MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

Ah that’s the rub though- if you convert SFHs on a currently quiet street to multi unit buildings, the cars and noise increase.

It’s pretty much impossible to have everything you want in this area unless you are wealthy. I can’t afford to live in Bethesda and that’s ok.

No, that's not a rub. That's just the same old idea that multi-unit housing contaminates single-unit housing. It is 100% possible to build a duplex in an area that is currently exclusively uniplexes.

No the problem is that density ruins quiet and peaceful neighborhoods, with traffic, noise and infrastructure issues. Quadrupling the allowable density imposes a significant burden on existing residents in these neighborhoods and waiving development standards for these units only increases the negative externalities to the community at large. Development standards are meant to protect county residents health and welfare. Waiving normal development standards is just a handout to developers that effectively socializes the losses from irresponsible development decisions, but boosts profits for the real estate lobby.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

These are good questions but the question that all this avoids is why people aren’t building what’s allowed now. There are tens of thousands of units that developers got approved but haven’t requested permits for yet. There’s also a lot of land that allows MF by right but isn’t being used that way. It’s not clear to me why upzoning would result in more building when developers can already build functional equivalents, almost always nearby, but simply choose not to. The problem seems to be less about being allowed to build than it is about having a desire to build. We’ve spent little time on increasing the desire to build, but a lot of time on changing rules.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

These are good questions but the question that all this avoids is why people aren’t building what’s allowed now. There are tens of thousands of units that developers got approved but haven’t requested permits for yet. There’s also a lot of land that allows MF by right but isn’t being used that way. It’s not clear to me why upzoning would result in more building when developers can already build functional equivalents, almost always nearby, but simply choose not to. The problem seems to be less about being allowed to build than it is about having a desire to build. We’ve spent little time on increasing the desire to build, but a lot of time on changing rules.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

Ah that’s the rub though- if you convert SFHs on a currently quiet street to multi unit buildings, the cars and noise increase.

It’s pretty much impossible to have everything you want in this area unless you are wealthy. I can’t afford to live in Bethesda and that’s ok.

No, that's not a rub. That's just the same old idea that multi-unit housing contaminates single-unit housing. It is 100% possible to build a duplex in an area that is currently exclusively uniplexes.

It’s possible but it’s improbable because the profit incentive overwhelmingly favors McMansions. Unless your also propose to seize property unless it has a duplex on it you’re not going to see many duplexes in transit-oriented neighborhoods.

[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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

These are good questions but the question that all this avoids is why people aren’t building what’s allowed now. There are tens of thousands of units that developers got approved but haven’t requested permits for yet. There’s also a lot of land that allows MF by right but isn’t being used that way. It’s not clear to me why upzoning would result in more building when developers can already build functional equivalents, almost always nearby, but simply choose not to. The problem seems to be less about being allowed to build than it is about having a desire to build. We’ve spent little time on increasing the desire to build, but a lot of time on changing rules.

It doesn't avoid the question. It's a separate question. Building isn't fungible. Building large mixed-use commercial/residential projects on former shopping centers or office parks is different from building a house here or a house there. You don't see the builders who replace teardowns with McMansions in Bethesda redeveloping shopping centers, and you don't see the builders who are redeveloping shopping centers doing McMansion replacements in Bethesda.

No, a two-unit house (or even a four-unit house) is not the functional equivalent of Twinbrook Quarter, just like a 1950s 600 square foot tract house in Twinbrook is not the functional equivalent of a 2020s 13,000 square foot spec house on River Road.

[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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

Ah that’s the rub though- if you convert SFHs on a currently quiet street to multi unit buildings, the cars and noise increase.

It’s pretty much impossible to have everything you want in this area unless you are wealthy. I can’t afford to live in Bethesda and that’s ok.

No, that's not a rub. That's just the same old idea that multi-unit housing contaminates single-unit housing. It is 100% possible to build a duplex in an area that is currently exclusively uniplexes.

It’s possible but it’s improbable because the profit incentive overwhelmingly favors McMansions. Unless your also propose to seize property unless it has a duplex on it you’re not going to see many duplexes in transit-oriented neighborhoods.

Ok, great. Then the people who are all up in arms about it can put down their arms.

[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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

Ah that’s the rub though- if you convert SFHs on a currently quiet street to multi unit buildings, the cars and noise increase.

It’s pretty much impossible to have everything you want in this area unless you are wealthy. I can’t afford to live in Bethesda and that’s ok.

No, that's not a rub. That's just the same old idea that multi-unit housing contaminates single-unit housing. It is 100% possible to build a duplex in an area that is currently exclusively uniplexes.

No the problem is that density ruins quiet and peaceful neighborhoods, with traffic, noise and infrastructure issues. Quadrupling the allowable density imposes a significant burden on existing residents in these neighborhoods and waiving development standards for these units only increases the negative externalities to the community at large. Development standards are meant to protect county residents health and welfare. Waiving normal development standards is just a handout to developers that effectively socializes the losses from irresponsible development decisions, but boosts profits for the real estate lobby.

The proposal does not waive development standards, normal or otherwise.

