MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

You realize expenses go up when you add people, right? If this is news to you please tell me you don’t work in public policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

The triplex units will have significantly more student generation on average. So it will be a net negative for tax revenue in comparison to a SFH. A triplex will generate around 1.386 students on average while a SFH generates around .562 students on average. The county share of school spending for each student is around $13,300. So a triplex costs the county $18,434 a year for schools. A SFH costs the county $7,475 a year for schools. The average property tax revenue from a SFH covers this school spending, but the average triplex does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

Why do you assume the bolded?

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

The triplex units will have significantly more student generation on average. So it will be a net negative for tax revenue in comparison to a SFH. A triplex will generate around 1.386 students on average while a SFH generates around .562 students on average. The county share of school spending for each student is around $13,300. So a triplex costs the county $18,434 a year for schools. A SFH costs the county $7,475 a year for schools. The average property tax revenue from a SFH covers this school spending, but the average triplex does not.

What's your source for this? How much tax revenue will a triplex generate?

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

The triplex units will have significantly more student generation on average. So it will be a net negative for tax revenue in comparison to a SFH. A triplex will generate around 1.386 students on average while a SFH generates around .562 students on average. The county share of school spending for each student is around $13,300. So a triplex costs the county $18,434 a year for schools. A SFH costs the county $7,475 a year for schools. The average property tax revenue from a SFH covers this school spending, but the average triplex does not.

What's your source for this? How much tax revenue will a triplex generate?

You can work backwards to see what the average assessed value of a triplex would need to be cover the pro rata share of school expenditures.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Finance/Resources/Files/data/propertytaxrate/2024/RealProperty.pdf

The breakdown of property tax assessments indicates that property tax rate for county level assessments are approximately 1% of the assessed value. So under the most optimistic assumption that 100% of county level property revenue goes to school funding, the assessed value of the triplex would need to be 1.84M+ to cover school expenses. However, the number are actually less favorable than this because much of the property tax assessment is linked funding for specific local government services. The actual assessment that is available for school funding is only 0.717%. This means a triplex needs to have an assessed value of 2.57M+ to cover school expenses (assuming that all general fund+MCPS property tax revenue) is allocated to schools.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

The triplex units will have significantly more student generation on average. So it will be a net negative for tax revenue in comparison to a SFH. A triplex will generate around 1.386 students on average while a SFH generates around .562 students on average. The county share of school spending for each student is around $13,300. So a triplex costs the county $18,434 a year for schools. A SFH costs the county $7,475 a year for schools. The average property tax revenue from a SFH covers this school spending, but the average triplex does not.

What's your source for this? How much tax revenue will a triplex generate?

You can work backwards to see what the average assessed value of a triplex would need to be cover the pro rata share of school expenditures.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Finance/Resources/Files/data/propertytaxrate/2024/RealProperty.pdf

The breakdown of property tax assessments indicates that property tax rate for county level assessments are approximately 1% of the assessed value. So under the most optimistic assumption that 100% of county level property revenue goes to school funding, the assessed value of the triplex would need to be 1.84M+ to cover school expenses. However, the number are actually less favorable than this because much of the property tax assessment is linked funding for specific local government services. The actual assessment that is available for school funding is only 0.717%. This means a triplex needs to have an assessed value of 2.57M+ to cover school expenses (assuming that all general fund+MCPS property tax revenue) is allocated to schools.

Okay, that's how much tax revenue you say the triplex would need to bring in to break even. So how much would it actually bring in?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

The triplex units will have significantly more student generation on average. So it will be a net negative for tax revenue in comparison to a SFH. A triplex will generate around 1.386 students on average while a SFH generates around .562 students on average. The county share of school spending for each student is around $13,300. So a triplex costs the county $18,434 a year for schools. A SFH costs the county $7,475 a year for schools. The average property tax revenue from a SFH covers this school spending, but the average triplex does not.

What's your source for this? How much tax revenue will a triplex generate?

You can work backwards to see what the average assessed value of a triplex would need to be cover the pro rata share of school expenditures.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Finance/Resources/Files/data/propertytaxrate/2024/RealProperty.pdf

The breakdown of property tax assessments indicates that property tax rate for county level assessments are approximately 1% of the assessed value. So under the most optimistic assumption that 100% of county level property revenue goes to school funding, the assessed value of the triplex would need to be 1.84M+ to cover school expenses. However, the number are actually less favorable than this because much of the property tax assessment is linked funding for specific local government services. The actual assessment that is available for school funding is only 0.717%. This means a triplex needs to have an assessed value of 2.57M+ to cover school expenses (assuming that all general fund+MCPS property tax revenue) is allocated to schools.

