APS: who is the best CB candidate on schools issues?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have voted for Clement in the past, but I'm not sure I can do it again. I may vote Theo as my protest my vote. And I don't even really have strong feelings about MM one way or the other. Just hate one-party rule.

Theo is even more pro-missing middle than MdF. Theo doesn't think this proposal goes far enough. He will not be a protest vote just because he isn't the ACDC-endorsed candidate. He will absolutely be more of the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s depressing how many homeowners are so committed to maintaining exclusionary zoning that they’ll vote for a candidate they know will do a miserable job.

I would support MM if they were talking about duplexes with one required parking space off-street per unit. But quads or more with 0.5 spaces per unit is insane. Plus anything above a duplex is not creating new home ownership opportunities at a lower price point, which is the problem MM is supposed to be solving. Also, if you think it's only going to be 20 units a year (I find that laughable), gradually implement it and only allow 20 the first year to assess demand before you throw existing zoning laws out the window. It's a crazy idea.

Yep. Yep. Yep.
Lots of rentals in the future with missing middle.
Lots of other stuff the County isn't planning for ahead of time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s depressing how many homeowners are so committed to maintaining exclusionary zoning that they’ll vote for a candidate they know will do a miserable job.

Not committed to exclusionary zoning. I'm just asking them to build a 4th high school first!

So committed that you’ll vote for an unqualified candidate because you’re demanding a new school that the county board doesn’t decide whether to build and that projections show we don’t need. Congratulations.

You must be new around here. The CB always finds (I’m being generous, it really is makes up) projections that minimize the number of students in future years and they are ALWAYS wrong. That’s how we wound up with expensive renovated high schools that were overcrowded before they were even finished. And many of us who are opposed already live in the kinds of multi-unit housing they want to expand and live with the ridiculous waivers on things like adequate parking, drainage problems from the addition of too many impervious surfaces, and crowded schools. It has nothing to do with equity, and everything about pandering to developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that people young enough to have kids in APS don't support MM. In my neighborhood, the anti-MM are mostly elderly or people in bigass new builds who go private.

Because young APS parents like me tend not to suffer as much from some common Boomer and Gen Xer afflictions: view homes as retirement accounts, fear of neighborhood change, anxiety over more neighbors, lack of faith in government’s ability to solve problems, and expectation that housing policy should be geared toward juicing property values. Perks of not growing up steeped in Reaganism?

Millennial homeowner here. If I was only concerned about home value I’d be pro-missing middle.

I’m pro-affordable housing, not in favor of recklessly increasing population density with no plan for the impacts of it.

MM isn't about affordable housing. It's about offering a wider range of types of houses at a wider range of prices in a wider range of places. A MM duplex is still going to be pretty effing expensive.

Do you see how reckless it is not to increase density? You're advocating for sprawl.

There are going to be more people in the area. Please suggest a realistic place to put them. And if your answer is "Elsewhere. Arlington is full," congratulations, I guess, on making it clear what your values are.

I agree that planning for a larger population is not an Arlington strength. But a lot of the blame falls on citizens who won't accept plans that have a downside for them (such as more traffic in a particular area during school start and end times, or a larger school population at their school, or smaller fields). A lot also lies with the County and School Boards, who give in to whiners and who will announce that something can't be done because it would be hard or expensive (such as working with FC to address traffic at the Carlin Springs/Kenmore site)

But Audrey Clement? She wants a seat so much she'll say anything to get it. No way an actual Green will push back against MM, which is one of the few ways Arlington can do anything to help with sprawl at all.

[Anonymous]

Could we please stop calling builders "developers"? These are not people with some grand plan. They're tearing down small houses and putting up big ones. It's profitable, it's easy, and there's no vision involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that people young enough to have kids in APS don't support MM. In my neighborhood, the anti-MM are mostly elderly or people in bigass new builds who go private.

Because young APS parents like me tend not to suffer as much from some common Boomer and Gen Xer afflictions: view homes as retirement accounts, fear of neighborhood change, anxiety over more neighbors, lack of faith in government’s ability to solve problems, and expectation that housing policy should be geared toward juicing property values. Perks of not growing up steeped in Reaganism?

Millennial homeowner here. If I was only concerned about home value I’d be pro-missing middle.

I’m pro-affordable housing, not in favor of recklessly increasing population density with no plan for the impacts of it.

MM isn't about affordable housing. It's about offering a wider range of types of houses at a wider range of prices in a wider range of places. A MM duplex is still going to be pretty effing expensive.

Do you see how reckless it is not to increase density? You're advocating for sprawl.