[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:

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

Ah that’s the rub though- if you convert SFHs on a currently quiet street to multi unit buildings, the cars and noise increase.

It’s pretty much impossible to have everything you want in this area unless you are wealthy. I can’t afford to live in Bethesda and that’s ok.

No, that's not a rub. That's just the same old idea that multi-unit housing contaminates single-unit housing. It is 100% possible to build a duplex in an area that is currently exclusively uniplexes.

It’s possible, but as PP said it will now change the atmosphere of the neighborhood. Your quiet street is no longer quiet.

I like PP’s last line. I couldn’t afford to live in Bethesda when we moved here, and that’s why we live in Silver Spring. And that’s ok. I don’t think it is my right to buy a house anywhere I please. You buy what and where you can afford.

Please explain how you get from "I don't think it is my right to buy a house anywhere I please." to "And so therefore, county law should continue to make it illegal for property owners to build multi-unit housing in large parts of the county."?

Also, have you ever been a renter?

We rented for 3 years before we bought our house.
I think places zoned for multi unit housing should get more multi unit housing. I think neighborhoods with single family homes should stay single family homes. I’m not sure where you’re seeing a disconnect.

Why?

Because single family home neighborhoods are generally quieter and don’t feel crowded. I like dealing with less people, not more. Thats why I bought my house where I did. I did 3 years of apartment living and that was enough for me.
Is that ok with you?

You think areas with exclusively single-unit housing should remain exclusively single-unit housing because you prefer living in a neighborhood with exclusively single-unit housing.

Are you really not understanding what I wrote?

No. Please explain.

Because single family home neighborhoods are generally quieter and don’t feel crowded. I like dealing with less people, not more. Thats why I bought my house where I did. I did 3 years of apartment living and that was enough for me.

So which part of "You think areas with exclusively single-unit housing should remain exclusively single-unit housing because you prefer living in a neighborhood with exclusively single-unit housing." is not accurate about your beliefs?

It’s completely accurate. I’m just having a hard time believing you had to rephrase my response to “double check” what I was saying. You said you didn’t understand. But you understood perfectly.

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

Ah that’s the rub though- if you convert SFHs on a currently quiet street to multi unit buildings, the cars and noise increase.

It’s pretty much impossible to have everything you want in this area unless you are wealthy. I can’t afford to live in Bethesda and that’s ok.

No, that's not a rub. That's just the same old idea that multi-unit housing contaminates single-unit housing. It is 100% possible to build a duplex in an area that is currently exclusively uniplexes.

It’s possible but it’s improbable because the profit incentive overwhelmingly favors McMansions. Unless your also propose to seize property unless it has a duplex on it you’re not going to see many duplexes in transit-oriented neighborhoods.

Ok, great. Then the people who are all up in arms about it can put down their arms.

You’ll be satisfied when this policy fails?

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

These are good questions but the question that all this avoids is why people aren’t building what’s allowed now. There are tens of thousands of units that developers got approved but haven’t requested permits for yet. There’s also a lot of land that allows MF by right but isn’t being used that way. It’s not clear to me why upzoning would result in more building when developers can already build functional equivalents, almost always nearby, but simply choose not to. The problem seems to be less about being allowed to build than it is about having a desire to build. We’ve spent little time on increasing the desire to build, but a lot of time on changing rules.

It doesn't avoid the question. It's a separate question. Building isn't fungible. Building large mixed-use commercial/residential projects on former shopping centers or office parks is different from building a house here or a house there. You don't see the builders who replace teardowns with McMansions in Bethesda redeveloping shopping centers, and you don't see the builders who are redeveloping shopping centers doing McMansion replacements in Bethesda.

No, a two-unit house (or even a four-unit house) is not the functional equivalent of Twinbrook Quarter, just like a 1950s 600 square foot tract house in Twinbrook is not the functional equivalent of a 2020s 13,000 square foot spec house on River Road.

You think there’s a big difference between a 1,000 sq ft apartment in a five over and a 1,000 sq ft apartment in a quad? You think there will be demand for the latter when there’s not enough demand to justify more construction of the former? Seems kind of crazy but OK.

[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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

These are good questions but the question that all this avoids is why people aren’t building what’s allowed now. There are tens of thousands of units that developers got approved but haven’t requested permits for yet. There’s also a lot of land that allows MF by right but isn’t being used that way. It’s not clear to me why upzoning would result in more building when developers can already build functional equivalents, almost always nearby, but simply choose not to. The problem seems to be less about being allowed to build than it is about having a desire to build. We’ve spent little time on increasing the desire to build, but a lot of time on changing rules.

It doesn't avoid the question. It's a separate question. Building isn't fungible. Building large mixed-use commercial/residential projects on former shopping centers or office parks is different from building a house here or a house there. You don't see the builders who replace teardowns with McMansions in Bethesda redeveloping shopping centers, and you don't see the builders who are redeveloping shopping centers doing McMansion replacements in Bethesda.

