mark...they all need to go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why do you think that you’re entitled to live in Arlington?

Who is entitled to live anywhere? Someone who is rich or bought a home back in the early 2000s isn’t entitled to control a neighboring property. The proposal does not take property rights away from anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

...

Where did you see this about the 8-plexes?

Nm, I just saw the Post article https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/01/26/arlington-missing-middle-zoning-eightplex/

It's a start.

So the urbanish left over old house at 18th and veitch with a parking lot would be 6 units instead of 7 at about $1.3m. That developed property from SFH to multi in zoning presents exactly what is whack on MM. The impervious surface for the 7 could have been reduced and 10 plus smaller units with some greenspace built. The 2.9m redo could be 2 narrow lot line 1200-2000 sq ft houses base on topogaphy and transit options. Each pre-developed property would mean less cash for the developer?

[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.

They want the end of SFH because a nice neighborhood is racist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You seriously seem a little unwell. The tone and snark and what not while some of us are having a reasonable discussion about ways to do this that make sense. IE add units, near transit and account for the infrastructure needed to support them.

And then there is whatever you are doing.

You're not having a reasonable discussion, you're just continuing on the idea that was rejected last night: that areas that currently only allow single-unit detached housing should continue to only allow single-unit detached housing, and every other kind of housing type should go somewhere else.

Not wanting more density is a valid position. Get back to me when you increase summer camp and other rec opportunities so I can sign my kids up for swim lessons and day camp without it being like the thunderdome. Remember when we swapped school locations a year or two ago? That happened because the county keeps approving housing without worrying about downstream impact. You can expect more of that.

Of course it's a valid position. But is it a good position, from the point of view of public policy? I don't think so, in my personal opinion. More relevantly, Arlington elected representatives also don't think so.

Why is it bad public policy to fix quality of life and infrastructure issues before looking for more residents? Just calling me a racist NIMBY isn’t an answer.

Arlington can't really figure out how to build infrastructure functionally.

The lubber run community center is beautiful, with a huge plot of land -- but the actual function space in the building is quite small. There should have gone for a less fanciful design to more practical -- it doesn't have to be a cinderblock brick, but we as a county need more capacity not just pretty buildings (side-eye to the Heights building)

That new building is awful looking and will not age well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why do you think that you’re entitled to live in Arlington?

Who is entitled to live anywhere? Someone who is rich or bought a home back in the early 2000s isn’t entitled to control a neighboring property. The proposal does not take property rights away from anyone.

Those people own their homes. You don’t. These proposals will be terrible for QOL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why do you think that you’re entitled to live in Arlington?

Who is entitled to live anywhere? Someone who is rich or bought a home back in the early 2000s isn’t entitled to control a neighboring property. The proposal does not take property rights away from anyone.

Those people own their homes. You don’t. These proposals will be terrible for QOL.

It also disincentives people to make investments in their property that provide positive externalities but don’t provide economic value. A lot of community value is actually generated not by force of zoning by an unstated social contract that everyone will take care of and managed their property in such as way that enhances everyone’s value. If someone drops a 6 unit apartment building next to your house with the front paved over for parking and a dumpster sitting out front, then that contract is broken. What happens next is people no longer have incentives to invest in landscaping and maintenance that enhance the entire community. It’s a negative feedback loop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there any possibility that none of the proposals get adopted? This has felt like a done deal for a long time, with the remaining procedure being used to just iron out details. Seriously - the board has made clear they want to pass this and I’m not seeing any real roadblocks.

Why would the Board want to pass something that nobody asked for and is also being heavily protested? Oh yeah, b/c none of the give a crap about the county, only leaving their mark...they all need to go.

Because a bunch of people are asking for it, and a majority of Arlington voters just reelected a board member who ran on it and rejected his anti-missing middle opponent.

Did you miss last week’s public comment in the request to advertise the missing middle plan? Most speakers were in favor. Maybe the board gives a crap about what they (and most voters) want?