Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all of this proves that HOAs are in fact good.

All of this proves that for people who want to control what their neighbors do with their property, they should have moved to a neighborhood with an HOA.

You mistake control with agreement for mutual benefit, i.e. solving a collective action problem.

Ah yes, the “collective action problem” of living near multifamily housing. Might as well start getting used to it.

You’re one of those people that hate Haussmann’s renovation of Paris.

Paris is lovely! It's one of the densest, most livable cities in the world. It's actually the ubiquity of mid-rise multifamily buildings, with ground-floor retail and restaurants, throughout the city that makes it so livable. We should try it!

So would all the poor people in this scenario live in high rises in Prince William County?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/how-the-rise-of-american-style-segregation-is-feeding-division-in-europe/

That’s the goal.

No, we should build homes for them as part of mixed-income neighborhoods.

Ok, so not like Paris then.

Seems like you should be requesting that the county board mandate that 1/3 of all new missing middle units be permanently affordable if you want your vision to be a reality.

Paris’ challenge is that its urban core is mostly built-out. It’d have to knock down mid-rises to build high-rises. We don’t have that problem. Almost 80% of our residential land is single family houses. We can add a bunch more housing by converting those.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all of this proves that HOAs are in fact good.

All of this proves that for people who want to control what their neighbors do with their property, they should have moved to a neighborhood with an HOA.

You mistake control with agreement for mutual benefit, i.e. solving a collective action problem.

Ah yes, the “collective action problem” of living near multifamily housing. Might as well start getting used to it.

You’re one of those people that hate Haussmann’s renovation of Paris.

Paris is lovely! It's one of the densest, most livable cities in the world. It's actually the ubiquity of mid-rise multifamily buildings, with ground-floor retail and restaurants, throughout the city that makes it so livable. We should try it!

So would all the poor people in this scenario live in high rises in Prince William County?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/how-the-rise-of-american-style-segregation-is-feeding-division-in-europe/

That’s the goal.

No, we should build homes for them as part of mixed-income neighborhoods.

Ok, so not like Paris then.

Seems like you should be requesting that the county board mandate that 1/3 of all new missing middle units be permanently affordable if you want your vision to be a reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all of this proves that HOAs are in fact good.

All of this proves that for people who want to control what their neighbors do with their property, they should have moved to a neighborhood with an HOA.

You mistake control with agreement for mutual benefit, i.e. solving a collective action problem.

Ah yes, the “collective action problem” of living near multifamily housing. Might as well start getting used to it.

You’re one of those people that hate Haussmann’s renovation of Paris.

Paris is lovely! It's one of the densest, most livable cities in the world. It's actually the ubiquity of mid-rise multifamily buildings, with ground-floor retail and restaurants, throughout the city that makes it so livable. We should try it!

So would all the poor people in this scenario live in high rises in Prince William County?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/how-the-rise-of-american-style-segregation-is-feeding-division-in-europe/

That’s the goal.

No, we should build homes for them as part of mixed-income neighborhoods.

Ok, so not like Paris then.

Seems like you should be requesting that the county board mandate that 1/3 of all new missing middle units be permanently affordable if you want your vision to be a reality.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all of this proves that HOAs are in fact good.

All of this proves that for people who want to control what their neighbors do with their property, they should have moved to a neighborhood with an HOA.

You mistake control with agreement for mutual benefit, i.e. solving a collective action problem.

Ah yes, the “collective action problem” of living near multifamily housing. Might as well start getting used to it.

You’re one of those people that hate Haussmann’s renovation of Paris.

Paris is lovely! It's one of the densest, most livable cities in the world. It's actually the ubiquity of mid-rise multifamily buildings, with ground-floor retail and restaurants, throughout the city that makes it so livable. We should try it!

How can such a wonderful place be created and maintained based on a premise of controlling what other people can do with their property? How awful.

That is, um, not an accurate description of how Paris got rebuilt under Napoleon.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all of this proves that HOAs are in fact good.

All of this proves that for people who want to control what their neighbors do with their property, they should have moved to a neighborhood with an HOA.

You mistake control with agreement for mutual benefit, i.e. solving a collective action problem.

Ah yes, the “collective action problem” of living near multifamily housing. Might as well start getting used to it.

You’re one of those people that hate Haussmann’s renovation of Paris.

Paris is lovely! It's one of the densest, most livable cities in the world. It's actually the ubiquity of mid-rise multifamily buildings, with ground-floor retail and restaurants, throughout the city that makes it so livable. We should try it!

So would all the poor people in this scenario live in high rises in Prince William County?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/how-the-rise-of-american-style-segregation-is-feeding-division-in-europe/

That’s the goal.

No, we should build homes for them as part of mixed-income neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all of this proves that HOAs are in fact good.

