Reply to Arlington "missing middle"

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Arlington "missing middle""

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If cramming housing in to every square inch makes a place affordable, explain Manhattan to us.[/quote]

So much ignorance. Didn't you take an econ class at some point? 
[/quote]

The clueless crap that I read on DCUM by [b]supposedly educated and high earning people[/b] is a window into the origin of our current state of affairs. Like these people have never dead a book or even browsed wikipedia before opining on anything and everything.[/quote]

DCUM isn't as homogeneous as you believe. There are some f-ing idiots. 
[/quote]

In addition to the f-ing idiots, there are posters on DCUM who are [i]willfully[/i] ignorant, and are motivated to remain so by their bizarre desire to [b]encase their neighborhood in amber and prevent any changes whatsoever[/b].[/quote]

Ah, I recognize you! Don’t you have anything else to do but post repeatedly all over DCUM and Nextdoor. Lol.
[/quote]
NP, but I agree with the PP. I have yet to see an anti-MM argument that doesn’t boil down to “I don’t want change”. What is the argument against? The big one, not the BS “tree canopy/street parking/school capacity” etc. Those are broader issues not specific to MM. I have yet to see a concrete argument specifically against MM, and it just comes across as fear. Arlington is changing. Either it is enormous 7k sq ft McMansions owned by tech/consulting or it is higher density, but those non-historically significant ramblers and colonials are turning over. I’m not sure how anyone looks at land surrounding the pentagon, across from the capitol and thinks “this should remain low density neighborhoods.” [/quote]

Exactly. [/quote]

That’s a Trumpian take on things that only shows you’ve chosen to ignore every argument presented in this thread as well as credible arguments ignored when thrive MoCo was passed, and basically every bit of academic research that shows that there isn’t much utility in this type of zoning mismanagement versus disruption in neighborhoods.

Can either of you present some evidence that meddling with existing zoning will accomplish the goals of affordable housing?  More home ownership? Lower rent? Better schools? Less congestion?

Anything in the way of proof?  Have you ever thought that maybe people would just like to think that something might work before making changes?

Seems that if you need more density near the Pentagon you’d change the zoning to build high density in some areas.  What does it accomplish to “upzone” some SFH neighborhoods?  What’s the aggregate good in that?  Planning exists for a reason.

Numbers, please, or we can just write this off as more YIMBY fantasy.[/quote]

PP, it's ok to say "I don't want my neighborhood to change." Or even "I don't want Arlington to change." [/quote]

This! Home and land owners from Chain Bridge to Spot Run, were quite agitated about the development of residential neighborhoods like Rivercrest, etc. "It's going to ruin Arlington! and It's the beginning of the end." They predicted doom and tried to scare everyone. But change is inevitable, neighborhoods evolve over time. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics