Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, guys, this is the equivalent of shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Not too long from now there won't be any seats for over a thousand kids. I have no faith in the SB's CIP that magically promises 1300 seats in 2022. We're all going to be screwed when that happens, so let's try to work together.

+1000. I also agree with the PP who suggested that they should put IB at Wakefield-- that would create socio-economic diversity without these awful boundary fights.

... will it? I think some families have used IB to get out of Wakefield. I agree that a coveted program could be a huge benefit.

I am the posted who thinks APS should consider sending IB program to Wakefield. I think Wakefield families used it to get out of Wakefield and also so their kids could be with other high-performing kids. I think parents from Yorktown used it to get their kids into a more diverse school district and/or to have their kids participate in an "exclusive" program. Now they can put their money where their mouth is on IB - that is, are they really in it for the program? If so, then you are getting white/rich kids/families to volunteer for or remain at Wakefield. Hopefully you are also doing outreach at Wakefield to make sure other kids know about the program, and hopefully feeder middle schools with high numbers of minorities and lower SES can also groom for it and maybe it would draw more of these kids eventually. That's a path to higher overall performance at all three high schools. Yorktown and WL will always perform well given the local demographics.

*poster

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Guys, guys, this is the equivalent of shuffling the deck chairs on the Titanic. Not too long from now there won't be any seats for over a thousand kids. I have no faith in the SB's CIP that magically promises 1300 seats in 2022. We're all going to be screwed when that happens, so let's try to work together.

+1000. I also agree with the PP who suggested that they should put IB at Wakefield-- that would create socio-economic diversity without these awful boundary fights.

... will it? I think some families have used IB to get out of Wakefield. I agree that a coveted program could be a huge benefit.

I am the posted who thinks APS should consider sending IB program to Wakefield. I think Wakefield families used it to get out of Wakefield and also so their kids could be with other high-performing kids. I think parents from Yorktown used it to get their kids into a more diverse school district and/or to have their kids participate in an "exclusive" program. Now they can put their money where their mouth is on IB - that is, are they really in it for the program? If so, then you are getting white/rich kids/families to volunteer for or remain at Wakefield. Hopefully you are also doing outreach at Wakefield to make sure other kids know about the program, and hopefully feeder middle schools with high numbers of minorities and lower SES can also groom for it and maybe it would draw more of these kids eventually. That's a path to higher overall performance at all three high schools. Yorktown and WL will always perform well given the local demographics.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county's Committed affordable units does not equal- increase in FARMS.
The county's commitment to affordable housing does not increase the concentration of poverty, or harm the schools.
(if the county is also increasing density- that can harm the schools.)
CAF's improve school outcome b/c they greatly increase housing stability- meaning that students stay in the same apt instead of moving constantly and thereby switching schools.

If this is true I have a great idea. Barcroft apartments, which is a huge, super shitty complex between s. George Mason and Four Mile Run, is responsible for more than a third of the county's market rate affordable housing. Let's convince Delashmutt to sell it off to a developer. They couldn't upzone it, because the county allowed them to do a transfer of development rights ( legal payoff) years ago. So I guess they can build nice, mid grade town homes. You know, the kind of housing middle class people can't find in Arlington. Within that you could designate 20% as committed affordable housing! I mean, you think CAF's are best, so this should be a home run!

Different poster here. I'm new enough to the area to not get all the references. I can sense snark though. But why isn't what you write something that happens more? Mixed affordability complexes, for example, as opposed to all AH. The income levels for AH are $64k for a family of four. That is not middle class for this area. Do the developers make more for pure low-income housing?

Ooooo gurrrl. Imma try and make this short, but this some convoluted shiz imma bout to throw ya way!