No, a two-unit house (or even a four-unit house) is not the functional equivalent of Twinbrook Quarter, just like a 1950s 600 square foot tract house in Twinbrook is not the functional equivalent of a 2020s 13,000 square foot spec house on River Road.

You think there’s a big difference between a 1,000 sq ft apartment in a five over and a 1,000 sq ft apartment in a quad? You think there will be demand for the latter when there’s not enough demand to justify more construction of the former? Seems kind of crazy but OK.

You think there's a big difference between a 2,000 square foot house in This Area and a 2,000 square foot house in That Area? Yes, you do, and so does everyone else.

Or maybe you think renters don't care where they live? Did you never live in an apartment when you were young? Did you think, oh well, they're all the same, an apartment is an apartment, whatevs?

[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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

Ah that’s the rub though- if you convert SFHs on a currently quiet street to multi unit buildings, the cars and noise increase.

It’s pretty much impossible to have everything you want in this area unless you are wealthy. I can’t afford to live in Bethesda and that’s ok.

No, that's not a rub. That's just the same old idea that multi-unit housing contaminates single-unit housing. It is 100% possible to build a duplex in an area that is currently exclusively uniplexes.

It’s possible but it’s improbable because the profit incentive overwhelmingly favors McMansions. Unless your also propose to seize property unless it has a duplex on it you’re not going to see many duplexes in transit-oriented neighborhoods.

Ok, great. Then the people who are all up in arms about it can put down their arms.

You’ll be satisfied when this policy fails?

When this policy fails to do what?

[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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

Ah that’s the rub though- if you convert SFHs on a currently quiet street to multi unit buildings, the cars and noise increase.

It’s pretty much impossible to have everything you want in this area unless you are wealthy. I can’t afford to live in Bethesda and that’s ok.

No, that's not a rub. That's just the same old idea that multi-unit housing contaminates single-unit housing. It is 100% possible to build a duplex in an area that is currently exclusively uniplexes.

It’s possible but it’s improbable because the profit incentive overwhelmingly favors McMansions. Unless your also propose to seize property unless it has a duplex on it you’re not going to see many duplexes in transit-oriented neighborhoods.

Ok, great. Then the people who are all up in arms about it can put down their arms.

You’ll be satisfied when this policy fails?

When this policy fails to do what?

When it fails to produce more than a couple hundred housing units over five years and when it fails to lower prices. You’ll be happy with that outcome?

[Anonymous]

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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

These are good questions but the question that all this avoids is why people aren’t building what’s allowed now. There are tens of thousands of units that developers got approved but haven’t requested permits for yet. There’s also a lot of land that allows MF by right but isn’t being used that way. It’s not clear to me why upzoning would result in more building when developers can already build functional equivalents, almost always nearby, but simply choose not to. The problem seems to be less about being allowed to build than it is about having a desire to build. We’ve spent little time on increasing the desire to build, but a lot of time on changing rules.

It doesn't avoid the question. It's a separate question. Building isn't fungible. Building large mixed-use commercial/residential projects on former shopping centers or office parks is different from building a house here or a house there. You don't see the builders who replace teardowns with McMansions in Bethesda redeveloping shopping centers, and you don't see the builders who are redeveloping shopping centers doing McMansion replacements in Bethesda.

No, a two-unit house (or even a four-unit house) is not the functional equivalent of Twinbrook Quarter, just like a 1950s 600 square foot tract house in Twinbrook is not the functional equivalent of a 2020s 13,000 square foot spec house on River Road.

You think there’s a big difference between a 1,000 sq ft apartment in a five over and a 1,000 sq ft apartment in a quad? You think there will be demand for the latter when there’s not enough demand to justify more construction of the former? Seems kind of crazy but OK.

You think there's a big difference between a 2,000 square foot house in This Area and a 2,000 square foot house in That Area? Yes, you do, and so does everyone else.

Or maybe you think renters don't care where they live? Did you never live in an apartment when you were young? Did you think, oh well, they're all the same, an apartment is an apartment, whatevs?

Do you think there’s a big difference in a 1,000 sqft apartment in a five over on one block and a 1,000 sqft apartment in a quad in the next block? Or even next door?

[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.

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?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

Ah that’s the rub though- if you convert SFHs on a currently quiet street to multi unit buildings, the cars and noise increase.

It’s pretty much impossible to have everything you want in this area unless you are wealthy. I can’t afford to live in Bethesda and that’s ok.

No, that's not a rub. That's just the same old idea that multi-unit housing contaminates single-unit housing. It is 100% possible to build a duplex in an area that is currently exclusively uniplexes.

It’s possible but it’s improbable because the profit incentive overwhelmingly favors McMansions. Unless your also propose to seize property unless it has a duplex on it you’re not going to see many duplexes in transit-oriented neighborhoods.

Ok, great. Then the people who are all up in arms about it can put down their arms.

You’ll be satisfied when this policy fails?

When this policy fails to do what?

When it fails to produce more than a couple hundred housing units over five years and when it fails to lower prices. You’ll be happy with that outcome?

Yes, I would be happy with a couple hundred additional housing units over five years, in areas that were previously zoned exclusively-SFH. I would consider that a success.