Anonymous wrote:Where does Gutshall live? Unless he is affected by the volume of street parking he is proposing his position is really disturbing.

Anonymous wrote:To PP above: Just out of curiosity, how do you think north Arlington would react if they got rid of all the parking at Yorktown and built another school there instead?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posting from AEM and a variety of emails going around the neighborhood. Here is the full email from Erik Gutshall:

You may receive a formal reply from Chair Garvey on behalf of the entire Board, but because this is an issue I care deeply about and recognizing that I may have a different take than my colleagues, I wanted to clarify my approach:

NEED FOR PARKING: I think it's safe to say that not one Board Member wants the CC to be under-parked, which I will define as an insuffucient number of spaces that drivers find themselves with no other viable option than driving (see TDM below), but no access to a reasonably available space. "reasonably available" does not mean free, or within a 1-block radius. It includes market rate fees, whether incorporated as a compensation benefit or not, and walkable distance can include up to 1/2 mile and certainly within 1/4 mile. Need for parking is not the same as demand for parking. Drivers will always gobble up free and convenient parking, as was the model for APS until relatively recently.

AVAILABLE PARKING (on-street): I support the notion that every household should have access to parking within walking distance of their home. Sometimes parking is free (or very low-cost) and sometimes it has a cost, usually depending on how the housing was developed, with space limitations per household increasingly more common. Some amount of parking for staff, faculty, students and visitors should be accommodated on neighborhood streets. Just as I would expect neighbors to reject the notion that all parking can be accommodated in the neighborhood, I reject the notion that the neighborhood can't support any of the needed parking.

AVAILABLE PARKING (nearby garages): Consistent with #1 above, nearby available parking in existing garages can and should be used to satisfy parking needs for CC.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): Arlington has had great success with using TDMs to lower the demand for parking throughout the County, despite constant protests that "it'll never work." I respect that staff/faculty may have different habits than a typical office commuter, but I have not seen any analysis that demonstrates barriers that can not be overcome. Guaranteed Ride Home was created to address one common barrier for all commuters. I support further exploring the efficacy of APS TDM measures to encourage walking, biking, transit use and carpooling for commuting.

NEW PARKING (on-street): I do not support "wishful planning" to hope that parking just takes care of itself. To the extent that items 1-4 still leave a deficit of needed parking, I support exploring adding on-street parking with measures that could include angled parking on surrounding streets, esp Walter Reed Dr, 9th St S, and Highland St (convert to one-way).

NEW PARKING (on-site): The very last option that I could support would be constructing very expensive, permanent parking underground at the CC. However, if all of the above failed to accommodate truly needed parking, I would be compelled to support structured parking. Frankly, I think this is unlikely to come to pass, but my mind is open, provided all the other options are fully explored.

My hope is that the only "machine" driving our decisions will be sound policy. I appreciate you feel worn down. I think that speaks to your passion and commitment, in honor of which, I have taken this time to share with you my thinking.

Thank you,

Erik Gutshall (he/him)
Vice Chair, Arlington County Board

Let’s all go and park in front of Eric’s house. He is a nut if he thinks a bunch of arlington boomers are going to agree “reasonable” parking is up to 1/2 mile from your house.

So 5 year olds can walk up to a mile to get to school (according to APS) but grown adult teachers can't walk 1/2 mile from their car? And plenty of people in this area don't get free parking right on site at their place of work. Doesn't anyone else here work in downtown DC? I realize there are better transit options downtown, but the vast majority of DC workers still drive every day. They just pay to park in garages near-ish their offices or get lucky and find a spot on the street.

tl/dr: Why is Gutshall's email a big deal?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Posting from AEM and a variety of emails going around the neighborhood. Here is the full email from Erik Gutshall:

You may receive a formal reply from Chair Garvey on behalf of the entire Board, but because this is an issue I care deeply about and recognizing that I may have a different take than my colleagues, I wanted to clarify my approach:

NEED FOR PARKING: I think it's safe to say that not one Board Member wants the CC to be under-parked, which I will define as an insuffucient number of spaces that drivers find themselves with no other viable option than driving (see TDM below), but no access to a reasonably available space. "reasonably available" does not mean free, or within a 1-block radius. It includes market rate fees, whether incorporated as a compensation benefit or not, and walkable distance can include up to 1/2 mile and certainly within 1/4 mile. Need for parking is not the same as demand for parking. Drivers will always gobble up free and convenient parking, as was the model for APS until relatively recently.

AVAILABLE PARKING (on-street): I support the notion that every household should have access to parking within walking distance of their home. Sometimes parking is free (or very low-cost) and sometimes it has a cost, usually depending on how the housing was developed, with space limitations per household increasingly more common. Some amount of parking for staff, faculty, students and visitors should be accommodated on neighborhood streets. Just as I would expect neighbors to reject the notion that all parking can be accommodated in the neighborhood, I reject the notion that the neighborhood can't support any of the needed parking.

