Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

What does low income housing have to do with it?

Student generation rates are higher for committed affordable housing (CAFs in Arlington-speak) than any other housing type. When you build 300 unit buildings at .532 students per unit, you end up with a lot of kids.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Fall-2021-Enrollment-Projections-Report.pdf
rates on page 42

So stop building low income housing but continue with market-rate and luxury housing. Nice.

A 300 unit building is going to have approximately 160 kids if it’s a CAF building and 19 if it’s market rate. That’s the math based on existing buildings.

Yes, I get that. Even though I don't believe the CAF student generation factor is 8x greater, I know very well that CAFs produce more students (despite what the County and especially APAH wanted to insist upon for years and years.)
The issue with your statement is that it suggests it's ok to further schools with more (affluent) kids but not with poor kids - even if it's because that doesn't continue to overcrowd the schools as much or as quickly. So, you're accepting of additional overcrowding as long as it's fewer additional kids which inevitably will be wealthier.

How about stop the construction of high-density housing? Period.

Yeah, let's get rid of density and encourage sprawl. That's going to improve quality of life for everyone.

Arlington County is the smallest geographical county in the country and is already significantly more dense than in decades past. It cannot and should not be responsible for housing everyone. There are countless other jurisdictions across the country that can easily increase density.

But this isn't a discussion about the world's housing crisis. it's about crowded Arlington schools, for heaven's sake.

All those Amazon employees have to live somewhere - or so the CB logic goes. Actually heard Matt de Ferranti say something like "what are we supposed tell Amazon when they start moving people here? That they can't have their employees buy in Arlington? We need to increase the housing stock for the people." It's all about getting more revenue because it will not house middle income folks already here. I'd feel better about it if it also had a plan to correlate to more school seats and transit, but let's be honest, there is not really room for more schools in Arlington, at least not the way they have been designed. That's why we're getting ArlTech squeezed on to a tiny parcel that it will share with MPSA.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

What does low income housing have to do with it?

Student generation rates are higher for committed affordable housing (CAFs in Arlington-speak) than any other housing type. When you build 300 unit buildings at .532 students per unit, you end up with a lot of kids.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Fall-2021-Enrollment-Projections-Report.pdf
rates on page 42

So stop building low income housing but continue with market-rate and luxury housing. Nice.

A 300 unit building is going to have approximately 160 kids if it’s a CAF building and 19 if it’s market rate. That’s the math based on existing buildings.

Yes, I get that. Even though I don't believe the CAF student generation factor is 8x greater, I know very well that CAFs produce more students (despite what the County and especially APAH wanted to insist upon for years and years.)
The issue with your statement is that it suggests it's ok to further schools with more (affluent) kids but not with poor kids - even if it's because that doesn't continue to overcrowd the schools as much or as quickly. So, you're accepting of additional overcrowding as long as it's fewer additional kids which inevitably will be wealthier.

How about stop the construction of high-density housing? Period.

The student generation factors are based on the real life numbers currently produced by various types of housing stock. Look at the report instead of choosing not to believe it’s 8x higher based on your feelings.

Anonymous wrote:Is this still a concern?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

What does low income housing have to do with it?

Student generation rates are higher for committed affordable housing (CAFs in Arlington-speak) than any other housing type. When you build 300 unit buildings at .532 students per unit, you end up with a lot of kids.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Fall-2021-Enrollment-Projections-Report.pdf
rates on page 42

So stop building low income housing but continue with market-rate and luxury housing. Nice.

A 300 unit building is going to have approximately 160 kids if it’s a CAF building and 19 if it’s market rate. That’s the math based on existing buildings.

Yes, I get that. Even though I don't believe the CAF student generation factor is 8x greater, I know very well that CAFs produce more students (despite what the County and especially APAH wanted to insist upon for years and years.)
The issue with your statement is that it suggests it's ok to further schools with more (affluent) kids but not with poor kids - even if it's because that doesn't continue to overcrowd the schools as much or as quickly. So, you're accepting of additional overcrowding as long as it's fewer additional kids which inevitably will be wealthier.

How about stop the construction of high-density housing? Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

What does low income housing have to do with it?

