Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.
Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that
not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.
DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.
It's the only option that their
hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.
Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.
But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually
was increasing the supply of housing...
I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.
Incentivizing development:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development:
https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.
Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?
(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)
Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.
It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have
all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers
instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.
When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.
"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
