Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I did not read the entire thread, but can someone please proved the details of Adam Theo (McCellan) criminal record?

Kited checks in Florida and dealt some dope. If you go to his website, he is all "true confession" about it. The sad thing is that the soy boys and their handmaidens who run the local YIMBY group thinks this makes him some kind of badass because they are studying Greek classics while he was skirting the law. He told a story about being in jail when a cell mate tried to scoop out his eyes with a spoon. He put the dude in a headlock until the guards arrived. He was also homeless, yada, yada, yada. Again the beta men of Arlington who are afraid to fart in front of their spouses just eat up this crap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m voting for Clement, too. I’m mostly a Democrat, but sometimes I lean independent. MMH is really not a solidly Democratic proposal. It isn’t helping diversity or affordable housing, though the Board initially tried to sell it this way. It’s really about density.

So you’d support MMH if the board required a certain percentage of MMH to be CAFs or sold to low income individuals?

No, I will not support any MMH. It’s not good enough to throw a few token CAFs into what they say will only be 120 MMH properties or less per year. What does that equal? 12 units? The County Board has tried to sell this as helping minorities and affordable housing. It doesn’t. It literally helps people making a minimum of 100k a year. And we all know it takes more than a 100k to afford a million dollar triplex unit. While there is a good chance that it will contribute to gentrification.

I’ve been following MMH and don’t recall the county selling it as affordable (ie low income) housing. This is a disingenuous argument as opponents don’t actually care about housing affordability. In fact they want the opposite and are protecting an investment. Should housing be primarily an investment or a house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?

That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.

And three additional families can own a home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?

That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.

And three additional families can own a home.

And all of those additional families will send their kids to our finite number of schools and compete for limited summer camp spots and park their extra cars on the street and want to use limited field space for sports, etc. According to the MM advocates we have plenty of capacity. Anyone who has kids in Arlington knows that’s not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?

That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.

And three additional families can own a home.

And all of those additional families will send their kids to our finite number of schools and compete for limited summer camp spots and park their extra cars on the street and want to use limited field space for sports, etc. According to the MM advocates we have plenty of capacity. Anyone who has kids in Arlington knows that’s not true.

They could own a home in Congress Heights, right now. They could own a home in PG county. So many places they could own a home for far far far less than Arlington, even after MMH. They could own middle class housing, a half a duplex with a yard, parking, with ample transit options into DC, Arlington, and National Landing for under 600k. But they don't. Just like the author. It baffles and disgusts me that everyone just accepts that the only alternative to Arlington is Loudon Co and MMH is the key to preventing suburban sprawl. It's a disgustingly racist position.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?

That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.

And three additional families can own a home.

And all of those additional families will send their kids to our finite number of schools and compete for limited summer camp spots and park their extra cars on the street and want to use limited field space for sports, etc. According to the MM advocates we have plenty of capacity. Anyone who has kids in Arlington knows that’s not true.

They could own a home in Congress Heights, right now. They could own a home in PG county. So many places they could own a home for far far far less than Arlington, even after MMH. They could own middle class housing, a half a duplex with a yard, parking, with ample transit options into DC, Arlington, and National Landing for under 600k. But they don't. Just like the author. It baffles and disgusts me that everyone just accepts that the only alternative to Arlington is Loudon Co and MMH is the key to preventing suburban sprawl. It's a disgustingly racist position.

People who want to preserve SFH housing can move out to Loudoun or Fairfax or PG county. How is maintaining restrictive zoning not a racist problem? You are projecting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?

That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.

And three additional families can own a home.

And all of those additional families will send their kids to our finite number of schools and compete for limited summer camp spots and park their extra cars on the street and want to use limited field space for sports, etc. According to the MM advocates we have plenty of capacity. Anyone who has kids in Arlington knows that’s not true.

They could own a home in Congress Heights, right now. They could own a home in PG county. So many places they could own a home for far far far less than Arlington, even after MMH. They could own middle class housing, a half a duplex with a yard, parking, with ample transit options into DC, Arlington, and National Landing for under 600k. But they don't. Just like the author. It baffles and disgusts me that everyone just accepts that the only alternative to Arlington is Loudon Co and MMH is the key to preventing suburban sprawl. It's a disgustingly racist position.

People who want to preserve SFH housing can move out to Loudoun or Fairfax or PG county. How is maintaining restrictive zoning not a racist problem? You are projecting.

Are there still racial covenants in Arlington that I don’t know about? Thought those were gone…

[Anonymous]

If MM actually happens, the sad thing is that people who buy these townhouses and 6-plexes probably think they're making some great investment -- when the fact remains that in the suburbs, anything except a SFH typically doesn't do very well. So we're actually going to have less of the type of housing that would be best for middle class folks to buy, and more of the type of housing that won't help them advance economically. We're basically encouraging middle class folks to make suboptimal investments. Dumb dumb dumb.

Just as one example (there are many), after one of the greatest periods of price appreciation in history, this townhouse is priced below its 2017 price and still isn't selling.

https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1316-S-Rolfe-St-Arlington-VA-22204/240500888_zpid/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?

That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.

And three additional families can own a home.

And all of those additional families will send their kids to our finite number of schools and compete for limited summer camp spots and park their extra cars on the street and want to use limited field space for sports, etc. According to the MM advocates we have plenty of capacity. Anyone who has kids in Arlington knows that’s not true.

