Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

but there is sufficient housing now just not an unused glut required to drive down prices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

but there is sufficient housing now just not an unused glut required to drive down prices

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

but there is sufficient housing now just not an unused glut required to drive down prices

AKA: "I got mine, sucker!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

+1 Moreover, housing bros are always talking about how the housing is for the working poor, who are apparently all doubled up in housing waiting for "missing middle" housing to become available. You know who absolutely 100% drives? The working poor, because they are engaged in the gig economy and need vehicles.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

but there is sufficient housing now just not an unused glut required to drive down prices

Why so shocked? Do you need us to send you links of available places?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as their developer pals make a quick buck nobody cares

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

Oy. Ok. If you say so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

Spoken like a developer, person with no children, or a parent with kids in private school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

Spoken like a developer, person with no children, or a parent with kids in private school.

Which parts do you disagree with? Do you think that families are NOT doubling up? Do you think that there is NOT a relationship between housing availability and housing prices? Do you think that more affordable housing will NOT be more affordable housing?

I'm a MCPS parent, homeowner, and landlord.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

Spoken like a developer, person with no children, or a parent with kids in private school.

Which parts do you disagree with? Do you think that families are NOT doubling up? Do you think that there is NOT a relationship between housing availability and housing prices? Do you think that more affordable housing will NOT be more affordable housing?

I'm a MCPS parent, homeowner, and landlord.

Define affordable. Because we all know the housing will not be for low income families. It will be affordable for wealthy families. No law sets a cap on rent forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

Spoken like a developer, person with no children, or a parent with kids in private school.

Which parts do you disagree with? Do you think that families are NOT doubling up? Do you think that there is NOT a relationship between housing availability and housing prices? Do you think that more affordable housing will NOT be more affordable housing?

I'm a MCPS parent, homeowner, and landlord.

Define affordable. Because we all know the housing will not be for low income families. It will be affordable for wealthy families. No law sets a cap on rent forever.

Yes, that's true for the new units themselves. But are you under the impression that each unit lives in a vacuum, without having any impact on the prices of other housing units in the area?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

but there is sufficient housing now just not an unused glut required to drive down prices

Why so shocked? Do you need us to send you links of available places?

I think these posters are developers trying to justify the giveaways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

Spoken like a developer, person with no children, or a parent with kids in private school.

Which parts do you disagree with? Do you think that families are NOT doubling up? Do you think that there is NOT a relationship between housing availability and housing prices? Do you think that more affordable housing will NOT be more affordable housing?

I'm a MCPS parent, homeowner, and landlord.

Define affordable. Because we all know the housing will not be for low income families. It will be affordable for wealthy families. No law sets a cap on rent forever.

Perhaps if schools were less overcrowded the poor would've gotten a better education and be less strapped now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

Spoken like a developer, person with no children, or a parent with kids in private school.

Which parts do you disagree with? Do you think that families are NOT doubling up? Do you think that there is NOT a relationship between housing availability and housing prices? Do you think that more affordable housing will NOT be more affordable housing?

I'm a MCPS parent, homeowner, and landlord.

Define affordable. Because we all know the housing will not be for low income families. It will be affordable for wealthy families. No law sets a cap on rent forever.

The housing bill is specifically about increasing affordable units. Affordable per the standard definitions, where affordable means housing costs do not exceed 30% of a household's income, and an affordable unit means it's affordable to households 60% or less of the area median income.

Will it be affordable FOREVER? What an odd criterion. For Montgomery County Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs) originally offered for sale or rent on or after April 1, 2005, the Control Period for sale MPDUs is 30 years from the date of the original sale, and 30 years from the settlement date of each subsequent sale if such sale occurs during the existing Control Period; the Control Period for rental MPDUs is 99 years from the date of original rental. 99 years is not forever, but it's good enough for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.