This article would have allowed homeowners to construct an accessory apartment at their residence, so long as it was part of the main structure, was no larger than 700 square feet, the residence was owner-occupied, and a few other restrictions.
It was defeated, near as I could tell, because opponents thought that people might build accessory apartments.
Oddly, the potential for a change in the character of the individual neighborhoods that might witness this new development took a back seat to the issue of how many more people might occupy a 700 square foot apartment.
Here is some data on the population of Arlington over the last 40 years:
42,844 (2010 U.S. census)
42,389 (2000 U.S. census)
44,630 (1990 U.S. census)
46,465 (1985 state census)
48,219 (1980 U.S. census)
52,720 (1970 U.S. census)
I would suggest that these numbers show us, unless we assert that Arlington has been a bad place to live in the past, that density is not an issue with regards to Article 8.
There are many reasons to be cautious about allowing new types of development. I can’t help but notice that the same spirit of opposition existed with regards to Article 7 which would have permitted “mixed use” development in town.
I strongly believe in exercising caution when it comes to allowing new development. When we make changes such as this, the impact is often far reaching, and extremely difficult to undo.
However we can’t oppose any new development. And we can’t oppose any new growth. I hope we in Arlington realize that without growth, we will continue to face higher taxes, as opportunities for new revenue fails to keep pace with increasing costs.
I may come back and write again about Article 8; there were a couple amendments offered, one restricting the amount of rent that could be charged, that are worth discussing further.
No comments:
Post a Comment