They could own a home in Congress Heights, right now. They could own a home in PG county. So many places they could own a home for far far far less than Arlington, even after MMH. They could own middle class housing, a half a duplex with a yard, parking, with ample transit options into DC, Arlington, and National Landing for under 600k. But they don't. Just like the author. It baffles and disgusts me that everyone just accepts that the only alternative to Arlington is Loudon Co and MMH is the key to preventing suburban sprawl. It's a disgustingly racist position.

Couple of fun facts about PG county:

1. You can watch gunfights while you do your grocery shopping: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/prince-georges-county/2-dead-in-shooting-at-oxon-hill-grocery-store-police/3200042/

2. If you're doing your shopping at a store like Target and you happen to look at someone in a way they don't like, that person might shoot and kill you: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/crime/family-pg-mall-victim-speaks-the-august-18-murder-darrion-herring/65-2a69e1e6-a130-49c0-8b0a-a14aae24a9f7

Ahhh, PG county, the place to live the American dream.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?

If you can build at about the same cost, but sell 3 units at $1m each instead of 1 at $2m, which makes a better profit? Remember that you as the developer do not have to incur any costs related to overcrowded schools, lack of park and recreation space, or additional vehicles parked on the street.

But we can agree that both current policy and MMH benefit developers, yes? If MMH opponents are anti-developer then why aren’t they arguing against all tear downs? Or arguing in favor of increasing setbacks? It’s like you’re pro-developer in some cases and anti-developer in others, but the reality is you don’t actually care about developers or affordable housing or the tree canopy. You care about your property value and now that you’ve got yours, exclusion is your priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?

That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.

And three additional families can own a home.

Or the three additional families could buy one if the 21 townhouses currently for sale in Arlington that are priced from $800,000 to $1,169,000. They are priced below Arlington’s projected price of $1,300,000 for a Missing Middle townhouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?

If you can build at about the same cost, but sell 3 units at $1m each instead of 1 at $2m, which makes a better profit? Remember that you as the developer do not have to incur any costs related to overcrowded schools, lack of park and recreation space, or additional vehicles parked on the street.

But we can agree that both current policy and MMH benefit developers, yes? If MMH opponents are anti-developer then why aren’t they arguing against all tear downs? Or arguing in favor of increasing setbacks? It’s like you’re pro-developer in some cases and anti-developer in others, but the reality is you don’t actually care about developers or affordable housing or the tree canopy. You care about your property value and now that you’ve got yours, exclusion is your priority.

1. MMH opponents are not anti-developer, they are anti-upzoning many neighborhoods without understanding the implications of up-zoning on infrastructure, storm water management and county services

2. There is no reason to increase setbacks. Why do you think setbacks should be increased?

3. How do you know what people care or do not care about? Have you been to the Community Conversations, County board meetings, or participated in AHS, NAACP, Chamber of Commerce or the Civic Federation meeting?

4. Property values will increase with MMH because dirt is more valuable in Arlington than the structure it accommodates. You do understand that what many people have “got” is not as nice as the Missing Middle housing that will replace it. Those buyers will get better. . Missing Middle Housing will only increase housing prices in a neighborhood by replacing lower cost housing and adding higher priced Missing Middle Housing. If people were economically excluded before MMH, it will be worse after prices increase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m voting for Clement, too. I’m mostly a Democrat, but sometimes I lean independent. MMH is really not a solidly Democratic proposal. It isn’t helping diversity or affordable housing, though the Board initially tried to sell it this way. It’s really about density.

So you’d support MMH if the board required a certain percentage of MMH to be CAFs or sold to low income individuals?

No, I will not support any MMH. It’s not good enough to throw a few token CAFs into what they say will only be 120 MMH properties or less per year. What does that equal? 12 units? The County Board has tried to sell this as helping minorities and affordable housing. It doesn’t. It literally helps people making a minimum of 100k a year. And we all know it takes more than a 100k to afford a million dollar triplex unit. While there is a good chance that it will contribute to gentrification.

I’ve been following MMH and don’t recall the county selling it as affordable (ie low income) housing. This is a disingenuous argument as opponents don’t actually care about housing affordability. In fact they want the opposite and are protecting an investment. Should housing be primarily an investment or a house?

I guess you haven’t been following MMH as closely as I have. The County Board absolutely tried selling it as affordable housing until it was revealed that this housing would range from 520,000 (for a 1 bedroom!) to 1.8 million. Here was the early spin from MMH Study: A Stakeholder’s Guide (page 1)

“Housing Arlington seeks to address housing affordability on many fronts to expand the supply of housing, broaden the types of housing available, and preserve or increase the supply of affordable housing units. There is no single solution that will tackle all of Arlington’s, or the region’s, housing affordability challenges.”

I believe they have changed the most recent language to “housing attainability?” I have no desire to have a 8 plex next to me that isn’t even helping anyone that needs help. I grew up outside of a major metropolitan area. My parents would have loved to live closer in and by the beach, but guess what? They couldn’t afford it. It’s not someone’s right to live in a close in neighborhood. Now if we are talking about housing for low income families - that adds to the community and diversity. MMH does none of this.

[Anonymous]

The initial press release specifically says that a blanket rezoning would be inappropriate for Arlington, but here we are. Total bait and switch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?

How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?

That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.

And three additional families can own a home.

And all the trees will be cut down and we will have more flooding, mudslides, etc...it's already happening in Arlington. Open your eyes. The Arlington Co Board is not doing this to provide affordable housing. They are selling off this county to the highest bidder and they don't give a crap about the residents. They are only on this board as a stepping stone to national politics. That's it. They DON"T CARE about Arlington.