MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

And? I'm not sure why this *one option* presented supports any argument that the county's long term prosperity and revenue will be impacted?

So we are going to reduce property taxes on new residents by 75% to make sure they don’t pay enough taxes to cover the services they are using. That makes a lot of sense.

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

And? I'm not sure why this *one option* presented supports any argument that the county's long term prosperity and revenue will be impacted?

So we are going to reduce property taxes on new residents by 75% to make sure they don’t pay enough taxes to cover the services they are using. That makes a lot of sense.

No, the net reduction is not 75% in almost any case.
And again, property taxes are not the only revenue taken in by the county.

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

And? I'm not sure why this *one option* presented supports any argument that the county's long term prosperity and revenue will be impacted?

So we are going to reduce property taxes on new residents by 75% to make sure they don’t pay enough taxes to cover the services they are using. That makes a lot of sense.

No, the net reduction is not 75% in almost any case.
And again, property taxes are not the only revenue taken in by the county.

Surely you aren’t denying or are ignorant of the fact that MoCo has a revenue problem?

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

And? I'm not sure why this *one option* presented supports any argument that the county's long term prosperity and revenue will be impacted?

So we are going to reduce property taxes on new residents by 75% to make sure they don’t pay enough taxes to cover the services they are using. That makes a lot of sense.

No, the net reduction is not 75% in almost any case.
And again, property taxes are not the only revenue taken in by the county.

Surely you aren’t denying or are ignorant of the fact that MoCo has a revenue problem?

I am not.

What I am saying is that addressing that problem, looking long term, and balancing several policy goals is complicated.

[Anonymous]

I will submit a written response asking MoCo to Manhattanize the Rockville Pike Corridor, Bethesda, and Rockville.

I will also advise them to abolish any residential-specific zoning. We only need to keep industrial zoning separate from residential.

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

Of course there’s a subsidy for market rate housing. Planning loves giving out subsidies to builders who don’t actually need them.

If you’re really for affordable housing, you’ll be against this proposed subsidy because it reduces the amount of money available for deeply affordable housing (that actually needs subsidies).

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

Of course there’s a subsidy for market rate housing. Planning loves giving out subsidies to builders who don’t actually need them.

If you’re really for affordable housing, you’ll be against this proposed subsidy because it reduces the amount of money available for deeply affordable housing (that actually needs subsidies).

Just so we're clear here, the potential property tax reduction in question here ONLY applies to OWNER-OCCUPIED developments. No subsidy to builders.

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

Of course there’s a subsidy for market rate housing. Planning loves giving out subsidies to builders who don’t actually need them.

If you’re really for affordable housing, you’ll be against this proposed subsidy because it reduces the amount of money available for deeply affordable housing (that actually needs subsidies).

Just so we're clear here, the potential property tax reduction in question here ONLY applies to OWNER-OCCUPIED developments. No subsidy to builders.

The property tax abatement reduces PITI, which lets the builders charge more. Part of the benefit might accrue to the owner-occupants, but market behavior being what it is, prices for units eligible for tax abatement will fetch higher prices than units not eligible for tax abatement. Just so we’re clear here.

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

Of course there’s a subsidy for market rate housing. Planning loves giving out subsidies to builders who don’t actually need them.

If you’re really for affordable housing, you’ll be against this proposed subsidy because it reduces the amount of money available for deeply affordable housing (that actually needs subsidies).

Just so we're clear here, the potential property tax reduction in question here ONLY applies to OWNER-OCCUPIED developments. No subsidy to builders.

The property tax abatement reduces PITI, which lets the builders charge more. Part of the benefit might accrue to the owner-occupants, but market behavior being what it is, prices for units eligible for tax abatement will fetch higher prices than units not eligible for tax abatement. Just so we’re clear here.

What you describe is not a subsidy. I think you know that.

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

Of course there’s a subsidy for market rate housing. Planning loves giving out subsidies to builders who don’t actually need them.

If you’re really for affordable housing, you’ll be against this proposed subsidy because it reduces the amount of money available for deeply affordable housing (that actually needs subsidies).

Just so we're clear here, the potential property tax reduction in question here ONLY applies to OWNER-OCCUPIED developments. No subsidy to builders.

The property tax abatement reduces PITI, which lets the builders charge more. Part of the benefit might accrue to the owner-occupants, but market behavior being what it is, prices for units eligible for tax abatement will fetch higher prices than units not eligible for tax abatement. Just so we’re clear here.

