Anonymous wrote:Why isn't this being proposed for Bethesda, Chevy Chase or NW DC?

Because you do not have a Commonwealth's Attorney who is bound and determined to provide housing to every criminal she slaps on the wrist as part of her catch and release program. Come to Arlington, cut out a hundred air bags and sell them on the black market, get free housing.

Why isn't this being proposed for Bethesda, Chevy Chase or NW DC?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone ever tried parking on a street with mixed housing? Our friends live on a street that has SFHs and is adjacent to some duplexes and condos. It's a nightmare. One family has three cars, and that's enough to disrupt the entire parking balance. There are cars parked up and down both sides of the street, which means only one car can get through at a time. They cannot park in front of their own house, there is never space for people who come over etc.

Yes I do this on my street. Sometimes I or guests have to walk a block. Parking issues occur near commercial areas or in lower income areas (think Arlington mill neighborhood). This would not be the case in most of Arlington where missing middle housing could be added.

Of course it would. One SFH means two cars on the street. One duplex means 4 cars on the street. One triplex is 6 cars on the street.

More homes would mean more cars but that doesn’t necessarily lead to no available street parking. Especially in the northern parts of north arlington. And besides, you don’t own the street.

Anonymous wrote:Two points I haven't seen brought up by anyone in this whole debate:

1) Arlington doesn't exist in a vacuum - the housing stock exists within the NoVa region. So while MM supporters are correct that only increased supply can bring prices down, what they don't realize is that increase in supply will simply draw more demand from the outer suburbs into Arlington. Net result is that Arlington is just as expensive as before, at higher density, while the real price advantages show up in Fairfax, etc. Which may be desirable for the region, but not Arlington county. As an aside, I find it disingenuous that supporters of MM ignore this point while making this exact same argument against car-centric development ("induced demand", ie more freeways don't reduce traffic)

2) I also find it disingenuous that supporters of MM try to frame it as a libertarian angle - "the government isn't restricting what you can do with your own property! Isn't that great?". Well, ok, does that mean I can buy a lot next to a SFH and build a prison? What about a casino behind a school? A strip club? "Oh no", MM supporters say, "we just mean you can now build duplexes/triplexes with the same setbacks". Well, ok.....but.....that's still zoning. We're just now having a discussion around what limits of zoning are appropriate. Don't pretend MM is putting forward some libertarian utopia.

+100 - that is why I don't trust the staff and politicians on this issue, it is a handout to developers and will not reduce the costs of living in Arlington - just some lessening of prices in the far-out suburbs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone ever tried parking on a street with mixed housing? Our friends live on a street that has SFHs and is adjacent to some duplexes and condos. It's a nightmare. One family has three cars, and that's enough to disrupt the entire parking balance. There are cars parked up and down both sides of the street, which means only one car can get through at a time. They cannot park in front of their own house, there is never space for people who come over etc.

Yes I do this on my street. Sometimes I or guests have to walk a block. Parking issues occur near commercial areas or in lower income areas (think Arlington mill neighborhood). This would not be the case in most of Arlington where missing middle housing could be added.

Of course it would. One SFH means two cars on the street. One duplex means 4 cars on the street. One triplex is 6 cars on the street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone ever tried parking on a street with mixed housing? Our friends live on a street that has SFHs and is adjacent to some duplexes and condos. It's a nightmare. One family has three cars, and that's enough to disrupt the entire parking balance. There are cars parked up and down both sides of the street, which means only one car can get through at a time. They cannot park in front of their own house, there is never space for people who come over etc.

Discouraging parking and cars is a feature not a bug. #carfreediet

People are not going to give up their cars just because you hash tag a cutesy phrase.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone ever tried parking on a street with mixed housing? Our friends live on a street that has SFHs and is adjacent to some duplexes and condos. It's a nightmare. One family has three cars, and that's enough to disrupt the entire parking balance. There are cars parked up and down both sides of the street, which means only one car can get through at a time. They cannot park in front of their own house, there is never space for people who come over etc.

Yes I do this on my street. Sometimes I or guests have to walk a block. Parking issues occur near commercial areas or in lower income areas (think Arlington mill neighborhood). This would not be the case in most of Arlington where missing middle housing could be added.

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone ever tried parking on a street with mixed housing? Our friends live on a street that has SFHs and is adjacent to some duplexes and condos. It's a nightmare. One family has three cars, and that's enough to disrupt the entire parking balance. There are cars parked up and down both sides of the street, which means only one car can get through at a time. They cannot park in front of their own house, there is never space for people who come over etc.

