MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

So lets spend MC money to improve the areas deemed "ruined" lower income areas. Improve the less desirable areas in MC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

But if they require services (and I firmly believe the majority of those moving into these cheaper houses WILL need them) they are taking more from the county than they are giving. Its an economic net negative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is that planned or was that just another lie?

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

Yes, that is planned. It is discussed at some length in the report we are talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because residents with resources have resources and they have choices. That is why they buy SFHs.

I am the former DHHS worker, and yes. This is it. If our clients were coming from single family homes, they were multigenerational. If not, primarily apartments.

This is not binary. I agree it is unlikely that any of the people moving into these units will be in the top 1% of earners. But that doesn't mean they are in the bottom 30%.

I, like many of us I would think moved from an apartment to a townhouse to a SFH. When I moved into that townhouse, we earned in the top 20% of people in the county. Indeed, when I lived in the apartment, I earned in the top 30%.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

But if they require services (and I firmly believe the majority of those moving into these cheaper houses WILL need them) they are taking more from the county than they are giving. Its an economic net negative.

Meaning what? How do you think the county economy would do without their labor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fewer SFHs in MC means fewer wealthy people in MC. Fewer wealthy residents mean fewer tax dollars that pay for the social services. This is not an Ayn Rand mentality. People who need social services need social services. But someone has to pay the taxes that pay for those services. The net payors are not likely to be residents of these multi-unit dwellings. Reducing the number of SFHs is counter-productive from a fiscal standpoint. And a focus on upzoning is particularly stupid given the quantity of underutilized commercial property in MC, especially along Rockville Pike and Georgia Avenue. Latter are both also convenient to roads and public transport.

As far as I know, all or almost all of that land is already zoned C/R. If any of it is not yet zoned C/R, I would support rezoning to C/R. What do you propose to encourage those property owners to redevelop their commercial use to commercial/residential use?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

I didn't say bad for the "economy", I said bad for the MOCO government funding. Retaining and increasing the number of high income residents is beneficial for everyone because they provide surplus tax revenue to fund local government services. This benefits low income taxpayers as well. All I am saying is that a more granular zoning change that promotes balanced and fiscally sustainable growth would be a better policy for the count. It would be a better idea to Allow quadplex and triplex buildings within walking instance of metro stations to increase affordability for moderate income households and also allow the combination single family of lots to make small townhome communities within walking distance of metro stations. Outside of this area, do not eliminate single family zoning, but instead upzone all of the neighborhoods inside the beltway to increase the supply of single family homes. Everything that is currently R-90 inside the beltway should be rezoned to R-60, to encourage subdivision of larger existing lots. They should create a new SFH zoning category R-120 and rezone all of the R-200 areas inside the beltway to this new zoning category.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

I didn't say bad for the "economy", I said bad for the MOCO government funding. Retaining and increasing the number of high income residents is beneficial for everyone because they provide surplus tax revenue to fund local government services. This benefits low income taxpayers as well. All I am saying is that a more granular zoning change that promotes balanced and fiscally sustainable growth would be a better policy for the count. It would be a better idea to Allow quadplex and triplex buildings within walking instance of metro stations to increase affordability for moderate income households and also allow the combination single family of lots to make small townhome communities within walking distance of metro stations. Outside of this area, do not eliminate single family zoning, but instead upzone all of the neighborhoods inside the beltway to increase the supply of single family homes. Everything that is currently R-90 inside the beltway should be rezoned to R-60, to encourage subdivision of larger existing lots. They should create a new SFH zoning category R-120 and rezone all of the R-200 areas inside the beltway to this new zoning category.

MoCo government funding is related to the economy. The economy is related to MoCo government funding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

But if they require services (and I firmly believe the majority of those moving into these cheaper houses WILL need them) they are taking more from the county than they are giving. Its an economic net negative.

Meaning what? How do you think the county economy would do without their labor?

You don’t have to live in the county you work in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

But if they require services (and I firmly believe the majority of those moving into these cheaper houses WILL need them) they are taking more from the county than they are giving. Its an economic net negative.

Meaning what? How do you think the county economy would do without their labor?

You don’t have to live in the county you work in.

That's your idea of Montgomery County? Affluent residents, supported by people who do the work but have to live elsewhere? It's not my idea of Montgomery 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:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

But if they require services (and I firmly believe the majority of those moving into these cheaper houses WILL need them) they are taking more from the county than they are giving. Its an economic net negative.

Meaning what? How do you think the county economy would do without their labor?

You don’t have to live in the county you work in.

