Why does anyone want to live in Arlington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One thing I love about Arlington is the size. You’re never more than 20 minutes away from anything.

Try telling that to all the people complaining when their kids might have to go to a school that isn't the closest to their neighborhood.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

This is true. Each time we have family visit us from anywhere, they're like, "Whoa. Not just one, but EVERY playground is so cool."

+1 on the parks. But where do you think that money comes from. I would rather have less parks and live in an area where you don't need to have over $200k per household to be able to manage things.

A lot of people manage just fine with less than $200K.

Would love to see who these people are that "manage just fine" with less than $200k. I think your head might be in the sand on this one.

I think we fall in that category, though I guess it depends on your metric. We live in a large condo with a small yard, save money, contribute to retirement/529 and take a couple vacations a year. I’m happy with our life

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

This is true. Each time we have family visit us from anywhere, they're like, "Whoa. Not just one, but EVERY playground is so cool."

+1 on the parks. But where do you think that money comes from. I would rather have less parks and live in an area where you don't need to have over $200k per household to be able to manage things.

A lot of people manage just fine with less than $200K.

Would love to see who these people are that "manage just fine" with less than $200k. I think your head might be in the sand on this one.

I think we fall in that category, though I guess it depends on your metric. We live in a large condo with a small yard, save money, contribute to retirement/529 and take a couple vacations a year. I’m happy with our life

We probably fall in this category too. However, we would prefer a SFH but the schools we wanted, we couldn’t afford one, so we had to go with a small townhome. We vacation, contribute to retirement but it’s not easy and we have to give up stuff. This area is tough and we often consider leaving but have kiddos in MS and HS. At this point it doesn’t seem worth it. 🫤

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact a family has to figure out how to manage and make things work when they bring in $200k or just less, is why Arlington is the worst.

It's not like we're sitting down and writing a to-the-penny budget every month. We just don't live extravagantly and probably wouldn't even with higher income. There are times that big expenses hit at once and it does take delving into savings. But that's what savings is for. My point was that I disagree with the poster saying living in Arlington is tough at $350K. If that's the case, you've probably over-extended yourself on something....likely a big house or a place specifically in the most expensive neighborhoods because anything less is unacceptable.

Every neighborhood is expensive these days, the only difference is what you get for your money. At current interest rates, I don’t see how you afford a SFH (average price $1.3m) on less than $350k unless you have family money or a huge amount of equity built up from a previous purchase. Your other options are pretty much limited to condos if you can’t snag one of the relatively few older townhomes or duplexes out there.

I guess you could rent a tear down or cram 2 kids into a 2 bedroom condo, but that’s not exactly what most people think of when they think of “upper middle class lifestyle.”

I don't disagree. And we did purchase our home many years ago. I do think many in Arlington are paying way more than the recommended %age of their income on their homes. And/or getting money from parents or other sources. Still, when we purchased our home, prices were significantly inflated and we did not purchase in any of the most "desirable" neighborhoods because it was above our budget. Nevertheless, others are unwilling to make those sacrifices in their decisions and "must have" the neighborhood/the school/the new or renovated house that doesn't need work/etc. I don't know how many households are over $350K; but clearly clearly many, many, many people in Arlington are able to get by or afford it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

If only we could get that same investment in the schools. Priorities are a bit off IMO.

Agreed! APS is not investing in ALL students given the amount of money in their budget. Parks are great, but I would rather have GREAT schools.

You are not going to have great schools when 1/3 the kids are FARMS. It just won't happen.

That's not true. The problem isn't the proportion in the system. The problem is the concentration of percentages within individual schools. I grew up in a small midwestern town with excellent schools. The FRM rate was over 1/3rd. And they weren't spending $20K per student to do it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

If only we could get that same investment in the schools. Priorities are a bit off IMO.

Agreed! APS is not investing in ALL students given the amount of money in their budget. Parks are great, but I would rather have GREAT schools.

You are not going to have great schools when 1/3 the kids are FARMS. It just won't happen.

+1

way too many kids in APS are FARMS. It's never going to be the district it once was.

Ludicrous and ignorant statement. APS used to be excellent even with the 30% FRM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

This is true. Each time we have family visit us from anywhere, they're like, "Whoa. Not just one, but EVERY playground is so cool."

+1 on the parks. But where do you think that money comes from. I would rather have less parks and live in an area where you don't need to have over $200k per household to be able to manage things.

A lot of people manage just fine with less than $200K.

Would love to see who these people are that "manage just fine" with less than $200k. I think your head might be in the sand on this one.

Well, my family is one. And many of the people in my SFH neighborhood are others. But I'm not going to start citing a list of names for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

If only we could get that same investment in the schools. Priorities are a bit off IMO.

Agreed! APS is not investing in ALL students given the amount of money in their budget. Parks are great, but I would rather have GREAT schools.

You are not going to have great schools when 1/3 the kids are FARMS. It just won't happen.