What you describe is not a subsidy. I think you know that.

A tax abatement is a subsidy. It either benefits a developer or someone who can afford to pay for market rate housing. Both already receive a number of other housing subsidies. Is another subsidy for market rate housing an effective use of limited resources?

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

Of course there’s a subsidy for market rate housing. Planning loves giving out subsidies to builders who don’t actually need them.

If you’re really for affordable housing, you’ll be against this proposed subsidy because it reduces the amount of money available for deeply affordable housing (that actually needs subsidies).

Just so we're clear here, the potential property tax reduction in question here ONLY applies to OWNER-OCCUPIED developments. No subsidy to builders.

The property tax abatement reduces PITI, which lets the builders charge more. Part of the benefit might accrue to the owner-occupants, but market behavior being what it is, prices for units eligible for tax abatement will fetch higher prices than units not eligible for tax abatement. Just so we’re clear here.

What you describe is not a subsidy. I think you know that.

A tax abatement is a subsidy. It either benefits a developer or someone who can afford to pay for market rate housing. Both already receive a number of other housing subsidies. Is another subsidy for market rate housing an effective use of limited resources?

There is no subsidy to developers under this proposal.

The proposal, as the report states, is only for owner-occupied development as a means to " incentivize and assist existing homeowners who wish to convert their homes to a duplex or multiplex." A temporary reduction in property taxes on both units is relatively small and creates housing and long term increased revenue.

Sometimes it is a moving target what people oppose. Is it developer-construction of massive condo buildings or is it an existing homeowner adding a a unit in addition to where they live? Or both? 

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

Of course there’s a subsidy for market rate housing. Planning loves giving out subsidies to builders who don’t actually need them.

If you’re really for affordable housing, you’ll be against this proposed subsidy because it reduces the amount of money available for deeply affordable housing (that actually needs subsidies).

Just so we're clear here, the potential property tax reduction in question here ONLY applies to OWNER-OCCUPIED developments. No subsidy to builders.

The property tax abatement reduces PITI, which lets the builders charge more. Part of the benefit might accrue to the owner-occupants, but market behavior being what it is, prices for units eligible for tax abatement will fetch higher prices than units not eligible for tax abatement. Just so we’re clear here.

What you describe is not a subsidy. I think you know that.

A tax abatement is a subsidy. It either benefits a developer or someone who can afford to pay for market rate housing. Both already receive a number of other housing subsidies. Is another subsidy for market rate housing an effective use of limited resources?

There is no subsidy to developers under this proposal.

The proposal, as the report states, is only for owner-occupied development as a means to " incentivize and assist existing homeowners who wish to convert their homes to a duplex or multiplex." A temporary reduction in property taxes on both units is relatively small and creates housing and long term increased revenue.

Sometimes it is a moving target what people oppose. Is it developer-construction of massive condo buildings or is it an existing homeowner adding a a unit in addition to where they live? Or both? 

Already covered. There's more to the proposal than what you selectively covered. There's a five-year tax abatement for people who buy a unit in a conversion. All of those units will sell for a higher price than comparable units that don't have a tax abatement. That gives a benefit to the developer.

But let's assume it works the way you say. Then it's another subsidy for an existing homeowner and another subsidy for people who can afford market rate housing. Is that an effective use of limited funds?

I just oppose the subsidy. The rest of it is OK, but I also recognize that for a duplex to pencil over a McMansion in Bethesda, each half of the duplex is going to need to sell for around $1.2 million in Bethesda. Less other places, but probably at least $750k in any neighborhood close to metro. That's more affordable than a McMansion but not targeting households that should be getting subsidized housing in light of other more pressing housing needs that don't have sufficient funding. Definitely allow the housing to be built. But don't subsidize it.

[Anonymous]

Back during WWII many homeowners converted their large homes and rowhouses into multiple apartments during the housing shortage at that time. We are once again facing an acute housing shortage as we all know, so I expect most single family homes and lots in or near urban areas and rapid transit to be subdivided into smaller units over the next 10-20 years. Some may be rented out and some might be owner occupied.

I just hope someone maintains the lawns/gardens and that architectural monstrosities aren’t constructed. The pop-ups on the old Victorian and Edwardian rowhouses in DC look horrifying.

[Anonymous]

The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

They don’t care how awful the outcomes will be, they only care about pushing the ideology.