There are going to be more people in the area. Please suggest a realistic place to put them. And if your answer is "Elsewhere. Arlington is full," congratulations, I guess, on making it clear what your values are.

I agree that planning for a larger population is not an Arlington strength. But a lot of the blame falls on citizens who won't accept plans that have a downside for them (such as more traffic in a particular area during school start and end times, or a larger school population at their school, or smaller fields). A lot also lies with the County and School Boards, who give in to whiners and who will announce that something can't be done because it would be hard or expensive (such as working with FC to address traffic at the Carlin Springs/Kenmore site)

But Audrey Clement? She wants a seat so much she'll say anything to get it. No way an actual Green will push back against MM, which is one of the few ways Arlington can do anything to help with sprawl at all.

Huh? No, I didn't say any of that at all. I am for increasing the population density as long as there are plans to handle the impacts of it.

I'd accept the argument that parents blame much of the burden *if* the CB seemed to care about schools at all. But I don't even know when the last time was that they fully funded the schools, and I think that is a bare minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that people young enough to have kids in APS don't support MM. In my neighborhood, the anti-MM are mostly elderly or people in bigass new builds who go private.

Because young APS parents like me tend not to suffer as much from some common Boomer and Gen Xer afflictions: view homes as retirement accounts, fear of neighborhood change, anxiety over more neighbors, lack of faith in government’s ability to solve problems, and expectation that housing policy should be geared toward juicing property values. Perks of not growing up steeped in Reaganism?

Millennial homeowner here. If I was only concerned about home value I’d be pro-missing middle.

I’m pro-affordable housing, not in favor of recklessly increasing population density with no plan for the impacts of it.

What would non-recklessly increasing density look like to you? And how would you make housing more affordable?

It's not what it would look like to me. This has been studied. you can look at some of the literature on google scholar and from nonprofits who advocate for various solutions.

But off the top of my head:

1. Increase gradually. Don't go from SFH to 8-plexes. Start with SFH to duplexes.
2. Increase first in areas that are already walkable.
3. Increase overall walkability, including better public transportation, sidewalks, lower speed limits, speed bumps, and better intersections (non-pedestrian-friendly intersections can be fixed).
4. Mandate driveways or garages in new construction
5. Build more housing that is actually affordable. The affordable housing units in this area have waiting lists that are what, a year long?
6. Build more schools. This is hard because there is so little land in Arlington, but it can definitely be figured out.
7. Make the current schools better. Hire more guidance counselors, increase lunch space, etc.
8. Follow best practices to make sure that an increase in population density doesn't just mean gentrification. There are some more affordable housing options here, like duplexes, and we need to be sure those don't become expensive 8-plexes.

Now, all of this seems expensive? Yes! Yes it is! But if there isn't the money to increase walkability, they either need to find the money by cutting something else or just not increase population density so quickly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that people young enough to have kids in APS don't support MM. In my neighborhood, the anti-MM are mostly elderly or people in bigass new builds who go private.

Because young APS parents like me tend not to suffer as much from some common Boomer and Gen Xer afflictions: view homes as retirement accounts, fear of neighborhood change, anxiety over more neighbors, lack of faith in government’s ability to solve problems, and expectation that housing policy should be geared toward juicing property values. Perks of not growing up steeped in Reaganism?

Millennial homeowner here. If I was only concerned about home value I’d be pro-missing middle.

I’m pro-affordable housing, not in favor of recklessly increasing population density with no plan for the impacts of it.

What would non-recklessly increasing density look like to you? And how would you make housing more affordable?

It's not what it would look like to me. This has been studied. you can look at some of the literature on google scholar and from nonprofits who advocate for various solutions.

But off the top of my head:

1. Increase gradually. Don't go from SFH to 8-plexes. Start with SFH to duplexes.
2. Increase first in areas that are already walkable.
3. Increase overall walkability, including better public transportation, sidewalks, lower speed limits, speed bumps, and better intersections (non-pedestrian-friendly intersections can be fixed).
4. Mandate driveways or garages in new construction
5. Build more housing that is actually affordable. The affordable housing units in this area have waiting lists that are what, a year long?
6. Build more schools. This is hard because there is so little land in Arlington, but it can definitely be figured out.
7. Make the current schools better. Hire more guidance counselors, increase lunch space, etc.
8. Follow best practices to make sure that an increase in population density doesn't just mean gentrification. There are some more affordable housing options here, like duplexes, and we need to be sure those don't become expensive 8-plexes.

Now, all of this seems expensive? Yes! Yes it is! But if there isn't the money to increase walkability, they either need to find the money by cutting something else or just not increase population density so quickly.