Discouraging parking and cars is a feature not a bug. #carfreediet

Has anyone ever tried parking on a street with mixed housing? Our friends live on a street that has SFHs and is adjacent to some duplexes and condos. It's a nightmare. One family has three cars, and that's enough to disrupt the entire parking balance. There are cars parked up and down both sides of the street, which means only one car can get through at a time. They cannot park in front of their own house, there is never space for people who come over etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two points I haven't seen brought up by anyone in this whole debate:

1) Arlington doesn't exist in a vacuum - the housing stock exists within the NoVa region. So while MM supporters are correct that only increased supply can bring prices down, what they don't realize is that increase in supply will simply more demand from the outer suburbs into Arlington. Net result is that Arlington is just as expensive as before, at higher density, while the real price advantages show up in Fairfax, etc. Which may be desirable for the region, but not Arlington county. As an aside, I find it disingenuous that supporters of MM ignore this point while making this exact same argument against car-centric development ("induced demand", ie more freeways don't reduce traffic)

2) I also find it disingenuous that supporters of MM try to frame it as a libertarian angle - "the government isn't restricting what you can do with your own property! Isn't that great?". Well, ok, does that mean I can buy a lot next to a SFH and build a prison? What about a casino behind a school? A strip club? "Oh no", MM supporters say, "we just mean you can now build duplexes/triplexes with the same setbacks". Well, ok.....but.....that's still zoning. We're just now having a discussion around what limits of zoning are appropriate. Don't pretend MM is putting forward some libertarian utopia.

I would argue your last point is disingenuous. Upcoming residential areas is not the same as switching residential to commercial. But while you raise it, yes, I’m down with that too. I don’t hold the argument that Arlington needs to stay the same green suburbia it was 40 years ago when boomers bought. If you can find a lot in Arlington to put a prison or a casino, by all means, push ahead. ArlCo can’t even find space for a HS, but possibly you have a backup plan. Right now it is by far easier to tear down a house and triple the lot coverage with a new build. So yes, it is less restrictive to say you can build a house with an adu, a duplex and live in one side, etc. It increases the possibilities home owners have by right. Anyone who has wasted weeks of their life dealing with zoning or god forbid the BZA would consider that a step in the right direction.

The question is, what is the justification for allowing the county directly adjacent to DC to remain primarily SFH? What population does this serve and what are the implications. I have yet to see this answered.

Glad to see my first point is still being ignored. Probably because it's the strongest. Anyway...

I would argue your last point is disingenuous. Upcoming residential areas is not the same as switching residential to commercial.

Sure it is - it's just a matter of where you want to draw the line between zoning you want and zoning you don't want. And that's the point - there is no inherent correct answer on where that line is. It's a question of the types of lifestyle and living situation that you want for yourself and for your neighbors. It's all about tradeoffs. I mean, when you say

But while you raise it, yes, I’m down with that too.

, you're basically proving my point. Some people have a different view of where the line should be drawn. Who's to say which is right? Who should have the most say? Current residents or potential future ones? What are we trying to achieve? Density at all costs? Why? I don't see any "implications" that you're putting forward for your own view. It's the same criticism you have, just turned around. Surely you can see that.

I’ll address your first point. Arlington does not exist in a vacuum, you are correct there. Arlington exists in the center of a bustling job center, with significant predicted in-migration. All of those new people are going to have to live somewhere. Demand for Arlington is going to continue to up, and prices are going to continue to go up up up until the available supply does a better job of matching the demand. Zoning is an artificial constraint on the market and distorts the market. It makes it so the only people that can afford to live here are Beltway bandits in $4m mansions and the handful of poor people we put in subsidized housing to make ourselves feel better. Increasing the variety of available units will reduce prices. In the short term, it creates new stock that isn’t $4m. As it ages, it will get increasingly more affordable relative to other newly redeveloped properties. And let’s be clear- every sh*tshack in Arlington will be torn down or rebuilt from the foundation eventually. This postwar crap was not built to last.

I’ll concede that places further out are going to see less development and less price pressure here. That’s a good thing. Arlington has done a fine job holding off the highways so far, but it’s silly to pretend we won’t have another interstate built through our neighborhoods if development continues unabated in the further out areas. We are always going to be between people live and where they want to be. Do you think we can hold off the rest of Nova forever?

Anonymous wrote:Too many NIMBYs in Arlington for this to work. People would be worried about their greatranking school score going down.

I know this is meant as an insult but it seems pretty natural for people to worry about their schools getting more crowded and worse overall.

I also agree with the previous poster about Arlington not existing in a vacuum. I don't believe every part of the DMV has to offer housing to everyone at every income level.

Too many NIMBYs in Arlington for this to work. People would be worried about their greatranking school score going down.

Anonymous wrote:Grew up in South Arlington.
From what I've learned from college peers after graduating from Wakefield, there are a good number of families who are dissatisfied with the public school offering and send their children to private schools. I didn't know these families while I was in high school - met them when I was in college. Actually, there were a few I met when I was a freshmen at Wakefield. Some upperclassmen were leaving for private schools. All in all, it is not an insubstantial amount.
I think it is an unsaid assumption by county planners that they don't need to pay attention to education services because they can just let dissatisfied families opt for private schools to alleviate the public school crowding.

