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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. Builders (& developers) DGAF about the community or the long-term impacts to trees, schools, etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1/-1

I don’t think missing middle needs to address everything, but it should be done in a thoughtful manner that addresses long-term impacts.

I fully support other plans (or even enhancing MM) to address AH, redlining, etc. But it’s not a requirement for MM.

[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.

Exactly!

[Anonymous]

I just can't get over the fact that the missing middle "solution" doesn't actually solve the problem that it sets out to address. These new places aren't going to be "affordable housing" for teachers or others who work here. They're going to be extremely expensive upper middle class housing that's basically a cash grab for developers, meanwhile there's no provisions being made for space in schools or other effects. wtf Arlington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just can't get over the fact that the missing middle "solution" doesn't actually solve the problem that it sets out to address. These new places aren't going to be "affordable housing" for teachers or others who work here. They're going to be extremely expensive upper middle class housing that's basically a cash grab for developers, meanwhile there's no provisions being made for space in schools or other effects. wtf Arlington?

It wasn't about solving the "affordable housing" issue.

???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly!

Minneapolis has a city council that is given to wild swings to chase the latest intellectual fad. When they abolished single-family zoning a few years ago, even they topped out at triplexes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just can't get over the fact that the missing middle "solution" doesn't actually solve the problem that it sets out to address. These new places aren't going to be "affordable housing" for teachers or others who work here. They're going to be extremely expensive upper middle class housing that's basically a cash grab for developers, meanwhile there's no provisions being made for space in schools or other effects. wtf Arlington?

It wasn't about solving the "affordable housing" issue.

???

That's actually another issue I have with this whole thing. When I first saw the term "missing middle" my thought was *not* housing, it was income, or at least housing that middle-income people could afford. Yes as soon as I looked into it I realized it wasn't an initiative to help teachers live here, but I really do think the name of the initiative is misleading and makes it sound a lot more altruistic than it is.

- NP

[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.

This. Make some zoning changes but keep them reasonable. Why does it need to be all or nothing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just can't get over the fact that the missing middle "solution" doesn't actually solve the problem that it sets out to address. These new places aren't going to be "affordable housing" for teachers or others who work here. They're going to be extremely expensive upper middle class housing that's basically a cash grab for developers, meanwhile there's no provisions being made for space in schools or other effects. wtf Arlington?

It wasn't about solving the "affordable housing" issue.

???

That's actually another issue I have with this whole thing. When I first saw the term "missing middle" my thought was *not* housing, it was income, or at least housing that middle-income people could afford. Yes as soon as I looked into it I realized it wasn't an initiative to help teachers live here, but I really do think the name of the initiative is misleading and makes it sound a lot more altruistic than it is.

- NP

You're absolutely right. The CB didn't help with the confusion by starting the whole conversation about the idea of missing middle as a way to make homeownership more affordable for our teachers, etc. That's exactly how they started the whole thing.

[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.

You are not quite understanding it. There is one proposal to allow 8-plexes everywhere, another that would allow them only on lots of 12K SF.

Opponents of MM are trying to run out the clock; the pace of teardowns hasn't slowed much, and eventually there won't be any properties left that are candidates, because no one is talking about tearing down a 10YO 6BR new build. I suppose someone could convert one, but that seems like more work, which is not what builders like.

The memo below is 40 pages; the table with the two options is on page 7.
https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/commissions/documents/zoco/lrpc-zoco-mmhs-2022-10-31.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

+100 and those who think an 8-plex is just fine. How would you feel if the new McMansion on your block generated 8+ cars parking on your already narrow street?

I would support at most triplexes with required at least one off street parking spot per unit.

[Anonymous]

I think I might write in Vistdaht (after I learn how to spell his name). I feel like that's enough of a protest vote without supporting somebody who disturbs me. He seemed to be the best I've seen as far as a board member caring about schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just can't get over the fact that the missing middle "solution" doesn't actually solve the problem that it sets out to address. These new places aren't going to be "affordable housing" for teachers or others who work here. They're going to be extremely expensive upper middle class housing that's basically a cash grab for developers, meanwhile there's no provisions being made for space in schools or other effects. wtf Arlington?

It wasn't about solving the "affordable housing" issue.

???

That's actually another issue I have with this whole thing. When I first saw the term "missing middle" my thought was *not* housing, it was income, or at least housing that middle-income people could afford. Yes as soon as I looked into it I realized it wasn't an initiative to help teachers live here, but I really do think the name of the initiative is misleading and makes it sound a lot more altruistic than it is.

- NP

I saw it as the "missing middle" of housing. We have SFHs. We have apartment buildings. We already have some THs but could use more units in the middle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think I might write in Vistdaht (after I learn how to spell his name). I feel like that's enough of a protest vote without supporting somebody who disturbs me. He seemed to be the best I've seen as far as a board member caring about schools.

I voted for him in the past, but he lost my vote forever when he aligned himself with the crazy Open Schools crowd. Big fat NOPE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think I might write in Vistdaht (after I learn how to spell his name). I feel like that's enough of a protest vote without supporting somebody who disturbs me. He seemed to be the best I've seen as far as a board member caring about schools.

I voted for him in the past, but he lost my vote forever when he aligned himself with the crazy Open Schools crowd. Big fat NOPE.

Bleh. So who are you voting for?