Agree with all of this. I think increased density is a good thing IFF it’s well thought-out. If the county had a good vision for missing middle - instead of leaving it up to the builders - then I’d fully support it.

And agree with a PP that builders have no overall vision or concern about community. The only way to address that is via zoning. No more Wild West zoning. Even for SFHs, reduce tree loss, oversized homes, etc. Greedy builders will put up the very cheapest specs homes they can get away with.

[Anonymous]

1. Increase gradually. Don't go from SFH to 8-plexes. Start with SFH to duplexes.

So much this. I'm so tired of the inference that everyone who questions the wisdom of universal zoning change to allow every lot in Arlington to go from SFH to an 8-plex is a racist.

[Anonymous]

How many lots in Arlington are even big enough for an 8-plex?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that people young enough to have kids in APS don't support MM. In my neighborhood, the anti-MM are mostly elderly or people in bigass new builds who go private.

Because young APS parents like me tend not to suffer as much from some common Boomer and Gen Xer afflictions: view homes as retirement accounts, fear of neighborhood change, anxiety over more neighbors, lack of faith in government’s ability to solve problems, and expectation that housing policy should be geared toward juicing property values. Perks of not growing up steeped in Reaganism?

Millennial homeowner here. If I was only concerned about home value I’d be pro-missing middle.

I’m pro-affordable housing, not in favor of recklessly increasing population density with no plan for the impacts of it.

MM isn't about affordable housing. It's about offering a wider range of types of houses at a wider range of prices in a wider range of places. A MM duplex is still going to be pretty effing expensive.

Do you see how reckless it is not to increase density? You're advocating for sprawl.

There are going to be more people in the area. Please suggest a realistic place to put them. And if your answer is "Elsewhere. Arlington is full," congratulations, I guess, on making it clear what your values are.

I agree that planning for a larger population is not an Arlington strength. But a lot of the blame falls on citizens who won't accept plans that have a downside for them (such as more traffic in a particular area during school start and end times, or a larger school population at their school, or smaller fields). A lot also lies with the County and School Boards, who give in to whiners and who will announce that something can't be done because it would be hard or expensive (such as working with FC to address traffic at the Carlin Springs/Kenmore site)

But Audrey Clement? She wants a seat so much she'll say anything to get it. No way an actual Green will push back against MM, which is one of the few ways Arlington can do anything to help with sprawl at all.

Huh? No, I didn't say any of that at all. I am for increasing the population density as long as there are plans to handle the impacts of it.

I'd accept the argument that parents blame much of the burden *if* the CB seemed to care about schools at all. But I don't even know when the last time was that they fully funded the schools, and I think that is a bare minimum.

They fully expect a lot of Arlington to go private. That is 100% their plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How many lots in Arlington are even big enough for an 8-plex?

As I understand it, the new zoning applies to all lots, R5-R20. So in theory, you could build an 8-plex on a smaller lot, just each unit is much smaller. Arlington has a presentation that shows you can build up to 4800 sq ft on an R5-R8 lot. They assume that would be two duplexes at 2400 sq ft each (each of which is bigger than most existing SFHs in Arlington). But as I read it, you could also built 6 800-ft units, or 8 600-ft units. There is no min size.

This is the kind of stuff I'm concerned about with wholescale changes like they are talking about. You may think it's unlikely, and Arlington may too, but if we don't want that to happen, we should not change the code in a way that this is permissible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that people young enough to have kids in APS don't support MM. In my neighborhood, the anti-MM are mostly elderly or people in bigass new builds who go private.

Because young APS parents like me tend not to suffer as much from some common Boomer and Gen Xer afflictions: view homes as retirement accounts, fear of neighborhood change, anxiety over more neighbors, lack of faith in government’s ability to solve problems, and expectation that housing policy should be geared toward juicing property values. Perks of not growing up steeped in Reaganism?

Millennial homeowner here. If I was only concerned about home value I’d be pro-missing middle.

I’m pro-affordable housing, not in favor of recklessly increasing population density with no plan for the impacts of it.

MM isn't about affordable housing. It's about offering a wider range of types of houses at a wider range of prices in a wider range of places. A MM duplex is still going to be pretty effing expensive.

Do you see how reckless it is not to increase density? You're advocating for sprawl.

There are going to be more people in the area. Please suggest a realistic place to put them. And if your answer is "Elsewhere. Arlington is full," congratulations, I guess, on making it clear what your values are.