That's your idea of Montgomery County? Affluent residents, supported by people who do the work but have to live elsewhere? It's not my idea of Montgomery County.

I’m sure plenty of laborers live in the county. And I’m sure plenty don’t. I live in Mo Co and work in Carroll County. I have many friends that live in MoCo and work in DC.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

But if they require services (and I firmly believe the majority of those moving into these cheaper houses WILL need them) they are taking more from the county than they are giving. Its an economic net negative.

Meaning what? How do you think the county economy would do without their labor?

You don’t have to live in the county you work in.

That's your idea of Montgomery County? Affluent residents, supported by people who do the work but have to live elsewhere? It's not my idea of Montgomery County.

https://moco360.media/2019/06/05/report-shows-45-of-county-employees-live-outside-montgomery/#:~:text=The%20numbers%20haven't%20changed,Maryland%20county%20a%20neighboring%20state.

45% of MoCo employees live outside the county.

While these numbers are for employees of the county, I don’t think it’s a stretch to apply them to non gov’t workers. People come here to make money but live elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is no evidence - it’s my opinion.

If I were in the top 10% in terms of income or wealth (I am not), I would not want to live in one of these multi dwelling units. Zero chance. I also would not recommend that my children buy one. Zero chance.

Ok? So what about the other 90% of the population?

There's a word for a government run for the benefit of 10% of the population, and that word is oligarchy.

This is irrelevant and that is not even what oligarchy means. Growth in high income taxpayers benefits the lower income taxpayers by increasing funding for local government services. Pushing high income taxpayers away by reduce the supply of SFH housing and decreasing the desirability of neighborhoods will harm everyone by worsening the fiscal position of MOCO budget.

Generally it actually does not benefit lower-income taxpayers when the government is run for the benefit of high-income taxpayers.

Which MOCO is not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

I didn't say bad for the "economy", I said bad for the MOCO government funding. Retaining and increasing the number of high income residents is beneficial for everyone because they provide surplus tax revenue to fund local government services. This benefits low income taxpayers as well. All I am saying is that a more granular zoning change that promotes balanced and fiscally sustainable growth would be a better policy for the count. It would be a better idea to Allow quadplex and triplex buildings within walking instance of metro stations to increase affordability for moderate income households and also allow the combination single family of lots to make small townhome communities within walking distance of metro stations. Outside of this area, do not eliminate single family zoning, but instead upzone all of the neighborhoods inside the beltway to increase the supply of single family homes. Everything that is currently R-90 inside the beltway should be rezoned to R-60, to encourage subdivision of larger existing lots. They should create a new SFH zoning category R-120 and rezone all of the R-200 areas inside the beltway to this new zoning category.

MoCo government funding is related to the economy. The economy is related to MoCo government funding.

This is a silly statement.

MoCo government funding is directly derived from household incomes and property values. From a revenue standpoint, those are the only things that matter. Long gone are the days when we had healthy private sector employment. Most people who live in MoCo leave each day to go to work, meaning that we already have a surplus of workers. There are a lot of things wrong with the MoCo economy but lack of workers isn’t one of them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

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

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

I didn't say bad for the "economy", I said bad for the MOCO government funding. Retaining and increasing the number of high income residents is beneficial for everyone because they provide surplus tax revenue to fund local government services. This benefits low income taxpayers as well. All I am saying is that a more granular zoning change that promotes balanced and fiscally sustainable growth would be a better policy for the count. It would be a better idea to Allow quadplex and triplex buildings within walking instance of metro stations to increase affordability for moderate income households and also allow the combination single family of lots to make small townhome communities within walking distance of metro stations. Outside of this area, do not eliminate single family zoning, but instead upzone all of the neighborhoods inside the beltway to increase the supply of single family homes. Everything that is currently R-90 inside the beltway should be rezoned to R-60, to encourage subdivision of larger existing lots. They should create a new SFH zoning category R-120 and rezone all of the R-200 areas inside the beltway to this new zoning category.

MoCo government funding is related to the economy. The economy is related to MoCo government funding.

This is a silly statement.

MoCo government funding is directly derived from household incomes and property values. From a revenue standpoint, those are the only things that matter. Long gone are the days when we had healthy private sector employment. Most people who live in MoCo leave each day to go to work, meaning that we already have a surplus of workers. There are a lot of things wrong with the MoCo economy but lack of workers isn’t one of them.

Agree. Which is why I keep saying we are going to attract those who are a drain on the economy, not those who are going to strengthen it.

MoCo had robust services for undocumented immigrants. That is who we will be attracting. No one wants to admit that.