0
1
For Immediate Release: March 22, 2023
County Board Approves Missing Middle Housing Plan – But, the Fight to Protect Arlington is Not Over
Today, the Arlington County Board unanimously approved its Expanded Housing Options (EHO)/Missing Middle Housing (MMH) Plan, despite extensive opposition by residents, including a petition with more than 6,000 signatures, thousands of letters to the County Board and hundreds of people testifying against the Plan at Commissions and County Board meetings.
AfUT (Arlingtonians for Upzoning Transparency (AFUT.ORG)) believes that developing housing that is more affordable, encouraging diversity and righting imbalances that have led to housing inequalities in Arlington is something we all want: But, EHO won’t achieve these goals. Instead, it will cause irreparable harm to many of our neighborhoods.
Those urging the County to rethink its current EHO Plan presented factual testimony and data from experts including economists, realtors, mortgage bankers, engineers, and others showing that EHO will actually REDUCE diversity and NOT produce housing more affordable to anyone but upper income people with annual incomes approaching $200,000.
In contrast, proponent after proponent presented emotional, non-fact-based appeals for more attainable housing.
“Wishing doesn’t make it so – and those who think EHO will produce housing they can afford have been given false hope,” said AfUT David Gerk. “With today’s interest rates, even the cheapest, smallest unit in a six-plex will require an income of nearly $200,000 for a typical buyer.”
If we view the EHO Plan through Arlington’s own equity lens questions, here’s how EHO stacks up:
Who benefits? Developers and upper income residents; County government with more real estate revenue.
Who is burdened? All County residents due to the strain on infrastructure, environmental quality, services, schools and parks.
Who is missing? Low-, moderate-, and middle-income residents who can’t afford MMH.
How do we know? The County’s own data shows that the cost of the least expensive MMH unit will still be far above even moderate-income residents.
Increasing density in a 26-square mile County with unlimited housing demand will not reduce housing prices. Patrick Condon a former supporter of increased density and author of Sick Cities, conducted research on why housing is so costly and why allowing developers to increase density of development only enriches the landowners. In the end the cost per square foot of housing constructed ends up being the same because the landowner is able to increase the price based on the number of units that can be constructed.
Land prices are highest and appreciate more rapidly in areas with dense housing, according to a study from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA). The study is accompanied by a spreadsheet that shows the prices per acre of land from 2012 to 2017 in 900 counties, more than 8,000 zip codes, and 11,000 census tracts.
Densification is already fueling housing costs in Arlington, making housing even less affordable. This is what is happening in Green Valley where gentrification has increased housing costs, reduced diversity and driven out those who most need more affordable housing. They have been replaced by residents who are whiter and wealthier. Green Valley allows MMH throughout and from 2000-2020, it lost almost half its Black residents.
Upzoning has also led to increased gentrification and less diversity along Arlington’s Columbia Pike corridor. Six of Arlington’s 10 highest appreciating neighborhoods are located in or proximate to Columbia Pike’s already upzoned Form Based Code neighborhoods.
A recent report showed why the one in four senior households in Arlington that are cost-burdened will be especially threatened by the rising property values and taxes that will inevitably be the result of the MMH Plan.
AfUT member Julie Lee said, “The County says that EHO will create ‘gentle density.’ Instead, deregulation will produce random density controlled not by planners, but developers who will determine where, how much and what type of housing is constructed – with the aim of maximizing their profits by building luxury housing. Deregulation – as we’ve seen over and over from the 2008 financial collapse, the recent SVB banking failure, train derailment and more — won’t right any wrongs.”
Even a current and two former Arlington Planning Commissioners, who actually favor EHO done right, are concerned about the deficiencies in the County’s current proposal. Arlington’s Missing Middle Housing Guidebook states, “The proposed EHO lacks the necessary refinements and improvements to reach its goals. The EHO needs additional rules to meet community needs, and with consideration of the suggestions here [in the Guidebook], it can more effectively increase affordability, protect our environment, and improve neighborhood character.”
As Christine Brittle, a speaker who lives in the Penrose neighborhood stated at the County Board hearing on March 21, “Land that is zoned for more density is more expensive – much more expensive. On South Wayne Street, the houses on one side are duplexes, and on the other are single family homes. The lots are the exact same size – 5,500 sq feet. What we see is that Arlington assesses the land with the duplexes SIGNIFICANTLY higher vs. that of the single-family homes. How much? That same lot is worth $291,700 more on the other side of the street…. This [EHO] will completely change the dynamics of the real estate market.”
Arlington’s own Housing Director was quoted in an August 2022 interview saying that Arlington is on target to meet its housing goals –without the Missing Middle plan. She went on to say, “We can confidently say we do have enough capacity within our current plans to enable the production that COG [Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments] has for Arlington targets.”
So, what goal is EHO supposed to accomplish? How many new units of what type are needed? What size and price are needed? Will changes in residents’ income and diversity be tracked and if so, what changes are acceptable? Who will be displaced? What does success look like? The EHO Plan answers none of these questions.
The controversy has needlessly torn the community apart because of its flawed public engagement process (during a pandemic ) that was criticized by the Arlington Civic Federation and Arlington Planning Commissioner Leo Sarli. After abstaining from the final vote to approve the overall EHO Plan, Sarli stated, “I have been critical along the way…. as I think we can do better.….I really ask the County Board to avoid a similar process in the future…We had several years of hypothetical planning and arrived to a five-week process once we actually got to the substance of the issue.”
“The fight about EHO is not over,” said Gerk. “This will continue at the ballot box and at the Courthouse. For EHO proponents, this is just the beginning, too. They have already signaled that they will be pushing for larger seven-and-eight-unit buildings, greater height, more lot coverage, no parking minimums and other ways to further increase density and its resulting negative impacts.”
Over the past few months, groups, civic associations and individuals testified about the lack of analysis of critical issues and the problems of the EHO Plan, noting the negative impact on Arlington’s antiquated infrastructure. They questioned the morality of making promises of affordability and home ownership that can’t be met and highlighted the outside monied interests looking to invest in MMH units as rentals and influence Arlington’s housing policy. Alternative approaches to providing affordable housing were recommended. The Board was reminded about the broken promises made in 2019 that countywide upzoning would not occur, and the loss of faith in our government that is ignoring so many Arlingtonians’ opposition and questions.
# # #
Media Contact: AfUT, afut.upzoningtransparency@gmail.com