I agree that planning for a larger population is not an Arlington strength. But a lot of the blame falls on citizens who won't accept plans that have a downside for them (such as more traffic in a particular area during school start and end times, or a larger school population at their school, or smaller fields). A lot also lies with the County and School Boards, who give in to whiners and who will announce that something can't be done because it would be hard or expensive (such as working with FC to address traffic at the Carlin Springs/Kenmore site)

But Audrey Clement? She wants a seat so much she'll say anything to get it. No way an actual Green will push back against MM, which is one of the few ways Arlington can do anything to help with sprawl at all.

Huh? No, I didn't say any of that at all. I am for increasing the population density as long as there are plans to handle the impacts of it.

I'd accept the argument that parents blame much of the burden *if* the CB seemed to care about schools at all. But I don't even know when the last time was that they fully funded the schools, and I think that is a bare minimum.

They fully expect a lot of Arlington to go private. That is 100% their plan.

There are not enough good private schools for that (esp that go through high school) and a lot of the privates don't have buses so that undercuts their arguments that having more people live in Arlington is better for the planet because Arlington residents don't drive that much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many lots in Arlington are even big enough for an 8-plex?

As I understand it, the new zoning applies to all lots, R5-R20. So in theory, you could build an 8-plex on a smaller lot, just each unit is much smaller. Arlington has a presentation that shows you can build up to 4800 sq ft on an R5-R8 lot. They assume that would be two duplexes at 2400 sq ft each (each of which is bigger than most existing SFHs in Arlington). But as I read it, you could also built 6 800-ft units, or 8 600-ft units. There is no min size.

This is the kind of stuff I'm concerned about with wholescale changes like they are talking about. You may think it's unlikely, and Arlington may too, but if we don't want that to happen, we should not change the code in a way that this is permissible.

+1

There is so much money to be made here. When there is a will there is a way. We can’t let people whose sole interest is money control how growth happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm surprised that people young enough to have kids in APS don't support MM. In my neighborhood, the anti-MM are mostly elderly or people in bigass new builds who go private.

Because young APS parents like me tend not to suffer as much from some common Boomer and Gen Xer afflictions: view homes as retirement accounts, fear of neighborhood change, anxiety over more neighbors, lack of faith in government’s ability to solve problems, and expectation that housing policy should be geared toward juicing property values. Perks of not growing up steeped in Reaganism?

Millennial homeowner here. If I was only concerned about home value I’d be pro-missing middle.

I’m pro-affordable housing, not in favor of recklessly increasing population density with no plan for the impacts of it.

What would non-recklessly increasing density look like to you? And how would you make housing more affordable?

It's not what it would look like to me. This has been studied. you can look at some of the literature on google scholar and from nonprofits who advocate for various solutions.

But off the top of my head:

1. Increase gradually. Don't go from SFH to 8-plexes. Start with SFH to duplexes.
2. Increase first in areas that are already walkable.
3. Increase overall walkability, including better public transportation, sidewalks, lower speed limits, speed bumps, and better intersections (non-pedestrian-friendly intersections can be fixed).
4. Mandate driveways or garages in new construction
5. Build more housing that is actually affordable. The affordable housing units in this area have waiting lists that are what, a year long?
6. Build more schools. This is hard because there is so little land in Arlington, but it can definitely be figured out.
7. Make the current schools better. Hire more guidance counselors, increase lunch space, etc.
8. Follow best practices to make sure that an increase in population density doesn't just mean gentrification. There are some more affordable housing options here, like duplexes, and we need to be sure those don't become expensive 8-plexes.

Now, all of this seems expensive? Yes! Yes it is! But if there isn't the money to increase walkability, they either need to find the money by cutting something else or just not increase population density so quickly.

Agree with all of this. I think increased density is a good thing IFF it’s well thought-out. If the county had a good vision for missing middle - instead of leaving it up to the builders - then I’d fully support it.

And agree with a PP that builders have no overall vision or concern about community. The only way to address that is via zoning. No more Wild West zoning. Even for SFHs, reduce tree loss, oversized homes, etc. Greedy builders will put up the very cheapest specs homes they can get away with.

+1,000,000. Many of us who are concerned aren't racist or anti density or whatever names you want to throw out. We're concerned about the county's planning for it, or lack thereof. They use some absurdly low numbers about number of cars and number of students, and it's just not realistic. Schools are already crowded, rec lessons and summer camps already fill up in minutes, practice fields are hard to come by. And that's just the effects on school aged families, let alone other services for other populations. Make a plan that actually addresses how they can properly resource the existing density let alone additional density, with realistic numbers that upzoning will result in, then I'm all for it.

Also, if we are truly concerned about equity and affordable housing, then require that anything built under MM zoning be owner occupied. Because if they're not, that's just more money in rental income for the rich who buy them. MM without this does nothing to solve, for example, the intergenerational wealth that Black families were prevented from acquiring due to redlining.