APS Fall boundary questionnaire

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The bigger issue is the MS/HS. APS has been notorious for not taking into account housing that is in the process of coming online. They don't connect with the county well on what's 2-5yrs downstream.

We are a McKinley family, so I can only give an example from here, although I'm sure there are plenty of others county-wide. When the Fisher House affordable housing was being renovated APS was refusing to plan for space for kids that they knew would be moving in 2yrs later. They used only data based on children currently in the planning units, even as they knew a certain number of family-sized apartments were being built.

APS is asking us to do the hard work for them. If you know there is a site that a developer is in the process of purchasing and it isn't on their spreadsheet, give them that data. The Febrey Lothrop property is another good example. Within 5yrs there could be dozens of SFH homes on that lot. It needs to be in the back of their heads that those children will need to go to school somewhere, likely Ashlawn or Cardinal.

Look around your community and if you think they've missed something, get it in front of them.

Just to piggyback on this point, if you’re concerned about school capacity, the biggest thing will change the population density of the County is the zoning change that will be coming at the end of the Missing Middle Study. County staff would like to change single family home zoning to allow other types of units. The issue is that the schools already can’t handle the students that will be coming here in the next 5-10 years even without zoning changes. This is the latest opportunity to share feedback with County staff. I also recommend emailing the County Board if you have concerns because once the County Staff makes a recommendation to the County Board at the end of the study, it’s unlikely the Board will make any major changes. It will be too late for meaningful feedback at that point.

https://housing.arlingtonva.us/missingmiddle/

I may be misunderstanding your post, but it sounds to me like you're saying the answer is to stop an effort to make more housing affordable to families that are in the missing middle. Wouldn't a better and more inclusive alternative be more schools? Larger schools? Why is the answer that I should move out of a community I've been a part of for over a decade if I want to buy a home that doesn't stretch my budget?

No, I’m not saying that! I am saying that the school capacity issue needs to be considered at the same time as the zoning change. It’s only my opinion that the issue deserves to be looked at holistically, rather than as merely a housing issue, since the schools are already strained.

If you disagree and think the housing can be handled without consideration of school capacity, you would be welcome to provide that feedback.

Ok, I agree it makes sense to consider school capacity and zoning together, but is the zoning board going to care unless they have purview over schools. Which part of Arlington county government has purview over both the schools and zoning? I think that person (or board) is the one who needs to be contacted.

In my post, I recommended emailing the County Board because they are the body that will ultimately approve any zoning changes at the end of the study. I don’t think there is a specific board that has purview over zoning and schools.

Anecdotally, it’s been my observation that the County Board doesn’t really get involved in APS affairs, but the Board will be the ones responsible for approving any changes so I think it makes sense to email them.

It may be the case that the County has decided that housing is a priority over schools, as the constituency of Arlington is obviously a lot bigger than parents and students. I think this is a hot-button political issue that is going to take precedence over almost anything else. But it doesn’t hurt to share feedback and this would be the time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize what is proposed for middle/HS please?

I am in north central Arlington with early elementary schooler.

I don't know if we have a preview yet, but I haven't been paying much attention to middle and high school boundaries. The capacity tables show Gunston, Jefferson, and Swanson need relief by 24-25 and Williamsburg has space, but those are on opposite ends of the county so any rebalancing is either a cascade or a program move. For high school more seats at WL will be coming online so they will move people from the other two to fill the mega-school. They will still be short regular high school seats, so some of it is just moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Capacity-Utilization-2021-to-2023-for-posting-online.pdf

“Moving deck chairs on the Titanic” is spot on.

[Anonymous]

[quote=Anonymous

I may be misunderstanding your post, but it sounds to me like you're saying the answer is to stop an effort to make more housing affordable to families that are in the missing middle. Wouldn't a better and more inclusive alternative be more schools? Larger schools? Why is the answer that I should move out of a community I've been a part of for over a decade if I want to buy a home that doesn't stretch my budget?