For reasons too annoying to explain, it is often easier to secure funding for a 100 % subsidized building. Mainly , no one taking on any risk. The county is the guarantor. There a several factions of people fighting for this sort of housing. It's combination of zealotry and personal gain. Anyway...
Yes, what you are suggesting is the best idea. Everyone knows it, but that doesn't matter.
Huge complexes like Barcroft apts are the Lynch pin of Arlington's affordable housing " solutions" and they don't own it. They've concocted astoundingly legal means to maintain these complexes. They've allowed them to "sell" their future development rights. Meaning the county introduces them to some other developer who wants to add 250 additional units that aren't zoned in Rosslyn . It's cool though, because they pay the owners of a shitty complex on Columbia Pike a bribe not to redevelop their current crappy property.
Wait? What?
So... there are a bunch more $$$$$ units in North Arlington? And wait! What? You're building 100's of subsidized units right beside the crappy market units that you've worked tirelessly to insure never get redeveloped.

So where will all of these kids go to school?

Where indeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A WL parent here. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the concentration of poverty really doesn't allow for moving up a lot of poorer students to Yorktown. Not without a deliberate decision by the SB (assuming the families in those units don't mind bussing up north) to make it happen.

I hadn't heard about the 100s of new units coming online in the south. DAMN the County Board. I really am starting to despise them.

http://www.apah.org/columbia-hills-apartments-approved-by-the-arlington-county-board-february-25-2015/

So it looks like that APAH is building 229 affordable units (most of them 2 bedroom, some 3) next to it's other mix-income development which has 208 units. I saw some were for making 40, 50 and 60% of Area Median Income. Does anyone know how much rent these 2 and 3 bedroom units generally go for?

From a flyer for "The Springs" apartments:

Efficiency $900 - $1180
1 Bedroom $1000 - $1250
2 Bedroom $1150 - $1500
3 Bedroom $1350 - $1730

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A WL parent here. Please don't take this the wrong way, but the concentration of poverty really doesn't allow for moving up a lot of poorer students to Yorktown. Not without a deliberate decision by the SB (assuming the families in those units don't mind bussing up north) to make it happen.

I hadn't heard about the 100s of new units coming online in the south. DAMN the County Board. I really am starting to despise them.

http://www.apah.org/columbia-hills-apartments-approved-by-the-arlington-county-board-february-25-2015/

So it looks like that APAH is building 229 affordable units (most of them 2 bedroom, some 3) next to it's other mix-income development which has 208 units. I saw some were for making 40, 50 and 60% of Area Median Income. Does anyone know how much rent these 2 and 3 bedroom units generally go for?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county's Committed affordable units does not equal- increase in FARMS.
The county's commitment to affordable housing does not increase the concentration of poverty, or harm the schools.
(if the county is also increasing density- that can harm the schools.)
CAF's improve school outcome b/c they greatly increase housing stability- meaning that students stay in the same apt instead of moving constantly and thereby switching schools.

If this is true I have a great idea. Barcroft apartments, which is a huge, super shitty complex between s. George Mason and Four Mile Run, is responsible for more than a third of the county's market rate affordable housing. Let's convince Delashmutt to sell it off to a developer. They couldn't upzone it, because the county allowed them to do a transfer of development rights ( legal payoff) years ago. So I guess they can build nice, mid grade town homes. You know, the kind of housing middle class people can't find in Arlington. Within that you could designate 20% as committed affordable housing! I mean, you think CAF's are best, so this should be a home run!

Different poster here. I'm new enough to the area to not get all the references. I can sense snark though. But why isn't what you write something that happens more? Mixed affordability complexes, for example, as opposed to all AH. The income levels for AH are $64k for a family of four. That is not middle class for this area. Do the developers make more for pure low-income housing?

Another poster here. Please educate another parent here about how the tax incentives, economics etc. contributes to creating more density and more poverty with their developments. Sincere post.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Having now read most of this thread and submitted my own plan using the tool, shouldn't the most appealing approach be to move to Yorktown some of the contiguous units along the western border of the county both north and south of Route 50, and move to Wakefield the contiguous units along the eastern Pike that are currently Hoffman-Boston and Henry students? This doesn't affect walkability at all and it doesn't move the highest FARMS planning units into Wakefield. Understanding that some people are inevitably going to be somewhat disappointed to move from WL to Wakefield, isn't this the best option? What am I missing?

