Moco’s glass introducing bill to limit parking near public transit

[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:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

Because there’s a property tax add-on for building less than the minimum. If the minimum goes away, so will the tax. The developers will just get the county (all taxpayers) to pay for new garages, and the county always overbuilds parking.

Hey, I have an idea. What if we don't require builders to overbuild parking, AND the county also doesn't overbuild parking?

We don't require builders to overbuild parking. They do that on their own. Sometimes they have even ask to build more than the maximum allowed parking (even near transit) and planning approves it like the rubber stamp that they are. Maybe we should base taxes on how many parking spaces they build instead of how many units they build?

Can you please cite to one example where a developer has requested permission to build more than the mandatory minimum parking?

8000 Woodmont.

I'm assuming you are talking about the new development at 8001 Woodmont?
I see no record of a request for permission to have more than the mandatory minimum number of parking spaces.

It’s in the site plan.

Existing in the site plan is not the same as requesting permission. Presumably there is also trees, benches, plumbing, lobby space, etc in the plan. That doesn't mean they need to request explicit permission to have them, as though there is some sort of maximum that can only be exceeded with permission. That isn't a 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:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

Because there’s a property tax add-on for building less than the minimum. If the minimum goes away, so will the tax. The developers will just get the county (all taxpayers) to pay for new garages, and the county always overbuilds parking.

Hey, I have an idea. What if we don't require builders to overbuild parking, AND the county also doesn't overbuild parking?

We don't require builders to overbuild parking. They do that on their own. Sometimes they have even ask to build more than the maximum allowed parking (even near transit) and planning approves it like the rubber stamp that they are. Maybe we should base taxes on how many parking spaces they build instead of how many units they build?

Can you please cite to one example where a developer has requested permission to build more than the mandatory minimum parking?

8000 Woodmont.

I'm assuming you are talking about the new development at 8001 Woodmont?
I see no record of a request for permission to have more than the mandatory minimum number of parking spaces.

It’s in the site plan.

Existing in the site plan is not the same as requesting permission. Presumably there is also trees, benches, plumbing, lobby space, etc in the plan. That doesn't mean they need to request explicit permission to have them, as though there is some sort of maximum that can only be exceeded with permission. That isn't a thing.

You don’t need permission to exceed the minimum. You only need permission to exceed the maximum. Parking facilities are part of the site plan. So are trees and benches. The location of the entrance is also in the site plan. Plumbing isn’t. You seem to have site plan approval confused with permitting but otherwise seem super knowledgeable about the process.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

I bet you are younger than 50.

DP. I wonder what your point is?

-person who is over 50 and knows that Montgomery County has a lot of parking spaces, many of which sit empty most of the time

Most of the time? I mean, nothing is at capacity all of the time. You build for the maximum.

That's what we've been doing, it's terrible policy, and we need to stop doing it. Do you build for the maximum in your personal life? 14 bathrooms in your house, to accommodate your annual Christmas party?

Great analogy. And what the county council is proposing would allow developers to build units with only a half bathroom.

No, in the analogy, the Council would allow developers to decide how many bathrooms per unit to build, based on what they think their customers will want.

I hope you have that same attitude about gas stoves.

We know Kamala Harris’ attitude about gas stoves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zipcar used to have more locations, but that’s how we got around on the rare occasions we needed a car for a few hours. We lived next to a Metro station. We also had an Enterprise car rental place a block away. We used PeaPod to deliver groceries. I loved not having a car. We only bought one because we were expecting twins and I didn’t think I could manage 2 infants without a car.

Does Zipcar still exist?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Zipcar used to have more locations, but that’s how we got around on the rare occasions we needed a car for a few hours. We lived next to a Metro station. We also had an Enterprise car rental place a block away. We used PeaPod to deliver groceries. I loved not having a car. We only bought one because we were expecting twins and I didn’t think I could manage 2 infants without a car.

Does Zipcar still exist?

https://www.zipcar.com/cities