AVAILABLE PARKING (nearby garages): Consistent with #1 above, nearby available parking in existing garages can and should be used to satisfy parking needs for CC.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): Arlington has had great success with using TDMs to lower the demand for parking throughout the County, despite constant protests that "it'll never work." I respect that staff/faculty may have different habits than a typical office commuter, but I have not seen any analysis that demonstrates barriers that can not be overcome. Guaranteed Ride Home was created to address one common barrier for all commuters. I support further exploring the efficacy of APS TDM measures to encourage walking, biking, transit use and carpooling for commuting.

NEW PARKING (on-street): I do not support "wishful planning" to hope that parking just takes care of itself. To the extent that items 1-4 still leave a deficit of needed parking, I support exploring adding on-street parking with measures that could include angled parking on surrounding streets, esp Walter Reed Dr, 9th St S, and Highland St (convert to one-way).

NEW PARKING (on-site): The very last option that I could support would be constructing very expensive, permanent parking underground at the CC. However, if all of the above failed to accommodate truly needed parking, I would be compelled to support structured parking. Frankly, I think this is unlikely to come to pass, but my mind is open, provided all the other options are fully explored.

My hope is that the only "machine" driving our decisions will be sound policy. I appreciate you feel worn down. I think that speaks to your passion and commitment, in honor of which, I have taken this time to share with you my thinking.

Thank you,

Erik Gutshall (he/him)
Vice Chair, Arlington County Board

Let’s all go and park in front of Eric’s house. He is a nut if he thinks a bunch of arlington boomers are going to agree “reasonable” parking is up to 1/2 mile from your house.

Anonymous wrote:Posting from AEM and a variety of emails going around the neighborhood. Here is the full email from Erik Gutshall:

You may receive a formal reply from Chair Garvey on behalf of the entire Board, but because this is an issue I care deeply about and recognizing that I may have a different take than my colleagues, I wanted to clarify my approach:

NEED FOR PARKING: I think it's safe to say that not one Board Member wants the CC to be under-parked, which I will define as an insuffucient number of spaces that drivers find themselves with no other viable option than driving (see TDM below), but no access to a reasonably available space. "reasonably available" does not mean free, or within a 1-block radius. It includes market rate fees, whether incorporated as a compensation benefit or not, and walkable distance can include up to 1/2 mile and certainly within 1/4 mile. Need for parking is not the same as demand for parking. Drivers will always gobble up free and convenient parking, as was the model for APS until relatively recently.

AVAILABLE PARKING (on-street): I support the notion that every household should have access to parking within walking distance of their home. Sometimes parking is free (or very low-cost) and sometimes it has a cost, usually depending on how the housing was developed, with space limitations per household increasingly more common. Some amount of parking for staff, faculty, students and visitors should be accommodated on neighborhood streets. Just as I would expect neighbors to reject the notion that all parking can be accommodated in the neighborhood, I reject the notion that the neighborhood can't support any of the needed parking.

AVAILABLE PARKING (nearby garages): Consistent with #1 above, nearby available parking in existing garages can and should be used to satisfy parking needs for CC.

TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT (TDM): Arlington has had great success with using TDMs to lower the demand for parking throughout the County, despite constant protests that "it'll never work." I respect that staff/faculty may have different habits than a typical office commuter, but I have not seen any analysis that demonstrates barriers that can not be overcome. Guaranteed Ride Home was created to address one common barrier for all commuters. I support further exploring the efficacy of APS TDM measures to encourage walking, biking, transit use and carpooling for commuting.

NEW PARKING (on-street): I do not support "wishful planning" to hope that parking just takes care of itself. To the extent that items 1-4 still leave a deficit of needed parking, I support exploring adding on-street parking with measures that could include angled parking on surrounding streets, esp Walter Reed Dr, 9th St S, and Highland St (convert to one-way).

NEW PARKING (on-site): The very last option that I could support would be constructing very expensive, permanent parking underground at the CC. However, if all of the above failed to accommodate truly needed parking, I would be compelled to support structured parking. Frankly, I think this is unlikely to come to pass, but my mind is open, provided all the other options are fully explored.

My hope is that the only "machine" driving our decisions will be sound policy. I appreciate you feel worn down. I think that speaks to your passion and commitment, in honor of which, I have taken this time to share with you my thinking.

Thank you,

Erik Gutshall (he/him)
Vice Chair, Arlington County Board

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So now according to rumors and that email from Gutshall it appears that the Arlington County Board and APS are trying to opt out of building the parking garage at the Career Center? Any ideas what this would do to the existing CTE courses? What about the viability of Arlington Tech, let alone whatever new option school they want to put there?