I'm a future Wakefield parent, FWIW. We are in South Arlington and perfectly fine with the school. Would prefer it remain where it is rather than concentrated with more FARMS though.

Can you specify which planning units you recommended so I can see what that would look like?

Thanks.

Move to Yorktown: 1302, 1303, 1304
Move to Wakefield: 4611, 4612, 4614, 4828, 4829, 4815, 4818
Leave at W-L: 3506, 3507, 3508, 3509, 3510 - as a Wakefield parent, these are the ones I'd be concerned about moving over to Wakefield

I had the thought that maybe some of these moves might affect the FARMS % at W-L, but roughly I think it should balance out since some of those units going to Wakefield have moderate FARMS rates (though not at the level of 3506-3510). You could also maybe move 2315 to Yorktown, though it is within the walk zone to W-L.

Plus it appears to have the benefit of geographic cohesion, for whatever that's worth. As others have said, I can't read the elem or middle school boundaries that well, so it might involve some splitting up there. I'm not sure how much I really care about that though.

I'm also not sure why it won't let me move 3506-3510 over to Yorktown. Eyeballing it, I can create a continuous unit, but I can't get it to work using the tool.

I just tried doing what you suggested but the tool says 4818 can't be moved. Also, it's hard to justify such low both numbers at both YT and WF when WL (when I can't move 4818) stays about 105% all 4 years and the other two HSs are below 100 for most 4 years (*some in high 80s or low 90s).

The enrollment criticism is fair, though frankly pretty low on my priority list given the competing concerns. If the school board says it's within their "green" zone, it's good with me. Plus, you can count me among the people who think there is going to have to be a 4th high school built at some point.

I was able to get 4818 moved by moving others first. It's kind of an absurd little exercise.

I agree with you that getting the units moved over is a bit absurd. I finally did manage to get 4818 to Wakefield. However, the numbers are still way too low outside of WL. The number one goal of this exercise is for reallocating more student out of WL into Yorktown and Wakefield b/c of the projected severe overcrowding. I am in WL, so I am sympathetic to your situation in Wakefield. I tried getting more units from WL without touching 3506-3510 and the numbers still didn't budge too much (also moved more units up north to Yorktown) to rebalance so WL would not be around 105% etc. Do we really want to impact so many planning units if we drop the enrollment at WL by such a small percentage?

The other thing is the way that the tool works and the other 5 factors, it comes down to whether the community and the school board decided consciously to promote diversity at the expense of the other 5 factors. I am not trying to be controversial about it. I am saying that it's much easier maximize the 5 factors when selecting possible planning units to be moved than it is to do so with demographics (due to the geographic concentration of poverty in the west pike, etc.).

The SB is going to have to (and most likely for the 2020 year when they tackle the entire HS boundary issue) make a deliberate choice about it (maybe get rid of Yorktown island and pick up a Western pike island? I don't know.). But it is not easy to achieve a balance for everyone currently with what has been given to us.

I understand that this has to be acutely painful for those families with WL and Wakefield freshmen in the 2017-2021 school years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county's Committed affordable units does not equal- increase in FARMS.
The county's commitment to affordable housing does not increase the concentration of poverty, or harm the schools.
(if the county is also increasing density- that can harm the schools.)
CAF's improve school outcome b/c they greatly increase housing stability- meaning that students stay in the same apt instead of moving constantly and thereby switching schools.

If this is true I have a great idea. Barcroft apartments, which is a huge, super shitty complex between s. George Mason and Four Mile Run, is responsible for more than a third of the county's market rate affordable housing. Let's convince Delashmutt to sell it off to a developer. They couldn't upzone it, because the county allowed them to do a transfer of development rights ( legal payoff) years ago. So I guess they can build nice, mid grade town homes. You know, the kind of housing middle class people can't find in Arlington. Within that you could designate 20% as committed affordable housing! I mean, you think CAF's are best, so this should be a home run!