I support building triplex/quadplex units within walking distance of the metro, but I think that allowing them everywhere in the county by right is not a smart policy decision. It will have a negative impact on county finances, risks worsening school overcrowding and creating traffic issues. It would be more prudent to try a targeted zoning reform first, before implementing significant county-wide changes through a ZTA.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

The triplex units will have significantly more student generation on average. So it will be a net negative for tax revenue in comparison to a SFH. A triplex will generate around 1.386 students on average while a SFH generates around .562 students on average. The county share of school spending for each student is around $13,300. So a triplex costs the county $18,434 a year for schools. A SFH costs the county $7,475 a year for schools. The average property tax revenue from a SFH covers this school spending, but the average triplex does not.

What's your source for this? How much tax revenue will a triplex generate?

You can work backwards to see what the average assessed value of a triplex would need to be cover the pro rata share of school expenditures.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Finance/Resources/Files/data/propertytaxrate/2024/RealProperty.pdf

The breakdown of property tax assessments indicates that property tax rate for county level assessments are approximately 1% of the assessed value. So under the most optimistic assumption that 100% of county level property revenue goes to school funding, the assessed value of the triplex would need to be 1.84M+ to cover school expenses. However, the number are actually less favorable than this because much of the property tax assessment is linked funding for specific local government services. The actual assessment that is available for school funding is only 0.717%. This means a triplex needs to have an assessed value of 2.57M+ to cover school expenses (assuming that all general fund+MCPS property tax revenue) is allocated to schools.

I support building triplex/quadplex units within walking distance of the metro, but I think that allowing them everywhere in the county by right is not a smart policy decision. It will have a negative impact on county finances, risks worsening school overcrowding and creating traffic issues. It would be more prudent to try a targeted zoning reform first, before implementing significant county-wide changes through a ZTA.

Had they come out and said something like that we’d be in a very different place. Instead, they got Thrive pushed through, now the corridor plans (with associated zoning changes), the upzoning mess being discussed here, and separately the change in parking requirements near metro and other “mass transit” (you know, the bus).

The last planning board (that put this all in motion) resigned in disgrace and the current board picked right up where they left off. It’s all very comforting, isn’t it? Makes you really trust the council members to do the right thing.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

The triplex units will have significantly more student generation on average. So it will be a net negative for tax revenue in comparison to a SFH. A triplex will generate around 1.386 students on average while a SFH generates around .562 students on average. The county share of school spending for each student is around $13,300. So a triplex costs the county $18,434 a year for schools. A SFH costs the county $7,475 a year for schools. The average property tax revenue from a SFH covers this school spending, but the average triplex does not.

What's your source for this? How much tax revenue will a triplex generate?

You can work backwards to see what the average assessed value of a triplex would need to be cover the pro rata share of school expenditures.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Finance/Resources/Files/data/propertytaxrate/2024/RealProperty.pdf

The breakdown of property tax assessments indicates that property tax rate for county level assessments are approximately 1% of the assessed value. So under the most optimistic assumption that 100% of county level property revenue goes to school funding, the assessed value of the triplex would need to be 1.84M+ to cover school expenses. However, the number are actually less favorable than this because much of the property tax assessment is linked funding for specific local government services. The actual assessment that is available for school funding is only 0.717%. This means a triplex needs to have an assessed value of 2.57M+ to cover school expenses (assuming that all general fund+MCPS property tax revenue) is allocated to schools.

I support building triplex/quadplex units within walking distance of the metro, but I think that allowing them everywhere in the county by right is not a smart policy decision. It will have a negative impact on county finances, risks worsening school overcrowding and creating traffic issues. It would be more prudent to try a targeted zoning reform first, before implementing significant county-wide changes through a ZTA.

Had they come out and said something like that we’d be in a very different place. Instead, they got Thrive pushed through, now the corridor plans (with associated zoning changes), the upzoning mess being discussed here, and separately the change in parking requirements near metro and other “mass transit” (you know, the bus).

The last planning board (that put this all in motion) resigned in disgrace and the current board picked right up where they left off. It’s all very comforting, isn’t it? Makes you really trust the council members to do the right thing.

Who is "they" and who are "we" in your post? And, actually, who is "you"?

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

Why do you assume the bolded?

In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. So, 3 families living in that triplex are far more likely to be among that 30-40% than that single family. Reality, it is.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/federal/latest-federal-income-tax-data-2024/#:~:text=The%20top%201%20percent%20of%20taxpayers%20paid%20a,paid%20rose%20from%2042.3%20percent%20to%2045.8%20percent.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

The triplex units will have significantly more student generation on average. So it will be a net negative for tax revenue in comparison to a SFH. A triplex will generate around 1.386 students on average while a SFH generates around .562 students on average. The county share of school spending for each student is around $13,300. So a triplex costs the county $18,434 a year for schools. A SFH costs the county $7,475 a year for schools. The average property tax revenue from a SFH covers this school spending, but the average triplex does not.