All of this proves that for people who want to control what their neighbors do with their property, they should have moved to a neighborhood with an HOA.

You mistake control with agreement for mutual benefit, i.e. solving a collective action problem.

Ah yes, the “collective action problem” of living near multifamily housing. Might as well start getting used to it.

You’re one of those people that hate Haussmann’s renovation of Paris.

Paris is lovely! It's one of the densest, most livable cities in the world. It's actually the ubiquity of mid-rise multifamily buildings, with ground-floor retail and restaurants, throughout the city that makes it so livable. We should try it!

How can such a wonderful place be created and maintained based on a premise of controlling what other people can do with their property? How awful.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a mistake to add more density without concrete plans to add schools, accommodate the additional traffic, need for parking, public services like libraries and community centers and on and on.

I’m not an Arlington resident but I live somewhere that has experienced a lot of unchecked “upcoming” and I can tell you firsthand that adding density absolutely will affect quality of life for all.

A new 100-unit apartment building is one thing. But 20 or so missing middle developments, spread out all over the county, seems like it doesn’t need some detailed plan. What would a plan like that even look like to you?

You think there will only be 20? As soon as this passes, every oldish house is going to be torn down and building into multi unit dwellings. The developers are going to make a killing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think all of this proves that HOAs are in fact good.

All of this proves that for people who want to control what their neighbors do with their property, they should have moved to a neighborhood with an HOA.

You mistake control with agreement for mutual benefit, i.e. solving a collective action problem.

Ah yes, the “collective action problem” of living near multifamily housing. Might as well start getting used to it.

You’re one of those people that hate Haussmann’s renovation of Paris.

Paris is lovely! It's one of the densest, most livable cities in the world. It's actually the ubiquity of mid-rise multifamily buildings, with ground-floor retail and restaurants, throughout the city that makes it so livable. We should try it!

So would all the poor people in this scenario live in high rises in Prince William County?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/02/how-the-rise-of-american-style-segregation-is-feeding-division-in-europe/

That’s the goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As far as the whole "we need homes for teachers, and cops, etc"

OK, lets just run the numbers then.

a 750,000 duplex, condo, whatever , is a 600k mortgage. And thats asumming they can scare up 150 to get 20% down and avoid PMI.

Thats still 4k a month.

Who is swinging that? Not some GS12 and teacher partner.

Just call it what it is- upzoning. Greater density. It's not "missing middle", or middle class affordable. That couple is still going to buy a place for 550 somewhere way farther out.

Let's run the numbers. Right now, egg producers are only allowed to produce and sell two sizes of eggs: extra large eggs and small eggs. The middle class can't afford extra large eggs. In the future, however, egg producers will also be allowed to produce and sell "missing middle" eggs, so: extra large eggs, large eggs, medium eggs, and small eggs. In addition, more eggs will be available, total.

Will more people be able to afford eggs once egg producers are also allowed to produce and sell large eggs and medium eggs, and more eggs are available, total?

Youre ignoring my point.

So the 750k condo gets bought by... whomever can afford and chooses that. But it isnt the middle class the plan pretends it will be.

Will that help the overall macro housing shortage? Sure. But its being sold as a way to allow teachers and firefighters and whoever to live where they work. And that is patently false.

The word Middle in missing middle is not “middle class”. It literally refers to a type of housing stock that is missing - townhouses, 4 flats, and mid-rise buildings.

I lived for many years in Cleveland Heights and Shaker Heights Ohio, suburbs of Cleveland that have some similarities to N Arlington (Shaker) and S Arlington (CH). I lived in neighborhoods that mixed walkable retail (Westover), townhouses or apartments above retail, large 1890-1940s Tudor and Victorian mansions, “regular” houses similar to the 1940s colonials, and 4-flat buildings with parking behind. It was no issue at all and lead to a vibrant, active neighborhood. Personally I would welcome more of that mix in my neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move somewhere you can afford.

And when 6-plexes get built north of Langston Blvd with homes under $1m each, households who can afford those homes can move into them.

People who can afford $900k townhouses are not what proponents of “missing middle” want. They want places for the poor.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move somewhere you can afford.

And when 6-plexes get built north of Langston Blvd with homes under $1m each, households who can afford those homes can move into them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s a mistake to add more density without concrete plans to add schools, accommodate the additional traffic, need for parking, public services like libraries and community centers and on and on.

I’m not an Arlington resident but I live somewhere that has experienced a lot of unchecked “upcoming” and I can tell you firsthand that adding density absolutely will affect quality of life for all.

A new 100-unit apartment building is one thing. But 20 or so missing middle developments, spread out all over the county, seems like it doesn’t need some detailed plan. What would a plan like that even look like to you?