MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[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?

It is basically guaranteed to be less than the cost of providing local government services for the triplex unit. There is no reasonable scenario where new triplex units will have average tax assessment values of 2.5M+

[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.

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.

I already understand what you have said about the break down of income and taxes. My question is why you think it is "far more likely" that the people living in a triplex are likely be in the bottom 30%? For example, is that currently the case? When I look at the cost of duplex, triplex, townhomes today, it looks to me like the people living in those homes are more likely to be in the upper quadrant.

[Anonymous]

Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

Yes, but WHY are you willing to bet that? Is there any evidence that the people that currently live in these small two-4 units are "takers"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

It could be either, depending on a number of factors. If the county plans to push this through then they should address both of those possible scenarios.

Back when the snake oil salespeople were greasing the wheels for Thrive we were told that there would be specific design books and tight parameters for development that would come along as a part of any upzoning. They sold it as being nearly invisible to residents and that it would be limited in scope (as far as numbers)

Is that planned or was that just another lie?

On a related note, the YImBYs are the sleaziest bunch of activists you’ll ever meet, so it’s ironic that you’d try to police someone else’s word choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

Yes, but WHY are you willing to bet that? Is there any evidence that the people that currently live in these small two-4 units are "takers"?

There is no evidence - it’s my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

lol, I’m sure that you thought that you were making some logical fallacy point here with the podiatrist comments, but the amusing part is that it’s more accurate to believe that you wouldn't listen to anyone with expertise in their field if it countered your belief system.

YImBYs are the new anti-vaxxers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

lol, I’m sure that you thought that you were making some logical fallacy point here with the podiatrist comments, but the amusing part is that it’s more accurate to believe that you wouldn't listen to anyone with expertise in their field if it countered your belief system.

YImBYs are the new anti-vaxxers.

Eh? Podiatrists are experts about foot problems. They are not experts about the prevalence of foot problems in the population.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?

By “us” I mean the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

You are absolutely ridiculous and hav contributed nothing of substance to this discussion. The YIMBYs on this thread do nothing more than gaslight concern residents and make fallacious arguments why everyone else is crazy. Anytime someone points out a reason why they are wrong they just ignore it entirely, change the topic, or devolve into a diatribe about the moral superiority of their irrational beliefs.