What's your source for this? How much tax revenue will a triplex generate?

You can work backwards to see what the average assessed value of a triplex would need to be cover the pro rata share of school expenditures.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Finance/Resources/Files/data/propertytaxrate/2024/RealProperty.pdf

The breakdown of property tax assessments indicates that property tax rate for county level assessments are approximately 1% of the assessed value. So under the most optimistic assumption that 100% of county level property revenue goes to school funding, the assessed value of the triplex would need to be 1.84M+ to cover school expenses. However, the number are actually less favorable than this because much of the property tax assessment is linked funding for specific local government services. The actual assessment that is available for school funding is only 0.717%. This means a triplex needs to have an assessed value of 2.57M+ to cover school expenses (assuming that all general fund+MCPS property tax revenue) is allocated to schools.

Okay, that's how much tax revenue you say the triplex would need to bring in to break even. So how much would it actually bring in?

There are 3 related concepts. First, families living in duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes will generally be in lower income tax brackets than the single family living in the SFH. A sizable portion of MC residents pay none or few income taxes. A huge portion of the income taxes are paid by basically the top 25%. Second, comparing total property tax revenues between a SFH ad a duplex/triplex/quadplex needs to be offset the larger number of residents in that former SFH. Third, the aggregate income and property taxes paid by a family must support more than simply the school budget. The end result is that families living in these units will likely cost the MC money. Not every family of course, but I suggest most.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

The triplex units will have significantly more student generation on average. So it will be a net negative for tax revenue in comparison to a SFH. A triplex will generate around 1.386 students on average while a SFH generates around .562 students on average. The county share of school spending for each student is around $13,300. So a triplex costs the county $18,434 a year for schools. A SFH costs the county $7,475 a year for schools. The average property tax revenue from a SFH covers this school spending, but the average triplex does not.

What's your source for this? How much tax revenue will a triplex generate?

You can work backwards to see what the average assessed value of a triplex would need to be cover the pro rata share of school expenditures.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Finance/Resources/Files/data/propertytaxrate/2024/RealProperty.pdf

The breakdown of property tax assessments indicates that property tax rate for county level assessments are approximately 1% of the assessed value. So under the most optimistic assumption that 100% of county level property revenue goes to school funding, the assessed value of the triplex would need to be 1.84M+ to cover school expenses. However, the number are actually less favorable than this because much of the property tax assessment is linked funding for specific local government services. The actual assessment that is available for school funding is only 0.717%. This means a triplex needs to have an assessed value of 2.57M+ to cover school expenses (assuming that all general fund+MCPS property tax revenue) is allocated to schools.

Okay, that's how much tax revenue you say the triplex would need to bring in to break even. So how much would it actually bring in?

There are 3 related concepts. First, families living in duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes will generally be in lower income tax brackets than the single family living in the SFH. A sizable portion of MC residents pay none or few income taxes. A huge portion of the income taxes are paid by basically the top 25%. Second, comparing total property tax revenues between a SFH ad a duplex/triplex/quadplex needs to be offset the larger number of residents in that former SFH. Third, the aggregate income and property taxes paid by a family must support more than simply the school budget. The end result is that families living in these units will likely cost the MC money. Not every family of course, but I suggest most.

What’s the answer then? How much tax revenue will a triplex bring in, relative to a SFH? You’re the one saying that the gap between revenues and service costs for the triplex will be even higher than for the SFH. Can you show your work?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

Very simple. Income taxes are largely paid by top income families. In 2021, at the Federal level, top 1% paid 45% of all Federal income taxes, top 10% paid 75%, top 50% paid 97%, and bottom 50% paid 3%. Maryland may be different but only by degree. MC may be different but only by degree. In essence, income tax revenues, whether Federal, state, or county, are heavily reliant on upper income taxpayers. CA and NY are well aware of this fact. Being generous, we can estimate that 30-40% of MC residents pay almost no income taxes, whether Federal, state, or county. MC no doubt would receive property tax revenues from residents in triplexes but those property tax revenues will not likely cover the MC services, including schools. That one family in a SFH is far more likely to be a net tax benefit to MC than those 3 families in a triplex. Simple economic fact. Of course, those 3 families need housing and whatever services they might need. But reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer, especially given the vast quantities of underutilized commercial land in MC. MC arguably needs more rich families not fewer as social services are in reality paid by those families. No argument or criticism there but it is a fact that CA and NY recognize.