DP. Where will you put those schools and where would you get the money build a operate them? If the county cannot afford increased density by providing the necessary infrastructure, they shouldn’t be actively trying to increase density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone summarize what is proposed for middle/HS please?

I am in north central Arlington with early elementary schooler.

I don't know if we have a preview yet, but I haven't been paying much attention to middle and high school boundaries. The capacity tables show Gunston, Jefferson, and Swanson need relief by 24-25 and Williamsburg has space, but those are on opposite ends of the county so any rebalancing is either a cascade or a program move. For high school more seats at WL will be coming online so they will move people from the other two to fill the mega-school. They will still be short regular high school seats, so some of it is just moving deck chairs on the Titanic.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Capacity-Utilization-2021-to-2023-for-posting-online.pdf

I wonder what they will do with the in Bluemont kids who go to Kenmore that they bus all the way up to Yorktown for HS. Seems like it might make more sense to send them to WL, and send some Swanson kids to Williamsburg an Yorktown

Like they had been doing until about 2 years ago when they were switched to Yorktown. Yet again, this shows what a complete and utter mess APS is in the planning department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous

I may be misunderstanding your post, but it sounds to me like you're saying the answer is to stop an effort to make more housing affordable to families that are in the missing middle. Wouldn't a better and more inclusive alternative be more schools? Larger schools? Why is the answer that I should move out of a community I've been a part of for over a decade if I want to buy a home that doesn't stretch my budget?

DP. Where will you put those schools and where would you get the money build a operate them? If the county cannot afford increased density by providing the necessary infrastructure, they shouldn’t be actively trying to increase density.

1) I'm simply pointing out that opposing higher density housing because it allows more people to live somewhere is classic NIMBY.
2) Counties and cities should plan for increasing school capacity needs. Encouraging housing policy that keeps the missing middle out of Arlington won't fix the disconnect there.
3) Look around at where new construction is happening (and has been happening for years, especially in south Arlington). Prime places for schools, I would think. The county could also purchase land and repurpose it. I know of one home that was torn down and the lot made into a park, and another home that was torn down to expand a community garden.
4) On cost, its really a question of priorities. Arlington County is hard an impoverished area. Look at the new Long Bridge pool. Also, wouldn't more people living in Arlington mean more people paying taxes in Arlington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I may be misunderstanding your post, but it sounds to me like you're saying the answer is to stop an effort to make more housing affordable to families that are in the missing middle. Wouldn't a better and more inclusive alternative be more schools? Larger schools? Why is the answer that I should move out of a community I've been a part of for over a decade if I want to buy a home that doesn't stretch my budget?

DP. Where will you put those schools and where would you get the money build a operate them? If the county cannot afford increased density by providing the necessary infrastructure, they shouldn’t be actively trying to increase density.

1) I'm simply pointing out that opposing higher density housing because it allows more people to live somewhere is classic NIMBY.
2) Counties and cities should plan for increasing school capacity needs. Encouraging housing policy that keeps the missing middle out of Arlington won't fix the disconnect there.
3) Look around at where new construction is happening (and has been happening for years, especially in south Arlington). Prime places for schools, I would think. The county could also purchase land and repurpose it. I know of one home that was torn down and the lot made into a park, and another home that was torn down to expand a community garden.
4) On cost, its really a question of priorities. Arlington County is hard an impoverished area. Look at the new Long Bridge pool. Also, wouldn't more people living in Arlington mean more people paying taxes in Arlington?

NP to this chain - the county board is not going to go out of it's way to help plan for schools. It's just not what they do. They like to pretend that the school board will magically be able to fix any issues that come up because of increased population and overbuilding in certain places compared to infrastructure. Also, they don't listen to anyone who does not support what they already want to do, so engaging is a waste of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[quote=Anonymous

I may be misunderstanding your post, but it sounds to me like you're saying the answer is to stop an effort to make more housing affordable to families that are in the missing middle. Wouldn't a better and more inclusive alternative be more schools? Larger schools? Why is the answer that I should move out of a community I've been a part of for over a decade if I want to buy a home that doesn't stretch my budget?

