Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just playing devil-ista's/person-who-might-have-to-move-to-route 1- herself-due-to-her-low income-advocate.
For those stating all the lower income housing needs to be "removed", where would you suggest those current tenants move to?
We all know the rents in Fairfax County are TOO DAMN high. That particular section of the "Highway" has a pretty large concentration of some of the more affordable apartments in Fairfax County proper.
Not everyone can afford to pay $1,600 a month rent on a 1 bedroom - and honestly, Cherry Arms (one of the low income apartments noted) is now $1,110 (per their website cherryarms.com).
Per the standard 36x the rent salary needed to qualify ratio (some places are rent x33, some are even rent x42), a person wanting to live here would need to make $39,960 a year to live here. That is $19.03 an hour!!!!
$19 an hour sound much to most of you here on these boards, but to a low income person working at the Fast Eddie's or a store at Beacon Mall right now for $8-10 an hour, this can only be but a dream....(until they go back to school and improve themselves etc etc etc).
I am betting the average person who works in the area probably makes less than that- especially the retail workers and service industry workers needed to keep all of the shopping centers, auto repair centers, restaurants, hotels, and other activities staffed every day.
I bet there is a lot of overcrowding in the apartments and mobile homes in the area because of this- they have to live near work if they don't have/can't afford a car. Not to mention at $10/hour their rent should only be $577 per the aforementioned x36 ratio...and where praytell can this person rent a place for $577 that is not a room in someone's house? So I can see the overcrowding happening in the area.
I understand the great want to revitalize "The Highway"...but in all of these discussions and articles over the years...I don't see any plan on where the lower income people will be placed once the developers get their way and make more luxury condos and townhomes for the new Ft. Belvoir people!
Could this be why it is NOT being developed? Maybe it is a GOOD idea to keep at least ONE area of Fairfax County a little on the inexpensive side so people who make <$50k a year like our teachers and public bus drivers and retail workers and such can live in the county too.
OH (edit) and those old hotels there (Virginia Lodge, Cedar Lodge, Relax Inn, the ones further down on the left where the Wendys and what used to be Ernies Crabs...) Blow them ALL up, but leave at least ONE so people of lower income have an option since not everyone can afford the holiday...or even the days...and since there is no Motel 6 in the immediate area....matter fact....they should just build a NICE NEW MOTEL 6 or SUPER 8 a CHEAPER $250-300/week (like Value Place in Gainesville VA) extended stay hotel in its place. This will help with the travlers in the area they have a nicer place to stay for cheap and not be subject to the roach motels there now and all they need is some security to keep out the meth heads and drug dealers and people renting by the hour....I hope Motel 6 or one of the hotel chains is reading this!!!! They can make money!!!!! And create more jobs! The time i was at one of the fleabags, there was only the clerk and a housekeeper. That's it. A Motel 6 would employ a good 20 people and create more jobs.
Not a sermon, just a thought....
Last edited by Boomshakalaka!; 04-24-2012 at 03:05 PM..
Just playing devil-ista's/person-who-might-have-to-move-to-route 1- herself-due-to-her-low income-advocate.
For those stating all the lower income housing needs to be "removed", where would you suggest those current tenants move to?
who actually has stated that? I stated that new multi use development should take place on land currently occupied by some decrepit motels.
I fully support county mandates to include affordable units. Right now thats not part of our FFX zoning code (and Dillon rule may not allow that as a general requirement?) so it can only be required in exchange for density bonuses.
I can see addressing wage/rent imbalances by addressing wages (really thats the problem, the wage divergence/inequality in this country) and I can see govt interventions to support more affordable units (and I can also support the end of govt policies, like limits on accessory dwelling units and granny flats that make it harder for the market to provide affordable housing) . But deliberately keeping an area undesirable in order to retain housing affordability - I can't believe there isn't a better way.
who actually has stated that? I stated that new multi use development should take place on land currently occupied by some decrepit motels.
I fully support county mandates to include affordable units. Right now thats not part of our FFX zoning code (and Dillon rule may not allow that as a general requirement?) so it can only be required in exchange for density bonuses.
I can see addressing wage/rent imbalances by addressing wages (really thats the problem, the wage divergence/inequality in this country) and I can see govt interventions to support more affordable units (and I can also support the end of govt policies, like limits on accessory dwelling units and granny flats that make it harder for the market to provide affordable housing) . But deliberately keeping an area undesirable in order to retain housing affordability - I can't believe there isn't a better way.
My apologies for misunderstanding you! This is what I get for skimming! No disrespect meant whatsoever! I am just trying to open up the conversation a little from the low income person's point of view!
I do agree with your statement that the wage imbalance is quite high as well as the need for more affordable units.
if I had 100 million dollars of capital/investment clout I would be looking internal to Route 1, areas that are not directly next to the highway to invest my money in... and I doubt I am thinking differently than most developers
There arent really many suitable sites closer to the metro and off Rte 1. Theres that big shopping center across the street from the metro, and theres the metro parking lots itself (theres an old sign there advertising for office tenants - to do something big you'd have to build part of it on the metro garage - I leave it to the structural engineers to figure out the best way to do that.
The shopping centers on Huntington Ave are mostly smallish with small parking lots - probably their ratio of sales to acres of land isnt bad. Most of the existing housing is semi-detached, and would be very hard to assemble - aside from the desire to maintain some affordable units, mentioned above. I think if theres going to be something new, it has to happen on Rte 1.
Whatever happened or didn't happen over that period (some land WAS used for affordable housing - the Patch article does not say why it wasnt developed sooner - but then it IS a Patch article) doesn't change the legal constraints - plus it appears there is a proposal in the works now.
Using taxpayer money to buy it for affordable housing then not using it for affordable housing plus turning down productive uses is malfeasance.
But deliberately keeping an area undesirable in order to retain housing affordability - I can't believe there isn't a better way.
That's the only way that Supervisors Gerry Hyland, Dana Kauffman, Jeff McKay, and the Mount Vernon Council of Citizens Associations have been able to see, for decades.
Boomshakalaka, those are good points; we should all (me included) keep in mind that an area we might perceive as not-so-charming does equal affordable housing for many people. And I think you perceived exactly what will end up happening: Redevelopment (once it becomes prevalent enough) will drive land values up for areas nearby. Ultimately, the lower-rent units will be sitting on land that's too valuable for the owner not to sell to a developer. I agree that lower-income people need affordable places to live--and I think that places like Route 1 are a better answer than officially sponsored/subsidized low-income housing, which (at least in Arlington) often ends up going to undergrads who are getting money from Mom and Dad.
In the near term, I think you'll be OK in that it's going to take a while for Route 1 to be redeveloped to the point where rents go up. I drove down it this morning and only saw one new apartment building--Beacon something.
Boomshakalaka, those are good points; we should all (me included) keep in mind that an area we might perceive as not-so-charming does equal affordable housing for many people. And I think you perceived exactly what will end up happening: Redevelopment (once it becomes prevalent enough) will drive land values up for areas nearby. Ultimately, the lower-rent units will be sitting on land that's too valuable for the owner not to sell to a developer. I agree that lower-income people need affordable places to live--and I think that places like Route 1 are a better answer than officially sponsored/subsidized low-income housing, which (at least in Arlington) often ends up going to undergrads who are getting money from Mom and Dad.
In the near term, I think you'll be OK in that it's going to take a while for Route 1 to be redeveloped to the point where rents go up. I drove down it this morning and only saw one new apartment building--Beacon something.
One of the best ways of providing affordable housing, isnt just by subsidized lowered prices. If you provide MORE density in appropriate places, this increase in the number of units has far greater impact to sustainable and correctly priced housing.
I have a thesis forming for a book I want to write called the Palo Alto effect. If you arent aware, its one of the most expensive places in the country. But its artificially expensive, the jobs are good sure, high tech, IT, solid employment, about 1 million people in the overall county, but no real downtown (sound familiar?).
While Palo Alto has great reasons why people want to pay a million dollars for a 3 br, 1400 sf house, it doesnt make sense considering you could own a 2br 1400 sf unit in the heart of Manhattan for similar prices and have far better pubic services and a much better employment base. In fact you can live in the suburbs of Manhattan, with a commute and house similar to most Palo Altoans (1 hour) and still get the best of both worlds in a stronger employment basis and for 1/4th of the price. Even if you think NYC schools are awful, for that savings you could create your own private school let alone send a few kids to the best one in Long Island.
So why does this happen? Its a matter of land use demand and supply. When you have restrictive land use policies that force outward development by handcuffing developers from being able to build upwards you create far less total housing units than you could. The first 10 mile diameter region around the commercial business district now house 30,000 people instead of 1.2 million people. Now I agree that not everyone wants to live in a city... but 35 to 50% of people do, by giving those people more choices in the city you now tighten the entire traditional development ring. People can still have houses, and the added benefit is people have houses only 5 miles from their job as opposed to 35 miles, and those houses dont cost 1.2 million 5 miles from their the central business area, but instead are accurately prices at 3-5 times the average individual salary of the region (a number that is more indicative of a healthy equilibrium in housing price). Not just how many houses, but also a nice distribution of the TYPEs of units is important 1br-3br apartments, townhouses in all shapes, and of course all sorts of house sizes create a healthy distribution of choices for individuals.