This has always been the plan hence no need for 4th high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Two points I haven't seen brought up by anyone in this whole debate:

1) Arlington doesn't exist in a vacuum - the housing stock exists within the NoVa region. So while MM supporters are correct that only increased supply can bring prices down, what they don't realize is that increase in supply will simply more demand from the outer suburbs into Arlington. Net result is that Arlington is just as expensive as before, at higher density, while the real price advantages show up in Fairfax, etc. Which may be desirable for the region, but not Arlington county. As an aside, I find it disingenuous that supporters of MM ignore this point while making this exact same argument against car-centric development ("induced demand", ie more freeways don't reduce traffic)

2) I also find it disingenuous that supporters of MM try to frame it as a libertarian angle - "the government isn't restricting what you can do with your own property! Isn't that great?". Well, ok, does that mean I can buy a lot next to a SFH and build a prison? What about a casino behind a school? A strip club? "Oh no", MM supporters say, "we just mean you can now build duplexes/triplexes with the same setbacks". Well, ok.....but.....that's still zoning. We're just now having a discussion around what limits of zoning are appropriate. Don't pretend MM is putting forward some libertarian utopia.

I would argue your last point is disingenuous. Upcoming residential areas is not the same as switching residential to commercial. But while you raise it, yes, I’m down with that too. I don’t hold the argument that Arlington needs to stay the same green suburbia it was 40 years ago when boomers bought. If you can find a lot in Arlington to put a prison or a casino, by all means, push ahead. ArlCo can’t even find space for a HS, but possibly you have a backup plan. Right now it is by far easier to tear down a house and triple the lot coverage with a new build. So yes, it is less restrictive to say you can build a house with an adu, a duplex and live in one side, etc. It increases the possibilities home owners have by right. Anyone who has wasted weeks of their life dealing with zoning or god forbid the BZA would consider that a step in the right direction.

The question is, what is the justification for allowing the county directly adjacent to DC to remain primarily SFH? What population does this serve and what are the implications. I have yet to see this answered.

Glad to see my first point is still being ignored. Probably because it's the strongest. Anyway...

I would argue your last point is disingenuous. Upcoming residential areas is not the same as switching residential to commercial.

Sure it is - it's just a matter of where you want to draw the line between zoning you want and zoning you don't want. And that's the point - there is no inherent correct answer on where that line is. It's a question of the types of lifestyle and living situation that you want for yourself and for your neighbors. It's all about tradeoffs. I mean, when you say

But while you raise it, yes, I’m down with that too.

, you're basically proving my point. Some people have a different view of where the line should be drawn. Who's to say which is right? Who should have the most say? Current residents or potential future ones? What are we trying to achieve? Density at all costs? Why? I don't see any "implications" that you're putting forward for your own view. It's the same criticism you have, just turned around. Surely you can see that.

Anonymous wrote:Two points I haven't seen brought up by anyone in this whole debate:

1) Arlington doesn't exist in a vacuum - the housing stock exists within the NoVa region. So while MM supporters are correct that only increased supply can bring prices down, what they don't realize is that increase in supply will simply more demand from the outer suburbs into Arlington. Net result is that Arlington is just as expensive as before, at higher density, while the real price advantages show up in Fairfax, etc. Which may be desirable for the region, but not Arlington county. As an aside, I find it disingenuous that supporters of MM ignore this point while making this exact same argument against car-centric development ("induced demand", ie more freeways don't reduce traffic)

2) I also find it disingenuous that supporters of MM try to frame it as a libertarian angle - "the government isn't restricting what you can do with your own property! Isn't that great?". Well, ok, does that mean I can buy a lot next to a SFH and build a prison? What about a casino behind a school? A strip club? "Oh no", MM supporters say, "we just mean you can now build duplexes/triplexes with the same setbacks". Well, ok.....but.....that's still zoning. We're just now having a discussion around what limits of zoning are appropriate. Don't pretend MM is putting forward some libertarian utopia.

I would argue your last point is disingenuous. Upcoming residential areas is not the same as switching residential to commercial. But while you raise it, yes, I’m down with that too. I don’t hold the argument that Arlington needs to stay the same green suburbia it was 40 years ago when boomers bought. If you can find a lot in Arlington to put a prison or a casino, by all means, push ahead. ArlCo can’t even find space for a HS, but possibly you have a backup plan. Right now it is by far easier to tear down a house and triple the lot coverage with a new build. So yes, it is less restrictive to say you can build a house with an adu, a duplex and live in one side, etc. It increases the possibilities home owners have by right. Anyone who has wasted weeks of their life dealing with zoning or god forbid the BZA would consider that a step in the right direction.

The question is, what is the justification for allowing the county directly adjacent to DC to remain primarily SFH? What population does this serve and what are the implications. I have yet to see this answered.