I saw in another post that a very large number of Arlington Tech students have already dropped out for a variety of unrelated reasons. But the more this school is built without the kinds of things that draw students to it and the more that it is perceived as a second rate school Arlington doesn't care about, the worse its going to get.

It kind of seems like Arlington is putting alot of money into what will be a failing school no one wants to teach at or attend. Maybe they should revisit even bothering with expanding there until they can establish a program people want to attend or can at least afford to build something desirable.

Can you post this email? If the garage gets dropped, hopefully, that area gets permit parking or there's a satellite lot.

Anonymous wrote:So now according to rumors and that email from Gutshall it appears that the Arlington County Board and APS are trying to opt out of building the parking garage at the Career Center? Any ideas what this would do to the existing CTE courses? What about the viability of Arlington Tech, let alone whatever new option school they want to put there?

I saw in another post that a very large number of Arlington Tech students have already dropped out for a variety of unrelated reasons. But the more this school is built without the kinds of things that draw students to it and the more that it is perceived as a second rate school Arlington doesn't care about, the worse its going to get.

It kind of seems like Arlington is putting alot of money into what will be a failing school no one wants to teach at or attend. Maybe they should revisit even bothering with expanding there until they can establish a program people want to attend or can at least afford to build something desirable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will probably need both ultimately.

Not necessarily as full-sized neighborhood schools. But Arlington Tech AND the CTE programs at the site can - and should - grow bigger. Problem is, School Board is going to deal with all of this by moving to a choice high school (and probably likely middle, at some point) system, giving each high school a different specialty. So kids either need to know what their particular talent/interest/future career choice is by 5th grade, or their parents will need to choose for them, or a lot of kids aren't going to get the focus they really should have.

No, I mean we will probably need both a choice HS program at the CC AND a comprehensive HS at Kenmore (or somewhere).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We will probably need both ultimately.

Not necessarily as full-sized neighborhood schools. But Arlington Tech AND the CTE programs at the site can - and should - grow bigger. Problem is, School Board is going to deal with all of this by moving to a choice high school (and probably likely middle, at some point) system, giving each high school a different specialty. So kids either need to know what their particular talent/interest/future career choice is by 5th grade, or their parents will need to choose for them, or a lot of kids aren't going to get the focus they really should have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Fleet is 30% poverty, and Fleet pretty much = AH + Penrose. So that's the "rich" surrounding neighborhoods you reference. It's better than Barcroft (62%) and Abingdon (45%), yes, but not as rich as Oakridge (23%) and clearly not a McKinley (9%) or a Nottingham (4%) or Tuckahoe (2%). Everything is relative.

In fact, 30% is pretty much our system wide average. So these neighborhoods are average for Arlington.

We both know what’s behind that average, which is wealthy SFH owners, and a smaller number of apartments. Fleet has to reach into alcove heights to pick up Gilliam (it’s only CAF) and Fillmore gardens is an 80 percent mark with nothing bigger than a 2 bedroom.

Anyway, my point was not to argue about whether AH is rich, there’s no pretending it’s not — just look at Redfin. My point is that these renderings are nice, the CC will be a tempting choice for both that and proximity. And once a critical mass of families in AH and Penrose decide to option in to a brand new building a block or two away, it’ll gather momentum. As a result, Wakefield’s poverty rate will rise and that will further encourage people to option into the CC. This is pretty much inevitable I think. Arlington is divided by north south, but south Arlington is divided too, primarily but not exclusively by east west. If you have one high school in the eastern part and one in the west, you’re going to get a poor school and a rich school. It doesn’t matter if one is option or not.

What’s your solution, PP? Not build a HS in that area? It seems like you or you plus others post often about the possibility of Wakefield tanking after the CC is built, but I never hear what your preferred outcome would be.

DP - a high school should be built at the Kenmore site. Better boundaries can be established for better balancing demographics.

Agree 100%

Agree but didn't APS reject that idea three years ago? Is it back on the table or is this just wishful thinking?

The community needs to push it back onto the table - before they get to phase II of the Career Center; and before they decide to put something else there instead.

I think one of the reasons Kenmore was dropped was because UMC families then recoiled at the idea of that becoming a high school that would draw from the north. Arlington Heights gamely suggested they supported a bigger program at the CC, provided it was an option until it had comparable facilities to the comprehensive HSs. CC is far enough into the south that people think they'll never have to go there from the north.

I live near there and I personally thought the idea was stupid to invite APS to build what could potentially a huge school on the smallest parcel of land, but maybe it will turn out fine. I suspect it will never have a pool so long as Montessori or the Community HS is there.