Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

I'm having difficulty following you. The topic of this post is about a proposal to allow development with no consideration of impact on school crowding.
The only provision that allows for that is state-funded housing.

All of the other sections do propose some density changes and streamlined permitting processes, but NOT exemption from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

I thought we were talking about schools, not just development in general?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

We lack sufficient schools for the population we currently have. There isn't even a single high-school inside the beltway east of the park . There just isn't sufficient land that meets their requirements where they need it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

We lack sufficient schools for the population we currently have. There isn't even a single high-school inside the beltway east of the park . There just isn't sufficient land that meets their requirements where they need it.

Seems like you are agreeing with PP?
Or are you saying that it is literally impossible to build new schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

We lack sufficient schools for the population we currently have. There isn't even a single high-school inside the beltway east of the park . There just isn't sufficient land that meets their requirements where they need it.

So you're advocating for more schools? Yes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

I'm having difficulty following you. The topic of this post is about a proposal to allow development with no consideration of impact on school crowding.
The only provision that allows for that is state-funded housing.

All of the other sections do propose some density changes and streamlined permitting processes, but NOT exemption from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

I thought we were talking about schools, not just development in general?

Not sure why you are having difficulty following, but here it is, again:

Most affordable housing projects to which the other sections would apply (land previously owned by the state, land within a mile of a passenger rail stop, land owned by non-profits) would qualify for Federal and/or state financial support of the sort listed in Section 7-105 (A)(4)(I & II).

Section 7-105 (B) then exempts development receiving such funding from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

This is about schools, not that other infrastructure isn't important. Why set up low-income housing to be under-served?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

I'm having difficulty following you. The topic of this post is about a proposal to allow development with no consideration of impact on school crowding.
The only provision that allows for that is state-funded housing.

All of the other sections do propose some density changes and streamlined permitting processes, but NOT exemption from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

I thought we were talking about schools, not just development in general?

Not sure why you are having difficulty following, but here it is, again:

Most affordable housing projects to which the other sections would apply (land previously owned by the state, land within a mile of a passenger rail stop, land owned by non-profits) would qualify for Federal and/or state financial support of the sort listed in Section 7-105 (A)(4)(I & II).

Section 7-105 (B) then exempts development receiving such funding from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

This is about schools, not that other infrastructure isn't important. Why set up low-income housing to be under-served?

But following your own analysis none of those other sections matter at all, so why are you referencing them? State funded housing is state funded housing, whether or not they are also other things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

By that same straw man, you'd be arguing against schools.

The point is to enact legislation that properly covers both housing and schools at once, instead of supporting legislation that covers housing at the expense of schools, without guarantee of legislation to fill the gap. Anyone paying attention over the past 20+ years or more knows that adequate school funding doesn't magically follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

By that same straw man, you'd be arguing against schools.

The point is to enact legislation that properly covers both housing and schools at once, instead of supporting legislation that covers housing at the expense of schools, without guarantee of legislation to fill the gap. Anyone paying attention over the past 20+ years or more knows that adequate school funding doesn't magically follow.

Why is that the point? Let's support housing. Let's support schools. Your position - I oppose this more-housing bill because it doesn't also include more schools - is opposing more housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

I'm having difficulty following you. The topic of this post is about a proposal to allow development with no consideration of impact on school crowding.
The only provision that allows for that is state-funded housing.

All of the other sections do propose some density changes and streamlined permitting processes, but NOT exemption from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

I thought we were talking about schools, not just development in general?

Not sure why you are having difficulty following, but here it is, again:

Most affordable housing projects to which the other sections would apply (land previously owned by the state, land within a mile of a passenger rail stop, land owned by non-profits) would qualify for Federal and/or state financial support of the sort listed in Section 7-105 (A)(4)(I & II).

Section 7-105 (B) then exempts development receiving such funding from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

This is about schools, not that other infrastructure isn't important. Why set up low-income housing to be under-served?

But following your own analysis none of those other sections matter at all, so why are you referencing them? State funded housing is state funded housing, whether or not they are also other things.

The other sections were originally cited for completeness, giving readers of the 10:29 post at the bottom of page 6, here, an overview of the whole bill. Those sections were further specified to respond to the person incorrectly claiming my post was wrong and incorrectly attributing some thought about luxury condos to it. And then the tie-in between those sections and the more directly relevant section was explained.

The other sections do end up mattering, in that they make more areas (those specified by those sections, with caveats that make related construction likely to get some Federal or state funding) open to school-consideration-exempted development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

I'm having difficulty following you. The topic of this post is about a proposal to allow development with no consideration of impact on school crowding.
The only provision that allows for that is state-funded housing.

All of the other sections do propose some density changes and streamlined permitting processes, but NOT exemption from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

I thought we were talking about schools, not just development in general?

Not sure why you are having difficulty following, but here it is, again:

Most affordable housing projects to which the other sections would apply (land previously owned by the state, land within a mile of a passenger rail stop, land owned by non-profits) would qualify for Federal and/or state financial support of the sort listed in Section 7-105 (A)(4)(I & II).

Section 7-105 (B) then exempts development receiving such funding from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

This is about schools, not that other infrastructure isn't important. Why set up low-income housing to be under-served?

But following your own analysis none of those other sections matter at all, so why are you referencing them? State funded housing is state funded housing, whether or not they are also other things.

The other sections were originally cited for completeness, giving readers of the 10:29 post at the bottom of page 6, here, an overview of the whole bill. Those sections were further specified to respond to the person incorrectly claiming my post was wrong and incorrectly attributing some thought about luxury condos to it. And then the tie-in between those sections and the more directly relevant section was explained.

The other sections do end up mattering, in that they make more areas (those specified by those sections, with caveats that make related construction likely to get some Federal or state funding) open to school-consideration-exempted development.

How do they do that? In other words, what developments other than "state-funded" are exempt from APFO/school crowding considerations as a result of those sections? Zero

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

By that same straw man, you'd be arguing against schools.

The point is to enact legislation that properly covers both housing and schools at once, instead of supporting legislation that covers housing at the expense of schools, without guarantee of legislation to fill the gap. Anyone paying attention over the past 20+ years or more knows that adequate school funding doesn't magically follow.

Why is that the point? Let's support housing. Let's support schools. Your position - I oppose this more-housing bill because it doesn't also include more schools - is opposing more housing.

Sure. Show me the current bill that will ensure school capacity and quality. We can combine that at the housing bill into something of an omnibus.

No? You're opposing schools. Nya-nya!

(I mean, come on -- you're not bothering to seriously address the issue, here. I hope others who don't want to read through the back and forth just go to the 10:29 post at the bottom post of page 6, presuming your next post would do something like cut out the earlier quotes trail.)