Anonymous
Post 11/07/2022 10:04     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I sincerely hope hope the MM passes.

It’s exactly what SFH’s in N Arl deserve for creating a Democrat stranglehold on everything. This is what they voted for, this is what they created, and it’s amazingly awesome to watch all the phony liberals freak out over MM 😂😂


MM++ -- I am a SFH owner in N Arlington and support MM. Requiring SFH zoning has been shown to be historically racist. Let's fix that.


+1

I'd like to see more restrictions on new construction in general re: parking, trees, lot coverage, but that's not specific to MM. I'm good with MM itself.

-SFH owner in $$$ neighborhood
Anonymous
Post 11/07/2022 10:04     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I sincerely hope hope the MM passes.

It’s exactly what SFH’s in N Arl deserve for creating a Democrat stranglehold on everything. This is what they voted for, this is what they created, and it’s amazingly awesome to watch all the phony liberals freak out over MM 😂😂


MM++ -- I am a SFH owner in N Arlington and support MM. Requiring SFH zoning has been shown to be historically racist. Let's fix that.


Too bad MMH isn’t fixing the racial disparity with home ownership in Arlington. That is just a strawman MMH proponents like to use. Again, this is simply about providing more million dollar homes.
Anonymous
Post 11/07/2022 09:56     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:I sincerely hope hope the MM passes.

It’s exactly what SFH’s in N Arl deserve for creating a Democrat stranglehold on everything. This is what they voted for, this is what they created, and it’s amazingly awesome to watch all the phony liberals freak out over MM 😂😂


MM++ -- I am a SFH owner in N Arlington and support MM. Requiring SFH zoning has been shown to be historically racist. Let's fix that.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2022 20:00     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I’m voting for Audrey Clement. Yes, she’s kind of crazy, but I think the board and staff deserve to have to deal with her at this point. They clearly aren’t going to listen to other feedback.


Me too. Never thought I would. But this MM proposal is garbage.


I am curious if there was a Republican candidate who opposed missing middle, would you vote for them?

Btw I think anyone in Arlington who is opposing Missing Middle is showing their true colors. Republicans at heart. Democrats for show. I think that should be Arlington's new slogan!


It would depend on their policies, right?

Are they worried about critical race theory? Do they think Trump won in 2020? How do they feel about abortion? Affirmative action?

I don't see the logic of "if you don't agree with this deeply flawed MM proposal you're a republican".


DP and of course you don’t agree and it doesn’t change the truth. You are a Republican at heart. This is where you have to put your money where your mouth is or in your case where your sign is - you welcome everyone right? there’s no hate here right? Oh except for those who can’t afford a 2M home to tear down and rebuild, and no way do you want some people who could only afford a $400k 1 br condo. You didn’t sign up to live with the poors. And besides you’re worried if maybe if one of those Hispanic family moves in they might bring their relatives and geez what would that do to the neighborhood …
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2022 19:56     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?


How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?


That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.


And three additional families can own a home.


And all the trees will be cut down and we will have more flooding, mudslides, etc...it's already happening in Arlington. Open your eyes. The Arlington Co Board is not doing this to provide affordable housing. They are selling off this county to the highest bidder and they don't give a crap about the residents. They are only on this board as a stepping stone to national politics. That's it. They DON"T CARE about Arlington.


MMH would be subject to current zoning for setbacks and stormwater regulations. I’m concerned about the flooding due to oversized homes on tiny lots, something that won’t change under MMH. The problem is current zoning applicable to SFHs.


What is wrong with the zoning applicable to single family homes? There is R-5 to R-20 zoning in Arlington. Are you thinking of lot coverage?



You will have the same storm water management issues with missing middle housing as you have with single family new build. Arlington mage buikders use drainage boxes and sriram water management for new houses about ten years ago. Until recently, when people substantially expanded houses, they did not have to use the same storm water management but they created the same problems. Same with new townhouses and multi family buildings. All have contributed to the flooding, not to mention new schools, rec centers, and the natatorium. Lubber Run Rec Center cost millions extra because the architect the county used to understand that Lubber Run is an a townhouse e body of water that had to be controlled.

The reason the satires at Westover were built where they were because of an active spring. That’s why it will be impossible to do much more with the Lyon Village shopping center because Spout Run flows under it and no underground parking can be done.

I know it’s sport to rail at the new houses you can’t afford, but they are a tiny part of the flooding issues in Arlington. The vault at Cardinal Elementary school shoukd have been done when they changed Walter Reed ES to the Children’s Center. Had that been done, the Westover floods not have occurred. Similarly on 19th Rd in Waverly Hills. The county ignored an easily repaired problem until it was too late


Could you please retype this without all of the typos? Satires and vaults and sriram ... what is that?
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2022 19:55     Subject: Re:Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
In my Arlington neighborhood the elderly voters are all for Missing Middle housing.