Student generation rates are higher for committed affordable housing (CAFs in Arlington-speak) than any other housing type. When you build 300 unit buildings at .532 students per unit, you end up with a lot of kids.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Fall-2021-Enrollment-Projections-Report.pdf
rates on page 42

So stop building low income housing but continue with market-rate and luxury housing. Nice.

A 300 unit building is going to have approximately 160 kids if it’s a CAF building and 19 if it’s market rate. That’s the math based on existing buildings.

Yes, I get that. Even though I don't believe the CAF student generation factor is 8x greater, I know very well that CAFs produce more students (despite what the County and especially APAH wanted to insist upon for years and years.)
The issue with your statement is that it suggests it's ok to further schools with more (affluent) kids but not with poor kids - even if it's because that doesn't continue to overcrowd the schools as much or as quickly. So, you're accepting of additional overcrowding as long as it's fewer additional kids which inevitably will be wealthier.

How about stop the construction of high-density housing? Period.

Yeah, let's get rid of density and encourage sprawl. That's going to improve quality of life for everyone.

Arlington County is the smallest geographical county in the country and is already significantly more dense than in decades past. It cannot and should not be responsible for housing everyone. There are countless other jurisdictions across the country that can easily increase density.

But this isn't a discussion about the world's housing crisis. it's about crowded Arlington schools, for heaven's sake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

What does low income housing have to do with it?

Student generation rates are higher for committed affordable housing (CAFs in Arlington-speak) than any other housing type. When you build 300 unit buildings at .532 students per unit, you end up with a lot of kids.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Fall-2021-Enrollment-Projections-Report.pdf
rates on page 42

So stop building low income housing but continue with market-rate and luxury housing. Nice.

A 300 unit building is going to have approximately 160 kids if it’s a CAF building and 19 if it’s market rate. That’s the math based on existing buildings.

Yes, I get that. Even though I don't believe the CAF student generation factor is 8x greater, I know very well that CAFs produce more students (despite what the County and especially APAH wanted to insist upon for years and years.)
The issue with your statement is that it suggests it's ok to further schools with more (affluent) kids but not with poor kids - even if it's because that doesn't continue to overcrowd the schools as much or as quickly. So, you're accepting of additional overcrowding as long as it's fewer additional kids which inevitably will be wealthier.

How about stop the construction of high-density housing? Period.

Yeah, let's get rid of density and encourage sprawl. That's going to improve quality of life for everyone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

So, eliminate additional poor people but additional rich people are fine?

Ideally we don’t do the stupid missing middle zoning change so we don’t get many more rich people either.

Why do you think missing middle will bring more rich people? I’m an APS teacher who wants to stay in Arlington and more 6-700,000 townhomes or duplexes would help me do that

You won’t stay in townhouse with a family if you have money enough to move to FFX.

And they are $1M townhouses. They talk about it’s not middle income housing it’s middle sizing. It’s inane.

I'm someone who lives in a TH in Arlington and I *could* move to Fairfax, but I don't want to. So not everyone wants to flee outside the beltway for a yard full of work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

So, eliminate additional poor people but additional rich people are fine?

Ideally we don’t do the stupid missing middle zoning change so we don’t get many more rich people either.

Why do you think missing middle will bring more rich people? I’m an APS teacher who wants to stay in Arlington and more 6-700,000 townhomes or duplexes would help me do that

You won’t stay in townhouse with a family if you have money enough to move to FFX.

And they are $1M townhouses. They talk about it’s not middle income housing it’s middle sizing. It’s inane.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

So, eliminate additional poor people but additional rich people are fine?

Ideally we don’t do the stupid missing middle zoning change so we don’t get many more rich people either.

Why do you think missing middle will bring more rich people? I’m an APS teacher who wants to stay in Arlington and more 6-700,000 townhomes or duplexes would help me do that

First of all, good luck with new duplexes being only $600-700K. New townhomes in south Arlington have been starting in the 800's for years.