Different poster here. I'm new enough to the area to not get all the references. I can sense snark though. But why isn't what you write something that happens more? Mixed affordability complexes, for example, as opposed to all AH. The income levels for AH are $64k for a family of four. That is not middle class for this area. Do the developers make more for pure low-income housing?

Anonymous wrote:The county's Committed affordable units does not equal- increase in FARMS.
The county's commitment to affordable housing does not increase the concentration of poverty, or harm the schools.
(if the county is also increasing density- that can harm the schools.)
CAF's improve school outcome b/c they greatly increase housing stability- meaning that students stay in the same apt instead of moving constantly and thereby switching schools.

If this is true I have a great idea. Barcroft apartments, which is a huge, super shitty complex between s. George Mason and Four Mile Run, is responsible for more than a third of the county's market rate affordable housing. Let's convince Delashmutt to sell it off to a developer. They couldn't upzone it, because the county allowed them to do a transfer of development rights ( legal payoff) years ago. So I guess they can build nice, mid grade town homes. You know, the kind of housing middle class people can't find in Arlington. Within that you could designate 20% as committed affordable housing! I mean, you think CAF's are best, so this should be a home run!

Anonymous wrote:The county's Committed affordable units does not equal- increase in FARMS.
The county's commitment to affordable housing does not increase the concentration of poverty, or harm the schools.
(if the county is also increasing density- that can harm the schools.)
CAF's improve school outcome b/c they greatly increase housing stability- meaning that students stay in the same apt instead of moving constantly and thereby switching schools.

Please go away. We (both S. and N. Arlington parents) know what you say is untrue.

Anonymous wrote:The county's Committed affordable units does not equal- increase in FARMS.
The county's commitment to affordable housing does not increase the concentration of poverty, or harm the schools.
(if the county is also increasing density- that can harm the schools.)
CAF's improve school outcome b/c they greatly increase housing stability- meaning that students stay in the same apt instead of moving constantly and thereby switching schools.

BS.

Anonymous wrote:The county's Committed affordable units does not equal- increase in FARMS.
The county's commitment to affordable housing does not increase the concentration of poverty, or harm the schools.
(if the county is also increasing density- that can harm the schools.)
CAF's improve school outcome b/c they greatly increase housing stability- meaning that students stay in the same apt instead of moving constantly and thereby switching schools.

Oh look the affordable housing mafia showed up. What took you so long?

Anonymous wrote:People need to stop focusing on the new units. There is already a concentration of low income housing in south Arlington and of low income kids at Wakefield. That has to do in large part with housing decisions made 60 and 70 years ago, both redlining/segregation (Nauck) and proximity to the Pentagon (apartments). We're talking about enrollment in the school starting next fall. New buildings the CB is approving now or that are just getting started aren't part of this conversation. Part of another important conversation, sure. But not this one.

That is true, but I think ground work is being laid this time around. "Look, Yorktown is taking on diversity by taking part of the Pike", nevermind that it would be easiest to bus kids from the western end. People in 22207 paying attention know there are 100's more apts coming. They don't want to open up that can of worms. Sending the eastern end of Columbia Pike to Yorktown is a distraction. I'm a future Wakefield parent and I kept the western units at WL. I sent the eastern Pike to Wakefield.

Anonymous wrote:The county's Committed affordable units does not equal- increase in FARMS.
The county's commitment to affordable housing does not increase the concentration of poverty, or harm the schools.
(if the county is also increasing density- that can harm the schools.)
CAF's improve school outcome b/c they greatly increase housing stability- meaning that students stay in the same apt instead of moving constantly and thereby switching schools.

Density is mass over volume. If you hold the denominator steady and increase the numerator, doesn't that increase density? Is the assumption that the new SFH construction boom in S. Arl. going to goose the denominator?

The county's Committed affordable units does not equal- increase in FARMS.
The county's commitment to affordable housing does not increase the concentration of poverty, or harm the schools.
(if the county is also increasing density- that can harm the schools.)
CAF's improve school outcome b/c they greatly increase housing stability- meaning that students stay in the same apt instead of moving constantly and thereby switching schools.