In my Arlington neighborhood (near the metro, big lots) it's like 9:1 against Missing Middle and it appears to hold for all age groups.


Well, the Arlington County Board has sent a report to the planning commission, comprised of YIMBYs, allowing just about anything they want in Arlington, with a little concession on tree canopies. This is going to be fun to watch as my McMansion dwelling neighbors wake up one morning to find 16 people living in an quadplex next to their $2.5M house and multiple cars blocking the street.


The Arlington Co. Board needs to be voted out. They are ruining this county one bad decision at a time.


LOL! That’s so funny! They can be voted out. Of course you would just be voting in another Democrat board so they continue doing the same thing. 😀
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2022 19:51     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
I sincerely hope hope the MM passes.

It’s exactly what SFH’s in N Arl deserve for creating a Democrat stranglehold on everything. This is what they voted for, this is what they created, and it’s amazingly awesome to watch all the phony liberals freak out over MM 😂😂
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2022 16:04     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?


How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?


If you can build at about the same cost, but sell 3 units at $1m each instead of 1 at $2m, which makes a better profit? Remember that you as the developer do not have to incur any costs related to overcrowded schools, lack of park and recreation space, or additional vehicles parked on the street.


But we can agree that both current policy and MMH benefit developers, yes? If MMH opponents are anti-developer then why aren’t they arguing against all tear downs? Or arguing in favor of increasing setbacks? It’s like you’re pro-developer in some cases and anti-developer in others, but the reality is you don’t actually care about developers or affordable housing or the tree canopy. You care about your property value and now that you’ve got yours, exclusion is your priority.


Proponents of MMH keep telling us that MMH will increase property values, which I believe. I also believe it will result in gentrification. So PO’s argument that opponents of MMH are “pro-developer in some cases and anti-developer in others, but the reality is you don’t actually care about developers or affordable housing or the tree canopy. You care about your property value and now that you’ve got yours, exclusion is your priority.” DOESN’T make any sense.


The pandemic also showed me some major flaws in the APS schools. A number of late teen to early 20 kids returned to our neighborhood because their schools were closed or they were laid off from jobs. It was surprising to me that many of their parents had Ivy League or top state university educations but they were going to mediocre schools and not even doing well. The ones that managed to get through some college had jobs that were fairly dead end, like restaurant servers or low level office jobs. The parents paid a lot of money to live in Arlington for schools, but the schools didn't deliver for these kids. Many of them are still at home, and the only one I think survived well was one girl who dropped out of college and started a lawn service. She found some laid off construction workers and started with them cutting lawns. Then when they were called back to work, she had their cousins, brothers, friends continue the work and added things like tree and shrubbery trimming, and gutter cleaning. My DH set up her books for her because she had no concept of how to run a business. Her mom -- a retired Fed lawyer -- is now her bookkeeper.



It's good that you've acknowledged that APS are not up to par. For the amount of wealth in the county, it is pretty shocking how mediocre the schools are. People on this board get unnecessarily defensive when this issue is raised, which is unfortunate, because denial of the problem doesn't help the situation.
Anonymous
Post 11/06/2022 15:55     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?


How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?


That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.


And three additional families can own a home.


And all the trees will be cut down and we will have more flooding, mudslides, etc...it's already happening in Arlington. Open your eyes. The Arlington Co Board is not doing this to provide affordable housing. They are selling off this county to the highest bidder and they don't give a crap about the residents. They are only on this board as a stepping stone to national politics. That's it. They DON"T CARE about Arlington.


MMH would be subject to current zoning for setbacks and stormwater regulations. I’m concerned about the flooding due to oversized homes on tiny lots, something that won’t change under MMH. The problem is current zoning applicable to SFHs.


What is wrong with the zoning applicable to single family homes? There is R-5 to R-20 zoning in Arlington. Are you thinking of lot coverage?



You will have the same storm water management issues with missing middle housing as you have with single family new build. Arlington mage buikders use drainage boxes and sriram water management for new houses about ten years ago. Until recently, when people substantially expanded houses, they did not have to use the same storm water management but they created the same problems. Same with new townhouses and multi family buildings. All have contributed to the flooding, not to mention new schools, rec centers, and the natatorium. Lubber Run Rec Center cost millions extra because the architect the county used to understand that Lubber Run is an a townhouse e body of water that had to be controlled.

The reason the satires at Westover were built where they were because of an active spring. That’s why it will be impossible to do much more with the Lyon Village shopping center because Spout Run flows under it and no underground parking can be done.