Why is affordable housing important? Without it areas continue to become more like Palo Alto which has seen a sudden spike in cost of living. Why is this? When you push how much it costs for blue collar workers to live in an area, they continue to require high salaries to account for it, eventually if a place becomes too expensive the traditional work base leaves for other areas that are less expensive to live in and provide the same opportunities for jobs. Now you have a work base vacuum where the restaurants, retail, custodial services, etc of the world all have to charge more to be able to find available employees. This is a cost that short term is only accounted by these retailers, but eventually it hurts all of us by continuing an exponential increase of an areas cost of living.
Eventually when corporations start weighing out reasons to expand or relocate to a region they have to review how much they will have to pay employees, and one of the top 3 indicators of a corporate move is the cost that the company has to pay its employees in order to attract them in a region (something that often can be more important than tax cost, material costs, and facility costs).
This is why proper land use/housing price regulation is SO important and one of the most worrisome things about this area. Eventually we will hit a breaking point in whether people who support our work base simply say, screw it and decide to move elsewhere for less pay perhaps, but for far greater savings capability leaving an employment void as has been seen in Palo Alto.
TE, that all makes sense in theory--but if additional supply lowers prices, then why is Manhattan so expensive? After all, there's no height limit there, and there have been many new buildings in the last 10 years.
Same with Clarendon: Until 1995 or so, it looked like Route 1 does now--and was where people went for affordable apartments. Then, 8-story luxury condos arrived. Now--despite the additional supply--rents are probably 3 or 4 times what they were than in 1995.
One of the best ways of providing affordable housing, isnt just by subsidized lowered prices. If you provide MORE density in appropriate places, this increase in the number of units has far greater impact to sustainable and correctly priced housing.
I have a thesis forming for a book I want to write called the Palo Alto effect. If you arent aware, its one of the most expensive places in the country. But its artificially expensive, the jobs are good sure, high tech, IT, solid employment, about 1 million people in the overall county, but no real downtown (sound familiar?).
While Palo Alto has great reasons why people want to pay a million dollars for a 3 br, 1400 sf house, it doesnt make sense considering you could own a 2br 1400 sf unit in the heart of Manhattan for similar prices and have far better pubic services and a much better employment base. In fact you can live in the suburbs of Manhattan, with a commute and house similar to most Palo Altoans (1 hour) and still get the best of both worlds in a stronger employment basis and for 1/4th of the price. Even if you think NYC schools are awful, for that savings you could create your own private school let alone send a few kids to the best one in Long Island.
So why does this happen? Its a matter of land use demand and supply. When you have restrictive land use policies that force outward development by handcuffing developers from being able to build upwards you create far less total housing units than you could. The first 10 mile diameter region around the commercial business district now house 30,000 people instead of 1.2 million people. Now I agree that not everyone wants to live in a city... but 35 to 50% of people do, by giving those people more choices in the city you now tighten the entire traditional development ring. People can still have houses, and the added benefit is people have houses only 5 miles from their job as opposed to 35 miles, and those houses dont cost 1.2 million 5 miles from their the central business area, but instead are accurately prices at 3-5 times the average individual salary of the region (a number that is more indicative of a healthy equilibrium in housing price). Not just how many houses, but also a nice distribution of the TYPEs of units is important 1br-3br apartments, townhouses in all shapes, and of course all sorts of house sizes create a healthy distribution of choices for individuals.
Why is affordable housing important? Without it areas continue to become more like Palo Alto which has seen a sudden spike in cost of living. Why is this? When you push how much it costs for blue collar workers to live in an area, they continue to require high salaries to account for it, eventually if a place becomes too expensive the traditional work base leaves for other areas that are less expensive to live in and provide the same opportunities for jobs. Now you have a work base vacuum where the restaurants, retail, custodial services, etc of the world all have to charge more to be able to find available employees. This is a cost that short term is only accounted by these retailers, but eventually it hurts all of us by continuing an exponential increase of an areas cost of living.
Eventually when corporations start weighing out reasons to expand or relocate to a region they have to review how much they will have to pay employees, and one of the top 3 indicators of a corporate move is the cost that the company has to pay its employees in order to attract them in a region (something that often can be more important than tax cost, material costs, and facility costs).
This is why proper land use/housing price regulation is SO important and one of the most worrisome things about this area. Eventually we will hit a breaking point in whether people who support our work base simply say, screw it and decide to move elsewhere for less pay perhaps, but for far greater savings capability leaving an employment void as has been seen in Palo Alto.
Thomas Sowell, one of my very favorite thinkers/authors, has already covered this topic in his book called "Basic Economics." He also lives in the general area of Palo Alto.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
