Reply to MM Is Dead

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MM Is Dead"

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]Nimbys are the worst. Seriously. You’re ruining this country. [/quote]

How is this ruining the country? Because people need to live in areas that comport with their affordability instead of the government trying to get everyone a prize at the expense of current homeowners? No one has a right to live in Arlington. It’s a very nice and expensive place.

I would love a house in Newport Beach. I can’t afford a $8M house so I don’t live there. [/quote]

because EVERYTHING that is a common good gets opposed by NIMBYs. Preschools, high schools, sidewalks, solar powed, waste treatment plants … [/quote]

I agree to some extent. All for solar, better infrastructure, etc but eliminating SFH zoning is not needed. There is plenty of room to build up - apts, condos, etc. people here just look down on those types of homes. Everywhere Else in the world, a condo is a fine place to live. Wealthier people live in the larger suburban homes, most live in condos/apts. le[/quote]

But the choices should not be limited to 1000 sqft condo or 4000 sqft SFH. It would be nice to have more housing in the middle. [/quote]

So maybe you need to do what the rest of us did and buy a small 1.5 bath colonial fixer-upper or a small 2 bed ranch with an original kitchen and bath? Only the new construction is 4000 sqft for a SFH. And consider existing duplexes and townhomes in South Arlington, also like we did. Put in some sweat equity and make a profit.

But if MM stands, all those existing homes will be torn down to make way for new construction that is unaffordable to anyone in the middle, regardless of sqft. Whether it’s a 4000 sqft SFH or a six-plex, it’s not going to make a real dent in affordability or the regional housing crisis with a cap of 50 per year. It’s just enough to piss off current residents when parking and tree canopy and storm water and school crowding aren’t addressed simultaneously. We need many, many more high rises in the R-B corridor and “National Landing” and there’s lots of office space that is sitting empty that could make an actual dent in housing and affordability and transit access without upsetting the entire SFH resident owner population. Unless, of course, you’re not actually interested in solving these issues. [/quote]

Thanks for the suggestions but I already have a house in Arlington. But I also am aware that housing in the middle is limited. Any lot suitable for a new build is already bought by a developer, and I’d rather see a duplex be constructed than a hideous McMansion. [/quote]

I think if they’d just done duplexes there wouldn’t have even been a lawsuit. But the six-plexes approved for 5000 sqft lots was pure stupidity. That means no dedicated space for parking and who wants a dumpster next door when you didn’t buy in an area that ever had dumpsters before or where you suddenly have to fight for street parking? Of course it ended this way. Better to refocus energy on changing rules for lot coverage and make storm water regulations/non-permeable coverage limits so stringent and expensive that it’s not worth it for developers to prevent this McMansion spread and tree destruction. [/quote]

As a current Arlington homeowner, I don’t want to dumpy duplex next to me either! If I was fine with that, I would have lived in a more populated area of Arlington, not in my nice quiet neighborhood where I am now.[/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