I know it’s sport to rail at the new houses you can’t afford, but they are a tiny part of the flooding issues in Arlington. The vault at Cardinal Elementary school shoukd have been done when they changed Walter Reed ES to the Children’s Center. Had that been done, the Westover floods not have occurred. Similarly on 19th Rd in Waverly Hills. The county ignored an easily repaired problem until it was too late
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2022 20:10     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?


How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?


That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.


And three additional families can own a home.


And all the trees will be cut down and we will have more flooding, mudslides, etc...it's already happening in Arlington. Open your eyes. The Arlington Co Board is not doing this to provide affordable housing. They are selling off this county to the highest bidder and they don't give a crap about the residents. They are only on this board as a stepping stone to national politics. That's it. They DON"T CARE about Arlington.


MMH would be subject to current zoning for setbacks and stormwater regulations. I’m concerned about the flooding due to oversized homes on tiny lots, something that won’t change under MMH. The problem is current zoning applicable to SFHs.


What is wrong with the zoning applicable to single family homes? There is R-5 to R-20 zoning in Arlington. Are you thinking of lot coverage?


Lot coverage is determined through zoning. The loss of permeable surface area has contributed to flooding. The primary cause is tearing down old homes and replacing them with McMansions.
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2022 19:57     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?


How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?


If you can build at about the same cost, but sell 3 units at $1m each instead of 1 at $2m, which makes a better profit? Remember that you as the developer do not have to incur any costs related to overcrowded schools, lack of park and recreation space, or additional vehicles parked on the street.


But we can agree that both current policy and MMH benefit developers, yes? If MMH opponents are anti-developer then why aren’t they arguing against all tear downs? Or arguing in favor of increasing setbacks? It’s like you’re pro-developer in some cases and anti-developer in others, but the reality is you don’t actually care about developers or affordable housing or the tree canopy. You care about your property value and now that you’ve got yours, exclusion is your priority.


Proponents of MMH keep telling us that MMH will increase property values, which I believe. I also believe it will result in gentrification. So PO’s argument that opponents of MMH are “pro-developer in some cases and anti-developer in others, but the reality is you don’t actually care about developers or affordable housing or the tree canopy. You care about your property value and now that you’ve got yours, exclusion is your priority.” DOESN’T make any sense.



This is the typical YIMBY argument of "you got yours and I want what you have but I can't afford it." The YIMBYs think everyone in North Arlington lives in a swanky McMansion with a three car garage and a 7,000 square foot home. The reality is that most of the housing throughout Arlington was built primarily between the 1930s and the 1980s. A smaller version of McMansion began to be built in Arlington in the 1990s, and the McMansion building increased in 2010. The reason McMansions are being built is market demand. The YIMBYs and those of there ilk are such minimalists/purists/aesthetes that they cannot imagine someone wanting more than an 800 square foot apartment with 2 bedrooms and 1 bath to house a family of four and their cargo bike. I watched a meeting of the YIMBYs the other night, and it was as if all of them have ADHD. But their progressive philosophies are so frightening to the ACB board that they will get their way with Missing Middle Housing It is like the brattiest kid gets the parents attention because they have to be mollified for peace.

I have a basic colonial in Arlington that we were going to expand until the pandemic hit and we realized that Arlington schools were for either high achievers or low achievers. We place our children in private schools and will use the addition money to educate them. The pandemic also showed me some major flaws in the APS schools. A number of late teen to early 20 kids returned to our neighborhood because their schools were closed or they were laid off from jobs. It was surprising to me that many of their parents had Ivy League or top state university educations but they were going to mediocre schools and not even doing well. The ones that managed to get through some college had jobs that were fairly dead end, like restaurant servers or low level office jobs. The parents paid a lot of money to live in Arlington for schools, but the schools didn't deliver for these kids. Many of them are still at home, and the only one I think survived well was one girl who dropped out of college and started a lawn service. She found some laid off construction workers and started with them cutting lawns. Then when they were called back to work, she had their cousins, brothers, friends continue the work and added things like tree and shrubbery trimming, and gutter cleaning. My DH set up her books for her because she had no concept of how to run a business. Her mom -- a retired Fed lawyer -- is now her bookkeeper.

Bottom line for me is that Arlington is not providing what we thought it would. We are here for the proximity to DC jobs only and now the commute to our kids' school.

We will do only basic maintenance on our house and get out as soon as we can. It is not just the MM but also the sense of entitlement in traffic, at grocery stores, gas stations, and any place where basic courtesy should exist but just doesn't. This is not the Arlington we moved to 21 years ago.
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2022 19:42     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?


How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?


That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.


And three additional families can own a home.