That's not true. The problem isn't the proportion in the system. The problem is the concentration of percentages within individual schools. I grew up in a small midwestern town with excellent schools. The FRM rate was over 1/3rd. And they weren't spending $20K per student to do it.

Is APS at $20k per student now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

This is true. Each time we have family visit us from anywhere, they're like, "Whoa. Not just one, but EVERY playground is so cool."

+1 on the parks. But where do you think that money comes from. I would rather have less parks and live in an area where you don't need to have over $200k per household to be able to manage things.

A lot of people manage just fine with less than $200K.

Would love to see who these people are that "manage just fine" with less than $200k. I think your head might be in the sand on this one.

Well, my family is one. And many of the people in my SFH neighborhood are others. But I'm not going to start citing a list of names for you.

There might be a lot but my guess is there are more who are not able to just manage because they make way less than that and/or are a single income home. Not everyone here is able to make six figures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

If only we could get that same investment in the schools. Priorities are a bit off IMO.

Agreed! APS is not investing in ALL students given the amount of money in their budget. Parks are great, but I would rather have GREAT schools.

You are not going to have great schools when 1/3 the kids are FARMS. It just won't happen.

+1

way too many kids in APS are FARMS. It's never going to be the district it once was.

Ludicrous and ignorant statement. APS used to be excellent even with the 30% FRM.

The way things are being run APS is not on track to be what it was at one time. Regardless of the numbers, APS is a sinking ship and it has been for the past few years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

If only we could get that same investment in the schools. Priorities are a bit off IMO.

Agreed! APS is not investing in ALL students given the amount of money in their budget. Parks are great, but I would rather have GREAT schools.

You are not going to have great schools when 1/3 the kids are FARMS. It just won't happen.

+1

way too many kids in APS are FARMS. It's never going to be the district it once was.

Ludicrous and ignorant statement. APS used to be excellent even with the 30% FRM.

The way things are being run APS is not on track to be what it was at one time. Regardless of the numbers, APS is a sinking ship and it has been for the past few years.

I agree. But citing too many poor kids as the reason they will never be a great school system is ludicrous and ignorant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

If only we could get that same investment in the schools. Priorities are a bit off IMO.

Agreed! APS is not investing in ALL students given the amount of money in their budget. Parks are great, but I would rather have GREAT schools.

You are not going to have great schools when 1/3 the kids are FARMS. It just won't happen.

+1

way too many kids in APS are FARMS. It's never going to be the district it once was.

Ludicrous and ignorant statement. APS used to be excellent even with the 30% FRM.

The way things are being run APS is not on track to be what it was at one time. Regardless of the numbers, APS is a sinking ship and it has been for the past few years.

I agree. But citing too many poor kids as the reason they will never be a great school system is ludicrous and ignorant.

APS is a sinking ship as the PP stated but I don’t think it’s because of too many poor kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

If only we could get that same investment in the schools. Priorities are a bit off IMO.

Agreed! APS is not investing in ALL students given the amount of money in their budget. Parks are great, but I would rather have GREAT schools.

You are not going to have great schools when 1/3 the kids are FARMS. It just won't happen.

+1

way too many kids in APS are FARMS. It's never going to be the district it once was.

Ludicrous and ignorant statement. APS used to be excellent even with the 30% FRM.

The way things are being run APS is not on track to be what it was at one time. Regardless of the numbers, APS is a sinking ship and it has been for the past few years.

I agree. But citing too many poor kids as the reason they will never be a great school system is ludicrous and ignorant.

APS is a sinking ship as the PP stated but I don’t think it’s because of too many poor kids.

NP. Longtime homeowner and involved parent with kids in APS now. I am aware of many challenges in APS but I disagree the system is sliding downhill. For one thing, I don't think folks appreciated how demographics have changed so much - families for last 20 years enjoyed the extra infrastructure and per-pupil focus of the gap left behind by baby boomers when they were students. I agree we were slow to respond to the new wave of student population, but that has a LOT to do with the County Board's policies housing and budgeting. Part and parcel is that the baby boomers moved on from focusing on schools to the board and building community centers, libraries, car-less, age-in-place, etc. that matter to boomers. APS struggles in part because they are no longer THE focus like they were during a certain period of time. County Board and staff repeatedly stress that families with kids are only 20% of Arlington, meaning they are justified in spending elsewhere. APS should have received far more county budget for infrastructure in past 15 years but board kept a stranglehold - (in part because they didn't want to see "too much" school infra built and left empty someday. Ironically, there may come a day when all the boomers are gone and the senior centers sit empty...maybe then we can convert them into schools, ha!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

If only we could get that same investment in the schools. Priorities are a bit off IMO.

Agreed! APS is not investing in ALL students given the amount of money in their budget. Parks are great, but I would rather have GREAT schools.

You are not going to have great schools when 1/3 the kids are FARMS. It just won't happen.

