MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would you think that? Why would you think either of those things? You are evidently focused on SFH (does that include townhouses?) to the exclusion of all else, but other people do not share your single-minded focus.

[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.

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.

How do you know this? Is this what your crystal ball says? Are you attending secret meetings?

[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: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.

Renting from a large landlord is no fun. Paying more in rent than you can afford is no fun. Paying a mortgage is no fun. Defaulting on a mortgage is no fun. Being evicted is no fun. Being foreclosed on is no fun. Being underwater is no fun. Being homeless is no fun. Substandard housing is no fun. Overcrowded housing is no fun. Hazardous housing is no fun. Owning a home is no fun. What in the housing market is fun, and why would you expect it to be fun? Housing isn't there to be fun, it's there because people need housing.

[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?

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.

I think there is someone on this thread that feigns ignorance and is being deliberately obtuse. For sh¡ts and giggles, presumably. Rephrasing statements or asking inane questions.

[Anonymous]

I welcome it. There’s not enough affordable housing for people who can’t swing $600 SFH.

[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: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.

I think there is someone on this thread that feigns ignorance and is being deliberately obtuse. For sh¡ts and giggles, presumably. Rephrasing statements or asking inane questions.

I guess you're thinking that everyone assumes what you assume, believes what you believe, and comes from where you're coming from. That's not true, though. Thus, the questions. Some of those questions are from me, but not all of them. If you can't answer questions about your opinions, maybe your opinions need more thought.

[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.

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.

How do you know this? Is this what your crystal ball says? Are you attending secret meetings?

Ummm

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=44870&Dept=1

lol

[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.

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.

How do you know this? Is this what your crystal ball says? Are you attending secret meetings?

Ummm

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=44870&Dept=1

lol

Ummm lol what? Removing minimum parking requirements is not waiving development standards. It's changing development standards, but I don't have a problem with the idea of changing development standards.

[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 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.

I think there is someone on this thread that feigns ignorance and is being deliberately obtuse. For sh¡ts and giggles, presumably. Rephrasing statements or asking inane questions.

I guess you're thinking that everyone assumes what you assume, believes what you believe, and comes from where you're coming from. That's not true, though. Thus, the questions. Some of those questions are from me, but not all of them. If you can't answer questions about your opinions, maybe your opinions need more thought.

I had someone ask me for clarification twice when my point was pretty clear. Maybe it wasn’t you. Maybe there’s another person who doesn’t understand simple English. If that wasn’t you my apologies.

[Anonymous]

Florida has enacted multiple new laws to ensure that HOAs are funded and retain the appropriate reserves. The small HOAs that will arise in MC from the new duplexes/etc in former SFHs will be a disaster. No scale. Expensive to operate. Impossible to monitor. Recipe for disputes among 2-4 neighbors.

[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?

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.

How do you know this? Is this what your crystal ball says? Are you attending secret meetings?

Ummm

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=44870&Dept=1

lol

Ummm lol what? Removing minimum parking requirements is not waiving development standards. It's changing development standards, but I don't have a problem with the idea of changing development standards.

Don't lie and argue over semantics. Changing development standards (by making them less stringent) means removing or waiving them. They are eliminating essential protections that prevent developers from steamrolling county residents and taxpayers. Most of these streets that have roadside parking space, do not have enough space for for 3-4x+ number of residents to park on the side of the road. Many of these neighborhoods are already congested with roadside parking and have effectively become one lane roads with two way traffic. The county is planning on doubling down on failed development parkings that will worsen problems with existing under capacity infrastructure networks. This poorly thought out parking policy is going to kill people creating a situation where emergency vehicles cannot reach properties in a timely manner (eg. fire, ambulance, police).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why would you think that? Why would you think either of those things? You are evidently focused on SFH (does that include townhouses?) to the exclusion of all else, but other people do not share your single-minded focus.

This is where the greatest shortage of housing units is. However, the county never focuses on any policies that would expand the supply of SFHs. They continue to focus on expanding the supply of housing units with less demand, creating market imbalances.

[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?

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.

How do you know this? Is this what your crystal ball says? Are you attending secret meetings?

Ummm

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=44870&Dept=1

lol

Ummm lol what? Removing minimum parking requirements is not waiving development standards. It's changing development standards, but I don't have a problem with the idea of changing development standards.

Don't lie and argue over semantics. Changing development standards (by making them less stringent) means removing or waiving them. They are eliminating essential protections that prevent developers from steamrolling county residents and taxpayers. Most of these streets that have roadside parking space, do not have enough space for for 3-4x+ number of residents to park on the side of the road. Many of these neighborhoods are already congested with roadside parking and have effectively become one lane roads with two way traffic. The county is planning on doubling down on failed development parkings that will worsen problems with existing under capacity infrastructure networks. This poorly thought out parking policy is going to kill people creating a situation where emergency vehicles cannot reach properties in a timely manner (eg. fire, ambulance, police).

You're accusing anonymous internet randos of lying. It's not lying when people disagree with you. It's just disagreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Florida has enacted multiple new laws to ensure that HOAs are funded and retain the appropriate reserves. The small HOAs that will arise in MC from the new duplexes/etc in former SFHs will be a disaster. No scale. Expensive to operate. Impossible to monitor. Recipe for disputes among 2-4 neighbors.

Renting is a thing. About 35% of housing units in Montgomery County are rental housing units.

Actually, while we're talking about demographic data: only 32% of households in Montgomery County include one or more children under the age of 18.

[Anonymous]

Rather than messing with current neighborhoods, why not just build a light rail along 270 and build townhomes along that corridor? There is plenty of space. Also would avoid widening 270, which to me seems a horrendous idea.