Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It’s not about building on Lee. It’s about building N of Lee, even if just on the N side. Anything below Lee won’t improve diversity in the least diverse schools. Jamestown, Discovery and friends won’t ever cross 29.

There are big plans to build on Lee highway even north of it. The Tuckahoe PTA knows about it, I guess you do not. Friends cross Lee highway all the time so try again.

Oh, come on. Even when a developer got the Sun Trust property, they decided to put townhouses on it rather than a high-rise apartment building.

Anonymous wrote:To build on Lee, the community has to buy in. They have not and many are saying it can't be done because the parcels are small. Of course that is false - just look at the shallow space available for the Shell on the Pike. It can obviously be done. They will also say their schools are too overcrowded (not that school overcrowding has ever stopped development in S.A.)
At most, new developments will have a set aside for the minimal CAF, but not enough to really change things.

Barcorft will never go away. It is in a special conservation district to preserve it as "Affordable", the owner has sold the development rights. If it ever changes hands, it will become a CAF. Greenbriar isn't that big.

Other ideas?

Finding parcels north of Lee Highway is a bigger problem than you're acknowledging. Yes, The Shell is on only .76 acres, but finding even that is tough. Further, because developers typically want to make buildings like that mixed-use, with commercial/office space on the ground floor and then residential above it, they generally will only build them on/adjacent to commercial areas. Other than the north side of Lee Highway itself, the only other commercial area up there is the Williamsburg shopping centers at the intersection of Sycamore, Williamsburg and Little Falls. Those don't really provide enough commercial traffic to be attractive to a developer, but even if they were, it's surrounded by SFHs that average less than .2 acres per lot, so to even get a lot the size of The Shell, they'd need to find at least four adjacent homeowners on suitable lots willing to sell. That is a very difficult task, especially when you realistically only have about three different groupings of houses to approach. Further, any developer would have to take the risk of buying all of those houses without a guarantee that Arlington will actually grant a zoning change to put a 6-story building smack in the middle of single-family homes; even if the neighborhood doesn't protest, that's a tall order.

So then you have to look at parcels along Lee Highway itself and find someone with a big enough parcel willing to sell. There are two problems there. First, a lot of those of shopping centers are all but printing money for the owners because they can demand such high lease rates, so developers would have to pay a really high premium to buy them out; Arlington would have to shell out millions in incentives beyond what they already provide to incentivize a developer to build just a single apartment building. Second, several of those shopping centers don't have a single owner -- for instance, the one that runs from Preston's Pharmacy down to Caribbean Grill is made up of 17 parcels owned by something like 13 different entities, and even when one entity owns more than one parcel, in many cases they aren't contiguous parcels. This is part of what has held up the Lee Highway redevelopment project generally, it's really hard to get 13 different entities on board with a proposal without some serious collective action problems.

That part of Arlington didn't become the higher-wealth area by accident. It developed that way because the circumstances there weren't conducive to higher-density development (which supports lower-income populations), so that development was created elsewhere, and the lower density available up there was put to its most lucrative use (higher-end SFHs).

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It’s not about building on Lee. It’s about building N of Lee, even if just on the N side. Anything below Lee won’t improve diversity in the least diverse schools. Jamestown, Discovery and friends won’t ever cross 29.

There are big plans to build on Lee highway even north of it. The Tuckahoe PTA knows about it, I guess you do not. Friends cross Lee highway all the time so try again.

Yes. It’s not about building on Lee. It’s about building N of Lee, even if just on the N side. Anything below Lee won’t improve diversity in the least diverse schools. Jamestown, Discovery and friends won’t ever cross 29.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we cannot make people change where they live and the county keeps approving low income housing only in certain areas, how do you propose to "integrate" schools if someone isn't bused? Only so much can be done with boundaries because our housing is segregated.

It has to be "someone's" kid. Whose kid?

Agreed. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is they want to go their closest school and walk if able. If we want to fix diversity we need to fix housing policy especially N of Lee Hwy.

We’d have to build on Lee
AND get rid of Barcroft Apartments and maybe Greenbrier ( I think that’s The big non CAF complex on the west end of the Pike).
So ... maybe that could happen in 25 years? Maybe.
Housing policy has f#cked this county. Truly we are left with much less walkable boundaries if we want SES diversity.

The diversity between 50 and Lee highway is actually pretty good. In some places it’s pretty good between Columbia Pike and 50. The challenge is North of Lee highway, western Columbia Pike, and between Columbia Pike and 395

To build on Lee, the community has to buy in. They have not and many are saying it can't be done because the parcels are small. Of course that is false - just look at the shallow space available for the Shell on the Pike. It can obviously be done. They will also say their schools are too overcrowded (not that school overcrowding has ever stopped development in S.A.)
At most, new developments will have a set aside for the minimal CAF, but not enough to really change things.

Barcorft will never go away. It is in a special conservation district to preserve it as "Affordable", the owner has sold the development rights. If it ever changes hands, it will become a CAF. Greenbriar isn't that big.

Other ideas?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Since we cannot make people change where they live and the county keeps approving low income housing only in certain areas, how do you propose to "integrate" schools if someone isn't bused? Only so much can be done with boundaries because our housing is segregated.

It has to be "someone's" kid. Whose kid?

Agreed. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is they want to go their closest school and walk if able. If we want to fix diversity we need to fix housing policy especially N of Lee Hwy.

