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:

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.

What would the point of that be? Do you think it would lower prices?

The point of it would be a couple hundred additional housing units for people to live in, in areas that were previously zoned exclusively-SFH. I would have thought that went without saying.

A couple hundred new units? Sounds like a growth plan written by NIMBYs.

Why? 200 additional housing units is 200 additional housing units. I wouldn't object to more. I also understand that there isn't some magical policy that will all by itself immediately solve all problems.

Because that’s pathetic in a county of a million people. There are three problems with YIMBYs. The first is they focus on legislation and approvals but pay little attention to the results. If you did, you would be showing up at JBG and Avalon shareholders meeting instead of Planning Board and County Council meetings. The second is you think small, as you did above. The third is your myopic focus on housing. Housing is merely responding to the broader economy. Housing growth here is sluggish because the economy stinks. If you focused less on what gets approved and more on what actually gets built you’d have a lot more impact.

Yes, you're right, I think incremental improvement (which is a result, by the way) is better than no improvement.

Yes, you're right, I think housing proposals should be about housing.

I don't know why I should show up at JBG and Avalon shareholders meetings. As far as I know, I don't own any stock in JBG or Avalon, and I certainly would never own any meaningful amount of stock. I show up at Planning Board and County Council meetings because I'm a resident of Montgomery County and a voter in Montgomery County.

And I actually don't think of myself as a YIMBY.

JBG and Avalon build housing, not Montgomery County. If you went to their meetings or read their quarterly reports you would have a better sense of what’s actually broken in the housing market and you’d be able to advocate for more effective policy. As it is, you support a lot of junk policy that’s not going to move the needle on housing, much less broader economic growth.

[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:

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.

What would the point of that be? Do you think it would lower prices?

The point of it would be a couple hundred additional housing units for people to live in, in areas that were previously zoned exclusively-SFH. I would have thought that went without saying.

A couple hundred new units? Sounds like a growth plan written by NIMBYs.

Why? 200 additional housing units is 200 additional housing units. I wouldn't object to more. I also understand that there isn't some magical policy that will all by itself immediately solve all problems.

Because that’s pathetic in a county of a million people. There are three problems with YIMBYs. The first is they focus on legislation and approvals but pay little attention to the results. If you did, you would be showing up at JBG and Avalon shareholders meeting instead of Planning Board and County Council meetings. The second is you think small, as you did above. The third is your myopic focus on housing. Housing is merely responding to the broader economy. Housing growth here is sluggish because the economy stinks. If you focused less on what gets approved and more on what actually gets built you’d have a lot more impact.

Yes, you're right, I think incremental improvement (which is a result, by the way) is better than no improvement.

Yes, you're right, I think housing proposals should be about housing.

I don't know why I should show up at JBG and Avalon shareholders meetings. As far as I know, I don't own any stock in JBG or Avalon, and I certainly would never own any meaningful amount of stock. I show up at Planning Board and County Council meetings because I'm a resident of Montgomery County and a voter in Montgomery County.

And I actually don't think of myself as a YIMBY.

JBG and Avalon build housing, not Montgomery County. If you went to their meetings or read their quarterly reports you would have a better sense of what’s actually broken in the housing market and you’d be able to advocate for more effective policy. As it is, you support a lot of junk policy that’s not going to move the needle on housing, much less broader economic growth.

I don't know who the "you" is that you think you're talking to.

Could you provide some examples of what you consider junk policy?

[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:

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.

What would the point of that be? Do you think it would lower prices?

The point of it would be a couple hundred additional housing units for people to live in, in areas that were previously zoned exclusively-SFH. I would have thought that went without saying.

A couple hundred new units? Sounds like a growth plan written by NIMBYs.

Why? 200 additional housing units is 200 additional housing units. I wouldn't object to more. I also understand that there isn't some magical policy that will all by itself immediately solve all problems.

Because that’s pathetic in a county of a million people. There are three problems with YIMBYs. The first is they focus on legislation and approvals but pay little attention to the results. If you did, you would be showing up at JBG and Avalon shareholders meeting instead of Planning Board and County Council meetings. The second is you think small, as you did above. The third is your myopic focus on housing. Housing is merely responding to the broader economy. Housing growth here is sluggish because the economy stinks. If you focused less on what gets approved and more on what actually gets built you’d have a lot more impact.

Yes, you're right, I think incremental improvement (which is a result, by the way) is better than no improvement.

Yes, you're right, I think housing proposals should be about housing.

I don't know why I should show up at JBG and Avalon shareholders meetings. As far as I know, I don't own any stock in JBG or Avalon, and I certainly would never own any meaningful amount of stock. I show up at Planning Board and County Council meetings because I'm a resident of Montgomery County and a voter in Montgomery County.

And I actually don't think of myself as a YIMBY.

JBG and Avalon build housing, not Montgomery County. If you went to their meetings or read their quarterly reports you would have a better sense of what’s actually broken in the housing market and you’d be able to advocate for more effective policy. As it is, you support a lot of junk policy that’s not going to move the needle on housing, much less broader economic growth.

I don't know who the "you" is that you think you're talking to.

Could you provide some examples of what you consider junk policy?

Pretty much all of the county’s land use policy for the past 20 years, because the policy outputs have been slow housing growth, terrible employment numbers, and skyrocketing housing prices. The upzoning proposal is more junk policy that by planning’s analysis won’t result in enough housing to lower prices or increase supply in any meaningful way. You support it, so that’s the you I’m talking about.

[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:

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.

What would the point of that be? Do you think it would lower prices?

The point of it would be a couple hundred additional housing units for people to live in, in areas that were previously zoned exclusively-SFH. I would have thought that went without saying.

A couple hundred new units? Sounds like a growth plan written by NIMBYs.

Why? 200 additional housing units is 200 additional housing units. I wouldn't object to more. I also understand that there isn't some magical policy that will all by itself immediately solve all problems.

Because that’s pathetic in a county of a million people. There are three problems with YIMBYs. The first is they focus on legislation and approvals but pay little attention to the results. If you did, you would be showing up at JBG and Avalon shareholders meeting instead of Planning Board and County Council meetings. The second is you think small, as you did above. The third is your myopic focus on housing. Housing is merely responding to the broader economy. Housing growth here is sluggish because the economy stinks. If you focused less on what gets approved and more on what actually gets built you’d have a lot more impact.

Yes, you're right, I think incremental improvement (which is a result, by the way) is better than no improvement.

Yes, you're right, I think housing proposals should be about housing.

I don't know why I should show up at JBG and Avalon shareholders meetings. As far as I know, I don't own any stock in JBG or Avalon, and I certainly would never own any meaningful amount of stock. I show up at Planning Board and County Council meetings because I'm a resident of Montgomery County and a voter in Montgomery County.

And I actually don't think of myself as a YIMBY.

JBG and Avalon build housing, not Montgomery County. If you went to their meetings or read their quarterly reports you would have a better sense of what’s actually broken in the housing market and you’d be able to advocate for more effective policy. As it is, you support a lot of junk policy that’s not going to move the needle on housing, much less broader economic growth.

I don't know who the "you" is that you think you're talking to.

Could you provide some examples of what you consider junk policy?

Pretty much all of the county’s land use policy for the past 20 years, because the policy outputs have been slow housing growth, terrible employment numbers, and skyrocketing housing prices. The upzoning proposal is more junk policy that by planning’s analysis won’t result in enough housing to lower prices or increase supply in any meaningful way. You support it, so that’s the you I’m talking about.

If you're not more specific than "pretty much all of the county’s land use policy for the past 20 years", then I can't tell you if I support it or not. The county has done stuff I supported, stuff I didn't support, stuff I was meh about ...

I do support the rezoning proposal, generally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course what is ignored is that SFHs have shown to be a means for middle class families to grow their wealth. Apartments do not do that, and condos have not been shown to do that. But here we are reducing the number of SFHs, whether by a few hundred or more, reducing the opportunities for middle class to become wealthier.

This is a housing proposal, not a proposal for middle-class investment.

So, the equity concern here is to be ignored. Great way to lead to a county populated mostly by lower income residents, with a few middle income residents. MC thrived primarily for decades because it was a sold middle class and upper middle class county. So, lets avoid trying to return to that model. Not sure who will be the taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course what is ignored is that SFHs have shown to be a means for middle class families to grow their wealth. Apartments do not do that, and condos have not been shown to do that. But here we are reducing the number of SFHs, whether by a few hundred or more, reducing the opportunities for middle class to become wealthier.

This is a housing proposal, not a proposal for middle-class investment.

So, the equity concern here is to be ignored. Great way to lead to a county populated mostly by lower income residents, with a few middle income residents. MC thrived primarily for decades because it was a sold middle class and upper middle class county. So, lets avoid trying to return to that model. Not sure who will be the taxpayers.

What equity concern are you talking about? What is being inequitable? Who is getting the short end of the stick?

[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.

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?

Yes, don't you? I think most people would.

No, not in the units themselves. That’s a push for nearly all people.

First of all, the units in a four-unit building would be different from the units in a five-over-one. And second of all, people don't live in units floating in space. The units are in buildings, and the buildings are in places.

Not sure why anyone would buy a unit in a four-unit building. Not likely to grow in value. Real potential for underfunded HOA, Real potential for serious disputes with neighbors. Stupid investment that will cause financial issues for residents.

[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.

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.

This is an open question discussed uptrend.

[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.

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?

Yes, don't you? I think most people would.

No, not in the units themselves. That’s a push for nearly all people.

First of all, the units in a four-unit building would be different from the units in a five-over-one. And second of all, people don't live in units floating in space. The units are in buildings, and the buildings are in places.

Not sure why anyone would buy a unit in a four-unit building. Not likely to grow in value. Real potential for underfunded HOA, Real potential for serious disputes with neighbors. Stupid investment that will cause financial issues for residents.

Renting is a thing, too.

[Anonymous]

*upthread

[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: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?

Yes, don't you? I think most people would.

No, not in the units themselves. That’s a push for nearly all people.

First of all, the units in a four-unit building would be different from the units in a five-over-one. And second of all, people don't live in units floating in space. The units are in buildings, and the buildings are in places.

Not sure why anyone would buy a unit in a four-unit building. Not likely to grow in value. Real potential for underfunded HOA, Real potential for serious disputes with neighbors. Stupid investment that will cause financial issues for residents.

Renting is a thing, too.

Renting from a small, undercapitalized landlord is no fun. Ask me how I know.

[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: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?

Yes, don't you? I think most people would.

No, not in the units themselves. That’s a push for nearly all people.

First of all, the units in a four-unit building would be different from the units in a five-over-one. And second of all, people don't live in units floating in space. The units are in buildings, and the buildings are in places.

Not sure why anyone would buy a unit in a four-unit building. Not likely to grow in value. Real potential for underfunded HOA, Real potential for serious disputes with neighbors. Stupid investment that will cause financial issues for residents.

Renting is a thing, too.

So, the model is to turn SFHs owned by single families into 2-4 rentals units. So lets switch home owners to renters. I wonder how long that economic model will work. Bizarre.

[Anonymous]

HoCo is too far away if you 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: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.

Don't lie. They are absolutely planning on removing existing development standards by reducing or eliminating parking minimums. It makes no sense to allow a reduction of parking minimums for street parking when there are no assigned roadside parking spots or there is not enough room for roadside parking with a substantial increase population density. The are planning allowing subdivision of lots to create lots that don't meet minimum lot sizes. The state law passed this year will also create situations where they will be required to waive setbacks and lot coverage rules. It does not currently apply since this area is zoned single family, but it will cover the entire county if you implement a ZTA that changes the definition of allowable housing types to include multifamily units.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course what is ignored is that SFHs have shown to be a means for middle class families to grow their wealth. Apartments do not do that, and condos have not been shown to do that. But here we are reducing the number of SFHs, whether by a few hundred or more, reducing the opportunities for middle class to become wealthier.

This is a housing proposal, not a proposal for middle-class investment.

So, the equity concern here is to be ignored. Great way to lead to a county populated mostly by lower income residents, with a few middle income residents. MC thrived primarily for decades because it was a sold middle class and upper middle class county. So, lets avoid trying to return to that model. Not sure who will be the taxpayers.

What equity concern are you talking about? What is being inequitable? Who is getting the short end of the stick?

Presumably, upzoning supporters believe that all families should be able to live in SFH neighborhoods, even those families who can't afford a SFH. What these supporters miss is that upzoning, by reducing the supply of SFHs (which is their goal), adversely affects the ability of the middle class and upper middle class to grow their wealth. Fewer SFHs. fewer opportunities. Pretty straightforward. A supposed concern of progressives is the widening gap in income. Upzoning works against that concern. Of course, some argue that opposition is really about the rich. But rich are not rich because of their homes. They are rich for other reasons, namely their investments. Upzoning may drive the rich to leave MC (with their tax dollars) but it will not likely affect adversely their wealth.