Blogpost #12 Guidance for letter writers?

Looking at Garrett McGuire’s peevish letter (http://www.insidenova.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letter-howze-is-the-arlington-candidate-looking-to-the-future/article_26dbe972-5f75-11e4-b91f-f364419610ed.html) peevish letter I was struck by its similarity to the Smith (http://www.insidenova.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letter-howze-policies-will-help-young-professionals-stay-in-county/article_20e755ee-591a-11e4-afa6-6329b75fab8d.html) and Lewan (http://www.insidenova.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/letter-howze-is-the-candidate-with-can-do-spirit-for/article_e00561ba-5919-11e4-a1a2-43de15e67cc3.html) letters from last week, and I wondered if guidance for letter writers is being distributed from the Democratic HQ and Bat Cave over on Jeff Davis Hwy.  Not that there’s anything wrong with that!  But if this is the Dem line it suggests a couple of things: that the Dems have noticed that their stance from last time (Reeps are mouth breathing knuckle draggers!  Vihstadt is a known Reep!  Arlington can’t possibly!) was not a winner, and that the new stance is: Howze is forward looking!  Young professionals need forward looking!  Housing costs too much for young professionals! 1951-model Vihstadt is too old to be marching towards Arlington’s glorious future!!  Ethics concerns are a trivial distraction Vihstadt is placing in the way of the progress of People’s Arlington towards its glorious future!

I kind of like the LaGuardia line:  "There is no Republican or Democratic way to clean streets." And the Little Flower must have been doing something right, since there’s an airport named for him.  I’m a Vihstadt backer and a historical Dem, and I think he’s been playing it very straight and not partisan so far.   And as a ‘40s model myself, I am very pleased that a young and vigorous and forward-looking person like Vihstadt is willing to put some effort into County affairs!

McGuire seems to assume that County efforts for affordable housing will in fact benefit young professionals like himself.  There’s a lot of debate on the actual effect of inclusionary zoning (IZ) requirements in providing housing. A piece by Emily Washington on the right-of-center Market Urbanism website discusses exactly that: (http://marketurbanism.com/2014/05/29/how-affordable-housing-policies-backfire/), and suggests:
“...it’s hard to deny that inclusionary zoning beneficiaries win a lottery. They live in new construction in desirable neighborhoods, housing that would cost several times as much at the market rate. However, IZ’s effects are not limited to beneficiaries, and its costs are not fully borne by developers. Because developers will lose money on the IZ units they build, this cost has to be made up in the market rate units in order for the project to go forward. This adds to construction costs and also incentivizes luxury units that can better absorb the cost of the IZ units relative to more affordable construction. While providing affordable housing to a few lucky low-income people, IZ also makes housing less affordable for everyone who doesn’t receive the benefit by reducing housing supply and skewing the market toward luxury housing that can subsidize the affordable units. IZ appears free to everyone except developers because it’s not paid for out of city budgets. But ultimately housing consumers share in the cost of IZ units through a hidden tax. By making new construction more expensive, IZ also reduces the rate at which the prices of older or less desirable housing filters down to the point that it becomes affordable to low- and middle-income residents. Putting affordable housing in new construction ensures that it will benefit fewer people than the same amount of resources otherwise could...”

I read this to suggest that, despite County Board Democrats’ charitable and inclusionary motives, the effects of their IZ policies will be largely perverse - a few lucky winners and lots of people squeezed out.  The people who get squeezed out will include McGuire, Smith, and Lewan, the young professionals who are too well off to enter the affordable housing lottery and not well enough off to afford the $750,000 condos whose profits pay for the affordable units.