+1

way too many kids in APS are FARMS. It's never going to be the district it once was.

Ludicrous and ignorant statement. APS used to be excellent even with the 30% FRM.

The way things are being run APS is not on track to be what it was at one time. Regardless of the numbers, APS is a sinking ship and it has been for the past few years.

I agree. But citing too many poor kids as the reason they will never be a great school system is ludicrous and ignorant.

APS is a sinking ship as the PP stated but I don’t think it’s because of too many poor kids.

NP. Longtime homeowner and involved parent with kids in APS now. I am aware of many challenges in APS but I disagree the system is sliding downhill. For one thing, I don't think folks appreciated how demographics have changed so much - families for last 20 years enjoyed the extra infrastructure and per-pupil focus of the gap left behind by baby boomers when they were students. I agree we were slow to respond to the new wave of student population, but that has a LOT to do with the County Board's policies housing and budgeting. Part and parcel is that the baby boomers moved on from focusing on schools to the board and building community centers, libraries, car-less, age-in-place, etc. that matter to boomers. APS struggles in part because they are no longer THE focus like they were during a certain period of time. County Board and staff repeatedly stress that families with kids are only 20% of Arlington, meaning they are justified in spending elsewhere. APS should have received far more county budget for infrastructure in past 15 years but board kept a stranglehold - (in part because they didn't want to see "too much" school infra built and left empty someday. Ironically, there may come a day when all the boomers are gone and the senior centers sit empty...maybe then we can convert them into schools, ha!

A sidenote, but this statistic bothers me so much. They say that families with children make up only 20% of Arlington households. Well, a single 20-something living in Ballston represents 1 household, and a married couple with three kids represents one household. So that statistic weighs them equally, yet the second household has twice as many voters in it, and five times as many citizens/residents. Look at it that way and it evens things out a bit.

But even if "parents of school-aged children" represent a minority in Arlington, that still discounts the rights and needs of children. So the talking point about 20% of households seems to be saying "kids don't vote, so they aren't entitled to a share of public resources that rises in proportion to their needs". Public schools aren't some pork-barrel project to win over the votes of parents of young children. They exist because education is a public good.

Sorry. Rant over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm impressed at how much Arlington spends/invests in its parks, trails, and even dog parks. It's a great place to live.

If only we could get that same investment in the schools. Priorities are a bit off IMO.

Agreed! APS is not investing in ALL students given the amount of money in their budget. Parks are great, but I would rather have GREAT schools.

You are not going to have great schools when 1/3 the kids are FARMS. It just won't happen.

+1

way too many kids in APS are FARMS. It's never going to be the district it once was.

Ludicrous and ignorant statement. APS used to be excellent even with the 30% FRM.

The way things are being run APS is not on track to be what it was at one time. Regardless of the numbers, APS is a sinking ship and it has been for the past few years.

I agree. But citing too many poor kids as the reason they will never be a great school system is ludicrous and ignorant.

APS is a sinking ship as the PP stated but I don’t think it’s because of too many poor kids.

NP. Longtime homeowner and involved parent with kids in APS now. I am aware of many challenges in APS but I disagree the system is sliding downhill. For one thing, I don't think folks appreciated how demographics have changed so much - families for last 20 years enjoyed the extra infrastructure and per-pupil focus of the gap left behind by baby boomers when they were students. I agree we were slow to respond to the new wave of student population, but that has a LOT to do with the County Board's policies housing and budgeting. Part and parcel is that the baby boomers moved on from focusing on schools to the board and building community centers, libraries, car-less, age-in-place, etc. that matter to boomers. APS struggles in part because they are no longer THE focus like they were during a certain period of time. County Board and staff repeatedly stress that families with kids are only 20% of Arlington, meaning they are justified in spending elsewhere. APS should have received far more county budget for infrastructure in past 15 years but board kept a stranglehold - (in part because they didn't want to see "too much" school infra built and left empty someday. Ironically, there may come a day when all the boomers are gone and the senior centers sit empty...maybe then we can convert them into schools, ha!

A sidenote, but this statistic bothers me so much. They say that families with children make up only 20% of Arlington households. Well, a single 20-something living in Ballston represents 1 household, and a married couple with three kids represents one household. So that statistic weighs them equally, yet the second household has twice as many voters in it, and five times as many citizens/residents. Look at it that way and it evens things out a bit.

But even if "parents of school-aged children" represent a minority in Arlington, that still discounts the rights and needs of children. So the talking point about 20% of households seems to be saying "kids don't vote, so they aren't entitled to a share of public resources that rises in proportion to their needs". Public schools aren't some pork-barrel project to win over the votes of parents of young children. They exist because education is a public good.

Sorry. Rant over.

It also ignores the fact that a lot of households without children in school will either eventually have children in the schools or previously had children in the schools and a good school system gets that group to put down roots, build community here, and want to stay and pay taxes for years beyond that. Which is something the county should care about.