MMH/EHO - One Candidate So Far Opposed to EHO for County Board Election 2025
County Appeal of EHO Lawsuit Win Moving Forward Using Expensive Outside Counsel https://t.co/1Ew3AZ219v
MMH/EHO - What the County’s One-Year EHO Report Didn’t Tell You – EHOs are Not Affordable Housing!!
New EHO Lists for $5,500 Monthly Rent!!
County Files Notice of Appeal
https://t.co/q9D49s7PdZ
Taxpayer Dollars for Developers Instead of Helping Those Who Need Housing Assistance?!
Let the County Know Your Views on Its Homeownership Study by December 4
https://t.co/blPNMDAQ5M
IT AIN’T OVER ’TIL IT’S OVER – COUNTY VOTES TO APPEAL - PLEASE CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE LAWSUIT
AND, YET ANOTHER COUNTY HOUSING STUDY https://t.co/5OeGVYe0yD
Top 10 Reasons Cty lost #10 Ruling says: "None of the above inconsistencies were brought to the attention of the public at any of the public hearings."
Top 10 Reasons Cty lost #1 Judge ruled "Board failed to consider the localized impact of EHO development upon the neighborhoods where EHO housing will be built" and is therefore VOID.
Top 10 Reasons Cty lost #9 "Inconsistencies" include that consultant said EHO would be concentrated in certain areas, but Board said it would be spread across the County.
@margaretbarthel "Broader impact" of the judge's decision is that Arlington can't make up its own rules to make zoning changes. Follow AFUT to learn more.
"Inconsistencies" include that the Board's only EHO consultant tasked with advising what developers would do in Arlington "did not talk to a single developer" re: EHO.
County appealing judge's ruling that the "Board failed to consider the localized impact of EHO development upon the neighborhoods where EHO housing will be built" and is therefore VOID.
"Inconsistencies" include that the Board's only EHO consultant "was instructed to avoid disagreement with the staff of the county" in their recommendations.