MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

Where is there plenty of space to build light rail with townhomes along it next to 270?

I agree that widening 270 is a horrendous idea.

[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: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.

Yeah, sorry, that was me. I found it hard to believe that your argument against the proposed zoning changes was "I don't want more people in my neighborhood." But that actually was your argument.

[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.

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.

Yeah, sorry, that was me. I found it hard to believe that your argument against the proposed zoning changes was "I don't want more people in my neighborhood." But that actually was your argument.

Yes. Not everyone wants more people in their neighborhood. Shocking, 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:

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.

Yeah, sorry, that was me. I found it hard to believe that your argument against the proposed zoning changes was "I don't want more people in my neighborhood." But that actually was your argument.

I also don’t want anymore kids in my kids already overcrowded school. You’re probably flabbergasted by that thought process too.

[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.

The laws to fully fund reserves already exist in the state of Maryland. Reserves for condos are much higher because there is more to maintain. Unless an HOA has amenities like a pool, clubhouse, tennis courts or fitness center, there’s just not a lot to reserve for unless your roads are private and the HOA has to pave them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yeah, sorry, that was me. I found it hard to believe that your argument against the proposed zoning changes was "I don't want more people in my neighborhood." But that actually was your argument.

This is pretty advanced pearl-clutching.

Are you professionally trained in drama?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The laws to fully fund reserves already exist in the state of Maryland. Reserves for condos are much higher because there is more to maintain. Unless an HOA has amenities like a pool, clubhouse, tennis courts or fitness center, there’s just not a lot to reserve for unless your roads are private and the HOA has to pave them.

Lets see. Roof, exterior walls, outdoor lawn, patio, driveway, stairway, fire escape, other common areas. The laws may be there, but that will not fix these issues. MC will be unable to monitor all of these small HOAs. And many of these units will be owned by financially challenged residents (no insult intended). What happens when one of 4 units is unable to pay their HOA fees. HOA is screwed. Neighbors tensions rise. Again, these small HOAs will be a disaster. Having laws on the books is relatively meaningless.

[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.

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.

Yeah, sorry, that was me. I found it hard to believe that your argument against the proposed zoning changes was "I don't want more people in my neighborhood." But that actually was your argument.

So!

[Anonymous]

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

Then build more apartments, condos, townhouses along the Pike and the Avenue. Thousands and thousands could be built. Roads and public transportation already there.

[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.

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.

Yeah, sorry, that was me. I found it hard to believe that your argument against the proposed zoning changes was "I don't want more people in my neighborhood." But that actually was your argument.

This is pretty advanced pearl-clutching.

Are you professionally trained in drama?

Public service reminder:

Don't engage with The Questioner. They pose as earnestly seeking to understand your thoughts, but only aim to undermine others' understanding by twisting those into hyperbole against which to spout strawman arguments. They tend not to expose their own reasoning in a critiquable manner, and avoid fulsome dialogue or directly addressing any salient points made. Instead, they concentrate on any portion of a response that might be so twisted, so that any discourse serves only the twin purposes of casting doubt exclusively on that explained in a response and of building argumentative rhetorical responses to bring to bear in public meetings, allowing those supporting their perspective more effectively to paint and dismiss strawmen, and to avoid the difficult questions more reasonably posed by those expressing concern.

[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.

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.

Yeah, sorry, that was me. I found it hard to believe that your argument against the proposed zoning changes was "I don't want more people in my neighborhood." But that actually was your argument.

Many of these areas were not designed to accommodate a population density substantially higher than what they currently have. There places covered by this proposal that don't even have sidewalks and the county does not have enough space in the the right of way to install them, not mention room for widening roads, or meaningful access to public transit. The magical thinking that every area of the county can accommodate 4-8x+ population density by right does not have any basis in reality and it is absurd that this is even a argument density bros are trying to make.

[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.

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.

Yeah, sorry, that was me. I found it hard to believe that your argument against the proposed zoning changes was "I don't want more people in my neighborhood." But that actually was your argument.

Why is that hard to believe? Serious question.

[Anonymous]

HUD says the apartment rental market is in balance and the sales market is tight. Does HUD have it wrong or is the housing strategy focused on the wrong thing?

[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.

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.

Yeah, sorry, that was me. I found it hard to believe that your argument against the proposed zoning changes was "I don't want more people in my neighborhood." But that actually was your argument.

Why is that hard to believe? Serious question.

lol, let's try this again:

Public service reminder:

Don't engage with The Questioner. They pose as earnestly seeking to understand your thoughts, but only aim to undermine others' understanding by twisting those into hyperbole against which to spout strawman arguments. They tend not to expose their own reasoning in a critiquable manner, and avoid fulsome dialogue or directly addressing any salient points made. Instead, they concentrate on any portion of a response that might be so twisted, so that any discourse serves only the twin purposes of casting doubt exclusively on that explained in a response and of building argumentative rhetorical responses to bring to bear in public meetings, allowing those supporting their perspective more effectively to paint and dismiss strawmen, and to avoid the difficult questions more reasonably posed by those expressing concern.

[Anonymous]

At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?