And all the trees will be cut down and we will have more flooding, mudslides, etc...it's already happening in Arlington. Open your eyes. The Arlington Co Board is not doing this to provide affordable housing. They are selling off this county to the highest bidder and they don't give a crap about the residents. They are only on this board as a stepping stone to national politics. That's it. They DON"T CARE about Arlington.


MMH would be subject to current zoning for setbacks and stormwater regulations. I’m concerned about the flooding due to oversized homes on tiny lots, something that won’t change under MMH. The problem is current zoning applicable to SFHs.


What is wrong with the zoning applicable to single family homes? There is R-5 to R-20 zoning in Arlington. Are you thinking of lot coverage?
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2022 17:44     Subject: Re:Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I’m voting for Clement, too. I’m mostly a Democrat, but sometimes I lean independent. MMH is really not a solidly Democratic proposal. It isn’t helping diversity or affordable housing, though the Board initially tried to sell it this way. It’s really about density.


So you’d support MMH if the board required a certain percentage of MMH to be CAFs or sold to low income individuals?


No, I will not support any MMH. It’s not good enough to throw a few token CAFs into what they say will only be 120 MMH properties or less per year. What does that equal? 12 units? The County Board has tried to sell this as helping minorities and affordable housing. It doesn’t. It literally helps people making a minimum of 100k a year. And we all know it takes more than a 100k to afford a million dollar triplex unit. While there is a good chance that it will contribute to gentrification.


I’ve been following MMH and don’t recall the county selling it as affordable (ie low income) housing. This is a disingenuous argument as opponents don’t actually care about housing affordability. In fact they want the opposite and are protecting an investment. Should housing be primarily an investment or a house?


You’re mixing up affordable rental housing (CAFs) with housing that is more affordable than a SFH.

I guess you haven’t been following MMH as closely as I have. The County Board absolutely tried selling it as affordable housing until it was revealed that this housing would range from 520,000 (for a 1 bedroom!) to 1.8 million. Here was the early spin from MMH Study: A Stakeholder’s Guide (page 1)

“Housing Arlington seeks to address housing affordability on many fronts to expand the supply of housing, broaden the types of housing available, and preserve or increase the supply of affordable housing units. There is no single solution that will tackle all of Arlington’s, or the region’s, housing affordability challenges.”

I believe they have changed the most recent language to “housing attainability?” I have no desire to have a 8 plex next to me that isn’t even helping anyone that needs help. I grew up outside of a major metropolitan area. My parents would have loved to live closer in and by the beach, but guess what? They couldn’t afford it. It’s not someone’s right to live in a close in neighborhood. Now if we are talking about housing for low income families - that adds to the community and diversity. MMH does none of this.
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2022 17:41     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?


How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?


That's right. But now the builder can tear down an old home and construction, generally, one new house by right. With Missing Middle housing, a large part of the County will be up-zoned so that builders can make more money building four townhouses on one 8,000 sq.ft.lot rather than one house.


And three additional families can own a home.


And all the trees will be cut down and we will have more flooding, mudslides, etc...it's already happening in Arlington. Open your eyes. The Arlington Co Board is not doing this to provide affordable housing. They are selling off this county to the highest bidder and they don't give a crap about the residents. They are only on this board as a stepping stone to national politics. That's it. They DON"T CARE about Arlington.


MMH would be subject to current zoning for setbacks and stormwater regulations. I’m concerned about the flooding due to oversized homes on tiny lots, something that won’t change under MMH. The problem is current zoning applicable to SFHs.
Anonymous
Post 11/05/2022 17:09     Subject: Arlington Missing Middle Housing Q&A
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:Missing Middle is the ultimate pro-developer policy. I wasn't aware that wanting to line the pockets of developers was a policy stance of Democrats?


How is missing middle more pro-developer than current policy? Isn’t the ability to tear down an old home and construct a mcmansion also pro-developer?


If you can build at about the same cost, but sell 3 units at $1m each instead of 1 at $2m, which makes a better profit? Remember that you as the developer do not have to incur any costs related to overcrowded schools, lack of park and recreation space, or additional vehicles parked on the street.


But we can agree that both current policy and MMH benefit developers, yes? If MMH opponents are anti-developer then why aren’t they arguing against all tear downs? Or arguing in favor of increasing setbacks? It’s like you’re pro-developer in some cases and anti-developer in others, but the reality is you don’t actually care about developers or affordable housing or the tree canopy. You care about your property value and now that you’ve got yours, exclusion is your priority.


Proponents of MMH keep telling us that MMH will increase property values, which I believe. I also believe it will result in gentrification. So PO’s argument that opponents of MMH are “pro-developer in some cases and anti-developer in others, but the reality is you don’t actually care about developers or affordable housing or the tree canopy. You care about your property value and now that you’ve got yours, exclusion is your priority.” DOESN’T make any sense.