We’d have to build on Lee
AND get rid of Barcroft Apartments and maybe Greenbrier ( I think that’s The big non CAF complex on the west end of the Pike).
So ... maybe that could happen in 25 years? Maybe.
Housing policy has f#cked this county. Truly we are left with much less walkable boundaries if we want SES diversity.

Anonymous wrote:Since we cannot make people change where they live and the county keeps approving low income housing only in certain areas, how do you propose to "integrate" schools if someone isn't bused? Only so much can be done with boundaries because our housing is segregated.

It has to be "someone's" kid. Whose kid?

Agreed. The one thing everyone seems to agree on is they want to go their closest school and walk if able. If we want to fix diversity we need to fix housing policy especially N of Lee Hwy.

Since we cannot make people change where they live and the county keeps approving low income housing only in certain areas, how do you propose to "integrate" schools if someone isn't bused? Only so much can be done with boundaries because our housing is segregated.

It has to be "someone's" kid. Whose kid?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what is so controversial about boundaries. Some people will move. But schools across Arlington are all good, and after Fleet and Reed come online everyone will be better off when capacity is balanced and APS can finally get rid of many trailers. Start with each school's walk zone than start adding more bus-able students until the school is full. Move onto the next school. Repeat.

You def live in north Arlington. North Arlington schools are interchangeable. Strong PTAs, no title I status. All schools are good schools, including those in SA. But they aren't good or better than others for everyone who is zoned for them.

But please, do tell us more about how you chose to live in South Arlington because you value diversity so much.

I don't get why simply pointing out the enormous north south differences and relative homogeneity of north Arlington, economically, is so "triggering" for you. Still upset about whatever compatriot of yours said that 100,000 isn't a lot of money? But sure, I'll tell you again. I value diversity and if I just wanted to send my kid to a school without economic diversity I'd leave the area entirely. I'm not claiming any moral virtue. South Arlinggto schools aren't diverse. They are segregated, just like the north. But unlike the north, I see the potential for integration here.

I know, I know. You value diversity, but only as long as it’s the “right” kind of diversity in the “right” proportions. And integration is good as long as it’s the “right” kids being integrated into your school to boost your school’s performance but not if it’s your child being integrated into the “wrong” school, even though that school is where we really need to see integration from kids like yours to balance diversity and improve schools.

You seem confused as to what diversity is. It's a school not dominated by wealth or by poverty. Beyond that, it could take any number of forms. I haven't prescribed anything particular. You seem bent on finding an ulterior, selfish motivation for my support for integrated schools that somehow harms others. The Ruth is that integrated schools are good for everyone and I make no apologies for my support.

No, what I’m saying is that you only want to see those schools integrated if it’s someone else’s kids moving in to integrate them.

“Opportunity hoarding” is going in the drinking game.

Agreed. Trying to blame S Arlington and MC is a red herring. It’s trying to cover up for N Arlington opportunity hoarding. I wish folks would look at a map and see that M Arlington comprises over 1/2 of Arlington in one if not the richest smallest county in the country. We can do better and should do better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand what is so controversial about boundaries. Some people will move. But schools across Arlington are all good, and after Fleet and Reed come online everyone will be better off when capacity is balanced and APS can finally get rid of many trailers. Start with each school's walk zone than start adding more bus-able students until the school is full. Move onto the next school. Repeat.

You def live in north Arlington. North Arlington schools are interchangeable. Strong PTAs, no title I status. All schools are good schools, including those in SA. But they aren't good or better than others for everyone who is zoned for them.

But please, do tell us more about how you chose to live in South Arlington because you value diversity so much.

I don't get why simply pointing out the enormous north south differences and relative homogeneity of north Arlington, economically, is so "triggering" for you. Still upset about whatever compatriot of yours said that 100,000 isn't a lot of money? But sure, I'll tell you again. I value diversity and if I just wanted to send my kid to a school without economic diversity I'd leave the area entirely. I'm not claiming any moral virtue. South Arlinggto schools aren't diverse. They are segregated, just like the north. But unlike the north, I see the potential for integration here.

I know, I know. You value diversity, but only as long as it’s the “right” kind of diversity in the “right” proportions. And integration is good as long as it’s the “right” kids being integrated into your school to boost your school’s performance but not if it’s your child being integrated into the “wrong” school, even though that school is where we really need to see integration from kids like yours to balance diversity and improve schools.

You seem confused as to what diversity is. It's a school not dominated by wealth or by poverty. Beyond that, it could take any number of forms. I haven't prescribed anything particular. You seem bent on finding an ulterior, selfish motivation for my support for integrated schools that somehow harms others. The Ruth is that integrated schools are good for everyone and I make no apologies for my support.

Anonymous wrote:For Pete's sake! Halls Hill has been at Williamsburg for years. They weren't trying not to get sent to Williamsburg. They lobbied to get out of there and pushed the Swanson numbers over the top.

You are correct, I mistyped in dashing that off. In the rezoning, Hall's Hill didn't want to be zoned for Williamsburg once the island was gone because they didn't want their kids to be the token minorities there. If anything, though, that clarification only reinforces the point of my post.

For Pete's sake! Halls Hill has been at Williamsburg for years. They weren't trying not to get sent to Williamsburg. They lobbied to get out of there and pushed the Swanson numbers over the top.