Second of all, the wording of your statement indicates there already are duplexes and townhomes in that price range, which in turn means that housing type is not "missing." Rather, there aren't enough of them for demand - same as single family homes. What tells us there aren't enough SFHs? The fact that there are bidding wars over them and the extremely high price tags on them....just like other housing types in Arlington. They are not "missing" At least not yet. The County's upzoning proposal ultimately seeks to eliminate SFHs. There are still many homes in the price range you're seeking. You just likely don't want any of them or aren't able to snag one before someone else or a developer does.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

So, eliminate additional poor people but additional rich people are fine?

Ideally we don’t do the stupid missing middle zoning change so we don’t get many more rich people either.

Why do you think missing middle will bring more rich people? I’m an APS teacher who wants to stay in Arlington and more 6-700,000 townhomes or duplexes would help me do that

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

What does low income housing have to do with it?

Student generation rates are higher for committed affordable housing (CAFs in Arlington-speak) than any other housing type. When you build 300 unit buildings at .532 students per unit, you end up with a lot of kids.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Fall-2021-Enrollment-Projections-Report.pdf
rates on page 42

So stop building low income housing but continue with market-rate and luxury housing. Nice.

A 300 unit building is going to have approximately 160 kids if it’s a CAF building and 19 if it’s market rate. That’s the math based on existing buildings.

Yes, I get that. Even though I don't believe the CAF student generation factor is 8x greater, I know very well that CAFs produce more students (despite what the County and especially APAH wanted to insist upon for years and years.)
The issue with your statement is that it suggests it's ok to further schools with more (affluent) kids but not with poor kids - even if it's because that doesn't continue to overcrowd the schools as much or as quickly. So, you're accepting of additional overcrowding as long as it's fewer additional kids which inevitably will be wealthier.

How about stop the construction of high-density housing? Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

What does low income housing have to do with it?

Student generation rates are higher for committed affordable housing (CAFs in Arlington-speak) than any other housing type. When you build 300 unit buildings at .532 students per unit, you end up with a lot of kids.

https://www.apsva.us/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Fall-2021-Enrollment-Projections-Report.pdf
rates on page 42

So stop building low income housing but continue with market-rate and luxury housing. Nice.

A 300 unit building is going to have approximately 160 kids if it’s a CAF building and 19 if it’s market rate. That’s the math based on existing buildings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

So, eliminate additional poor people but additional rich people are fine?

Ideally we don’t do the stupid missing middle zoning change so we don’t get many more rich people either.

Why do you think missing middle will bring more rich people? I’m an APS teacher who wants to stay in Arlington and more 6-700,000 townhomes or duplexes would help me do that

You won’t stay in townhouse with a family if you have money enough to move to FFX.

And they are $1M townhouses. They talk about it’s not middle income housing it’s middle sizing. It’s inane.

This is ridiculous. Plenty of families in Arlington prefer to stay in townhouses instead of move out to Fairfax. I am one of them! Bought my townhouse for $900k a few years ago when I could've also afforded a SFH in Fairfax but wanted to live close in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

So, eliminate additional poor people but additional rich people are fine?

Ideally we don’t do the stupid missing middle zoning change so we don’t get many more rich people either.

Why do you think missing middle will bring more rich people? I’m an APS teacher who wants to stay in Arlington and more 6-700,000 townhomes or duplexes would help me do that

You won’t stay in townhouse with a family if you have money enough to move to FFX.

And they are $1M townhouses. They talk about it’s not middle income housing it’s middle sizing. It’s inane.

This is ridiculous. Plenty of families in Arlington prefer to stay in townhouses instead of move out to Fairfax. I am one of them! Bought my townhouse for $900k a few years ago when I could've also afforded a SFH in Fairfax but wanted to live close in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should rethink and/or eliminate more high density low income housing. That would help a ton.

So, eliminate additional poor people but additional rich people are fine?

Ideally we don’t do the stupid missing middle zoning change so we don’t get many more rich people either.

Why do you think missing middle will bring more rich people? I’m an APS teacher who wants to stay in Arlington and more 6-700,000 townhomes or duplexes would help me do that

You won’t stay in townhouse with a family if you have money enough to move to FFX.

And they are $1M townhouses. They talk about it’s not middle income housing it’s middle sizing. It’s inane.