Reply to The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution "

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Oh see you're talking about like lawns[/quote]

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.[/quote]

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave  more space for nature than another. [/quote]

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used.  The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.[/quote]

Which one of those is rock creek park?[/quote]

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?[/quote]

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.[/quote]

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc.  Just as with schools.  Or utility infrastructure.  So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked.  Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.[/quote]

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....[/quote]

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro.  Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas.  I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything... :roll:[/quote]

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density". [/quote]

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.[/quote]

Alright, in that case not our problem. Density doesn’t save money because the feds and state subsidize infrastructure. So the main concern for impact on taxpayers is school enrollment. Density increased school enrollment and the burden on taxpayers. [/quote]

You don't pay state or federal taxes?[/quote]

County level spending attributable to state and federal funding have  almost no impact on my federal/state tax burden or anyone else's for that matter. For every $100 increase in state spending attributable to Arlington, it costs Arlington less than $5 in additional State level taxes. For every $100 increase in federal spending attributable to Arlington, it costs Arlington less than $0.15 in additional federal level taxes. It is completely irrational for a Arlington to be concerned about the impact that their spending has on state or federal budgets because the county loses $95 for every $100 they save Virginia and the county loses $99.85 for every $100 it saves the federal government. [/quote]

Wow. We should pay for everything using federal dollars, since apparently those are free. Definitely nothing with that logic.[/quote]

Well it’s not rational to minimize federal spending on a local level. It costs the county money. If you don’t like how the current system works change the funding mechanisms, but this is how it currently works. [/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