Arlington - the hypocrisy is shocking

[Anonymous]

Let us welcome all, where all are welcome without hate, and let us do so, confident in the belief that prices and grandfathered zoning rules give us the courage of our convictions.

[Anonymous]

My old town bought a plot like this and made it open space, beautifully mowed. Lovely six acres.

No parking, no chairs, no dogs, it is a nice open space.

You can walk through maybe throw a frisbee. But no hanging out allowed. 100 percent clear so no place crackheads to hide out

That’s what people want in rich areas. Peace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My old town bought a plot like this and made it open space, beautifully mowed. Lovely six acres.

No parking, no chairs, no dogs, it is a nice open space.

You can walk through maybe throw a frisbee. But no hanging out allowed. 100 percent clear so no place crackheads to hide out

That’s what people want in rich areas. Peace.

It’s public land. It’s very hard to prevent unhoused people from sleeping overnight, per court decisions. A rich person’s green fantasy can’t override other people’s rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My old town bought a plot like this and made it open space, beautifully mowed. Lovely six acres.

No parking, no chairs, no dogs, it is a nice open space.

You can walk through maybe throw a frisbee. But no hanging out allowed. 100 percent clear so no place crackheads to hide out

That’s what people want in rich areas. Peace.

It’s public land. It’s very hard to prevent unhoused people from sleeping overnight, per court decisions. A rich person’s green fantasy can’t override other people’s rights.

Homeless, you mean.

As it is, CA is having major headaches over homeless people taking over public lands and trashing it. Homeless people are far more likely to have substantial substance abuse problems and psychological problems. Funny how people like you have ensured they get the right to ruin common public spaces by dominating it. What about our rights to enjoy those spaces safely?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My old town bought a plot like this and made it open space, beautifully mowed. Lovely six acres.

No parking, no chairs, no dogs, it is a nice open space.

You can walk through maybe throw a frisbee. But no hanging out allowed. 100 percent clear so no place crackheads to hide out

That’s what people want in rich areas. Peace.

It’s public land. It’s very hard to prevent unhoused people from sleeping overnight, per court decisions. A rich person’s green fantasy can’t override other people’s rights.

Homeless, you mean.

As it is, CA is having major headaches over homeless people taking over public lands and trashing it. Homeless people are far more likely to have substantial substance abuse problems and psychological problems. Funny how people like you have ensured they get the right to ruin common public spaces by dominating it. What about our rights to enjoy those spaces safely?

You can't criminalize homelessness. In 2019, those crazy liberals on the Supreme Court upheld homeless people's right to sleep in public spaces

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/474763-supreme-court-upholds-homeless-right-to-sleep-in-public/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My old town bought a plot like this and made it open space, beautifully mowed. Lovely six acres.

No parking, no chairs, no dogs, it is a nice open space.

You can walk through maybe throw a frisbee. But no hanging out allowed. 100 percent clear so no place crackheads to hide out

That’s what people want in rich areas. Peace.

Next you will want to kill the unhoused deer population who roam unhindered through Arlington

It’s public land. It’s very hard to prevent unhoused people from sleeping overnight, per court decisions. A rich person’s green fantasy can’t override other people’s rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My old town bought a plot like this and made it open space, beautifully mowed. Lovely six acres.

No parking, no chairs, no dogs, it is a nice open space.

You can walk through maybe throw a frisbee. But no hanging out allowed. 100 percent clear so no place crackheads to hide out

That’s what people want in rich areas. Peace.

It’s public land. It’s very hard to prevent unhoused people from sleeping overnight, per court decisions. A rich person’s green fantasy can’t override other people’s rights.

Homeless, you mean.

As it is, CA is having major headaches over homeless people taking over public lands and trashing it. Homeless people are far more likely to have substantial substance abuse problems and psychological problems. Funny how people like you have ensured they get the right to ruin common public spaces by dominating it. What about our rights to enjoy those spaces safely?

You can't criminalize homelessness. In 2019, those crazy liberals on the Supreme Court upheld homeless people's right to sleep in public spaces

https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/poverty/474763-supreme-court-upholds-homeless-right-to-sleep-in-public/

Let them sleep there. Just make sure plenty of fentanyl is available and no narcan.

[Anonymous]

Why not just make it a trailer park. Seriously just clear land get some govt surplus Fema mobile homes and be done with it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My old town bought a plot like this and made it open space, beautifully mowed. Lovely six acres.

No parking, no chairs, no dogs, it is a nice open space.

You can walk through maybe throw a frisbee. But no hanging out allowed. 100 percent clear so no place crackheads to hide out

That’s what people want in rich areas. Peace.

It’s public land. It’s very hard to prevent unhoused people from sleeping overnight, per court decisions. A rich person’s green fantasy can’t override other people’s rights.

Pretty easy don’t allow sitting down. That open land in my old town it is illegal to sit down or lay down. They charge you with a crime, not a ticket and arrest you. It is no different than the grass between the lanes on the George Washington parkway.

We also on a second plot we bought made it a resident only “garden” with a lock and key. People love open land people don’t love people doing stuff on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My old town bought a plot like this and made it open space, beautifully mowed. Lovely six acres.

No parking, no chairs, no dogs, it is a nice open space.

You can walk through maybe throw a frisbee. But no hanging out allowed. 100 percent clear so no place crackheads to hide out

That’s what people want in rich areas. Peace.

It’s public land. It’s very hard to prevent unhoused people from sleeping overnight, per court decisions. A rich person’s green fantasy can’t override other people’s rights.

Pretty easy don’t allow sitting down. That open land in my old town it is illegal to sit down or lay down. They charge you with a crime, not a ticket and arrest you. It is no different than the grass between the lanes on the George Washington parkway.

We also on a second plot we bought made it a resident only “garden” with a lock and key. People love open land people don’t love people doing stuff on it.

Pretty certain that the no-sitting rule would not be enforceable here. Very different from a parkway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Arlington already has more than enough affordable rental units. Anyone who wants to live in them is welcome. They are often tagged with MS-13 graffiti and increasingly prone to gun violence.

Some of us worked really hard to become financially stable enough to buy a nice home… the biggest caviar dream imaginable when we were kids. This idea that I’m supposed to welcome the rot of public/subsidized/affordable housing into our neighborhoods and schools is offensive.

If all the lily white liberals whose parents paid for their college, law school, and house down payment want to assuage their guilt and prove how morally superior they are, they should do it in a way that doesn’t affect the rest of us.

Way to grossly stereotype those who live in affordable housing. Maybe they, too, dream caviar dreams of one day owning a house in the 22207.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington already has more than enough affordable rental units. Anyone who wants to live in them is welcome. They are often tagged with MS-13 graffiti and increasingly prone to gun violence.

Some of us worked really hard to become financially stable enough to buy a nice home… the biggest caviar dream imaginable when we were kids. This idea that I’m supposed to welcome the rot of public/subsidized/affordable housing into our neighborhoods and schools is offensive.

If all the lily white liberals whose parents paid for their college, law school, and house down payment want to assuage their guilt and prove how morally superior they are, they should do it in a way that doesn’t affect the rest of us.

Way to grossly stereotype those who live in affordable housing. Maybe they, too, dream caviar dreams of one day owning a house in the 22207.

The people there probably work a lot harder than PP at her phony paper pushing job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Arlington County is going to buy land in the northern part of the county that would be ideal for adding density, exactly what missing middle is for. This could add some much needed diversity to the northern part of the county and the land has significance to African Americans. Instead they are talking about making it a park for the rich white people in north Arlington. I cannot believe the hypocrisy. Pathetic Arlington. https://www.arlnow.com/2023/07/11/arlington-could-buy-a-property-within-what-was-once-a-secluded-black-settlement-for-100-years/

You do understand that the land is located in the Pimmit Water Shed and a resource protection area. The Walker brothers originally sold part of the land to a formerly enslaved man because it had no economic value to them. Unless the EPA greatly changes its requirements for resource protection areas and a major, expensive engineering feat is undertaken to divert water out of the Primmit Run Water Shed it would be extremely expensive to build on the land. As my mentor said: "the juice ain't worth the sqeeze." Parkland may be the best use for the land, particularly since more heat islands are being created in the county by dense development, such as Missing Middle Housing.

As you know the 94 acre Glencarlyn Park in South Arlington has similar features and it would be difficult to build housing in that area. It along with the Long Branch Nature Center provide greenspace for Arlington County.

If you want to see more affordable housing built, please support the Langston Blvd. Alliance that plans to build 6,000 housing units along Langston Blvd, much of it for people at the 60% AMI level. You do understand that most of the recent park development has also been in South Arlington, such as the new Jennie Dean park along Four Mile Run.

I am not a defender of Arlington's policies -- but in this case -- you have your panties in a twist for naught.

Only part of it is in the resource protection area and the rest can and should be developed. There are more than enough parks in that part of the county.

But it is all in the Pimmit Water Shed. How do you propose to divert the water?

Not all of it is. There is plenty of buildable land. I’m sure developers would come in and pay a large sum to build there. Just what the county supposedly wanted for missing middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It looks like Arlington County is going to buy land in the northern part of the county that would be ideal for adding density, exactly what missing middle is for. This could add some much needed diversity to the northern part of the county and the land has significance to African Americans. Instead they are talking about making it a park for the rich white people in north Arlington. I cannot believe the hypocrisy. Pathetic Arlington. https://www.arlnow.com/2023/07/11/arlington-could-buy-a-property-within-what-was-once-a-secluded-black-settlement-for-100-years/

I do not think a government entity can take account of "much needed diversity" after the recent Supreme Court decision. There will be suits. The SC's direction of travel is that it is improper to consider race at all for almost anything. To be clear that was not the ruling but that is where things are going. Government must be colorblind. Full stop.

Dense housing is not a goal anyone should have.

[Anonymous]

Once the county gets it they can do whatever they want but a park will definitely attract the homeless population. Development of some sort would be so much better.