DP. Where will you put those schools and where would you get the money build a operate them? If the county cannot afford increased density by providing the necessary infrastructure, they shouldn’t be actively trying to increase density.

+1. The County is also constrained by the cost of land/lack of land. Arlington is literally the smallest self-governing County in the US (did you know that?) and we have a lot of Federal land which makes us even smaller. I know that this comment makes certain people shout “NIMBY,” but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

[Anonymous]

Here is a recommendation for sites to consider back in 2014. https://projects.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/05/PLPG_MemoSchools_2014-0513.pdf I'm not sure what happened after this. I found this memo simply by Googling.

Also, APS just built some new schools within the past few years, Hoffman Boston and Cardinal, I believe. If these weren't built large enough to ease over crowding, I'm inclined to think poor planning is the culprit, not lack of funding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is a recommendation for sites to consider back in 2014. https://projects.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/05/PLPG_MemoSchools_2014-0513.pdf I'm not sure what happened after this. I found this memo simply by Googling.

Also, APS just built some new schools within the past few years, Hoffman Boston and Cardinal, I believe. If these weren't built large enough to ease over crowding, I'm inclined to think poor planning is the culprit, not lack of funding.

Think you might be confused... Hoffman Boston has been part of APS since 1915. Very historical. It became an elementary in 2000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a recommendation for sites to consider back in 2014. https://projects.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/05/PLPG_MemoSchools_2014-0513.pdf I'm not sure what happened after this. I found this memo simply by Googling.

Also, APS just built some new schools within the past few years, Hoffman Boston and Cardinal, I believe. If these weren't built large enough to ease over crowding, I'm inclined to think poor planning is the culprit, not lack of funding.

Think you might be confused... Hoffman Boston has been part of APS since 1915. Very historical. It became an elementary in 2000.

Yes, I was thinking of Fleet, opened in 2019.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is a recommendation for sites to consider back in 2014. https://projects.arlingtonva.us/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2014/05/PLPG_MemoSchools_2014-0513.pdf I'm not sure what happened after this. I found this memo simply by Googling.

Also, APS just built some new schools within the past few years, Hoffman Boston and Cardinal, I believe. If these weren't built large enough to ease over crowding, I'm inclined to think poor planning is the culprit, not lack of funding.

Think you might be confused... Hoffman Boston has been part of APS since 1915. Very historical. It became an elementary in 2000.

Yes, I was thinking of Fleet, opened in 2019.

Fleet was built for 752 and Cardinal for 732. How much bigger do you think they should have been built?

[Anonymous]

All of the sites in your memo have been developed. They need to start looking for more sites for schools

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the sites in your memo have been developed. They need to start looking for more sites for schools

Here are the latest contenders: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/BJGHHK489469/$file/F-3%20FY21-30%20CIP%20Direction.pdf


There’s also a list with county owned properties for longer range planning, but I can’t find it. It was a memo from the county to APS I think.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of the sites in your memo have been developed. They need to start looking for more sites for schools

Here are the latest contenders: https://go.boarddocs.com/vsba/arlington/Board.nsf/files/BJGHHK489469/$file/F-3%20FY21-30%20CIP%20Direction.pdf


There’s also a list with county owned properties for longer range planning, but I can’t find it. It was a memo from the county to APS I think.

Ah here it is. Note that these are mostly parks and community centers that would require a long process and a lot of fighting with the old people and other entrenched interests (tree people, historic preservation people, sports people, etc.) of Arlington County to turn into school sites.

https://arlingtonva.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2019/12/County_Manager_APS_Letter_2019-11-18.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All of the sites in your memo have been developed. They need to start looking for more sites for schools

I think they should take back fairlington community center and put pre-K and/or K there to ease overcrowding at Abingdon. Probably an easier sell than moving s. Fairlington to Drew.