First: We aren't trading 1:1. If you put a triplex where a SFH was you get *roughly* the same in property tax and each property only needs to generate 1/3 of what the SFH generated in income tax

Second: You seem to be assuming that we are swapping largely mansions for hovels, and that SFH equates to wealthy and multifamily equates to poor. That isn't even currently true. And it is more likely that the SFHs that convert into triplexes at least in the first wave are NOT the mansions in Potomac. It will be the older smaller homes on larger lots, with owners who are not in the top 1% to begin with.

So, each unit needs to have one-third the income to generate the same taxes? Even though are three times as many units and possibly three times as many people? They need to generate the same income taxes?

I know that the YIMBYs can be a little weak in the maths, but did you even make it through fractions in school?

As to the second point, no one said that. You are just in the midst of some fantasy.

Those 3 families in that former SFH will not be paying the level of income taxes being paid by that former single family in that former SFH. Those 3 families are more likely to be among the families that pay no or almost no income taxes. 3 families paying taxes at very low marginal rates will not offset the taxes paid by the single family at a higher marginal rate. Suggesting that a single family owning a SFH is likely to be in a higher income tax bracket than 3 families living in a triplex seems obvious. Moreover, those 3 families generally will require more services than that former single family. Assuming on average 2 kids per family, you are now educating 6 kids rather than 2 kids. Note property taxes fund the schools, so that "roughly" the same property taxes from all 3 families now must pay for 6 kids. It will not. Again, you are switching a net tax plus to a net tax drain. Of course, there will be exceptions, but those are the basic realities.

You know what they say about assuming.

The triplex units will have significantly more student generation on average. So it will be a net negative for tax revenue in comparison to a SFH. A triplex will generate around 1.386 students on average while a SFH generates around .562 students on average. The county share of school spending for each student is around $13,300. So a triplex costs the county $18,434 a year for schools. A SFH costs the county $7,475 a year for schools. The average property tax revenue from a SFH covers this school spending, but the average triplex does not.

What's your source for this? How much tax revenue will a triplex generate?

You can work backwards to see what the average assessed value of a triplex would need to be cover the pro rata share of school expenditures.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Finance/Resources/Files/data/propertytaxrate/2024/RealProperty.pdf

The breakdown of property tax assessments indicates that property tax rate for county level assessments are approximately 1% of the assessed value. So under the most optimistic assumption that 100% of county level property revenue goes to school funding, the assessed value of the triplex would need to be 1.84M+ to cover school expenses. However, the number are actually less favorable than this because much of the property tax assessment is linked funding for specific local government services. The actual assessment that is available for school funding is only 0.717%. This means a triplex needs to have an assessed value of 2.57M+ to cover school expenses (assuming that all general fund+MCPS property tax revenue) is allocated to schools.

Okay, that's how much tax revenue you say the triplex would need to bring in to break even. So how much would it actually bring in?

There are 3 related concepts. First, families living in duplexes, triplexes, or quadplexes will generally be in lower income tax brackets than the single family living in the SFH. A sizable portion of MC residents pay none or few income taxes. A huge portion of the income taxes are paid by basically the top 25%. Second, comparing total property tax revenues between a SFH ad a duplex/triplex/quadplex needs to be offset the larger number of residents in that former SFH. Third, the aggregate income and property taxes paid by a family must support more than simply the school budget. The end result is that families living in these units will likely cost the MC money. Not every family of course, but I suggest most.

What’s the answer then? How much tax revenue will a triplex bring in, relative to a SFH? You’re the one saying that the gap between revenues and service costs for the triplex will be even higher than for the SFH. Can you show your work?

Very simple. Top 25% pay 90% of all Federal income taxes, while bottom 50% pay almost no Federal income taxes. See Tax Foundation. Maryland and MC presumably are roughly similar. We can reasonably assume that SFH owners are more likely to be among that top 25%, and that residents in duplexes/etc are more likely to be among the bottom 50%. The next step is to figure out whether the aggregate property taxes from a duplex/etc offset the costs of servicing the residents. As a PP shows, those aggregate property taxes will not even offset the costs of educating the students living in that duplex/etc. Since we estimate that these residents in duplexes/etc pay few income taxes, and since we estimate that the property taxes paid by them do not even cover the school expenditures, they generally will be net tax losses to MC. Not everyone of course. And, of course, if these residents need services, they should get them. But upzoning means replacing net tax benefit residents with net tax loss residents, which is not a good business model. MC needs more top 25% residents, in order to fund the services being provided to all residents.