MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

There is an absolute flood of 1 bdrms in DMV. We need 3+ apts and sfhs to provide "options"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.

Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me.

Because we already have evidence that building more of a thing makes things cheaper. The only people opposing this are rich SFH owners who are afraid that their house won't double in value on the backs of the middle class.

Wait does that whole building things making them cheaper apply to SFH too? If so, what will happen to the price of SFH if we have less of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.

Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me.

Because we already have evidence that building more of a thing makes things cheaper. The only people opposing this are rich SFH owners who are afraid that their house won't double in value on the backs of the middle class.

PP is flat wrong. First, the rich are not dependent on SFHs for their net worth. The middle class in contrast are highly dependent on the value of their SFHs for their net worth. Upzoning will hurt the middle class not the rich. Second, if "building more of a thing makes things cheaper," why does the County want to reduce the supply of SFHs. Reducing the SFH supply theoretically should drive SFH prices higher, according to PP. I fail to understand the logic, assuming there is some logic.

The logic is that they want to put home ownership out of reach for more people, create more headroom for rents to increase because SFH will be more expensive, and consolidate ownership in the hands of a few so that they have more pricing power. Not everyone who supports the plan agrees with or even recognizes the underlying logic but those who started pushing this idea in the first place definitely do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.

Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me.

Because we already have evidence that building more of a thing makes things cheaper. The only people opposing this are rich SFH owners who are afraid that their house won't double in value on the backs of the middle class.

PP is flat wrong. First, the rich are not dependent on SFHs for their net worth. The middle class in contrast are highly dependent on the value of their SFHs for their net worth. Upzoning will hurt the middle class not the rich. Second, if "building more of a thing makes things cheaper," why does the County want to reduce the supply of SFHs. Reducing the SFH supply theoretically should drive SFH prices higher, according to PP. I fail to understand the logic, assuming there is some logic.

The logic is that they want to put home ownership out of reach for more people, create more headroom for rents to increase because SFH will be more expensive, and consolidate ownership in the hands of a few so that they have more pricing power. Not everyone who supports the plan agrees with or even recognizes the underlying logic but those who started pushing this idea in the first place definitely do.

They also hate puppies and warm socks, and they want to force everyone to put pineapple in their pizza. They're just the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?

No. Why would it be? I keep reading stuff on this thread like "I would love to live in Hawaii, but I can't afford it, oh well." Why wouldn't that apply here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?

No. Why would it be? I keep reading stuff on this thread like "I would love to live in Hawaii, but I can't afford it, oh well." Why wouldn't that apply here?

It’s a little misleading though to talk about SFH prices and suggesting that new rental apartments will make SFH prices lower. Apartments for rent have never put downward pressure on SFH prices in this county. The rental apartment market has been in balance or loose more often than not and the purchase market has been tight more often than not. We get more out migration from lack of SFH than we get from lack of rentals. The housing market is complex and the details matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?

No. Why would it be? I keep reading stuff on this thread like "I would love to live in Hawaii, but I can't afford it, oh well." Why wouldn't that apply here?

It’s a little misleading though to talk about SFH prices and suggesting that new rental apartments will make SFH prices lower. Apartments for rent have never put downward pressure on SFH prices in this county. The rental apartment market has been in balance or loose more often than not and the purchase market has been tight more often than not. We get more out migration from lack of SFH than we get from lack of rentals. The housing market is complex and the details matter.

The only housing in Montgomery County that matters is detached single-unit housing, and the only people in Montgomery County who matter are people for whom the only acceptable housing option is buying a unit of detached single-unit housing to live in as one household, with at least one child under age 18.

By the way, there is detached single-unit housing that is rentals, right here in Montgomery County! Did you know that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?

No. Why would it be? I keep reading stuff on this thread like "I would love to live in Hawaii, but I can't afford it, oh well." Why wouldn't that apply here?

It’s a little misleading though to talk about SFH prices and suggesting that new rental apartments will make SFH prices lower. Apartments for rent have never put downward pressure on SFH prices in this county. The rental apartment market has been in balance or loose more often than not and the purchase market has been tight more often than not. We get more out migration from lack of SFH than we get from lack of rentals. The housing market is complex and the details matter.

The only housing in Montgomery County that matters is detached single-unit housing, and the only people in Montgomery County who matter are people for whom the only acceptable housing option is buying a unit of detached single-unit housing to live in as one household, with at least one child under age 18.

By the way, there is detached single-unit housing that is rentals, right here in Montgomery County! Did you know that?

Yes, I’m tracking. Did you know that SFH made up about a quarter of the rental housing stock in MoCo in 2021?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?

No. Why would it be? I keep reading stuff on this thread like "I would love to live in Hawaii, but I can't afford it, oh well." Why wouldn't that apply here?

It’s a little misleading though to talk about SFH prices and suggesting that new rental apartments will make SFH prices lower. Apartments for rent have never put downward pressure on SFH prices in this county. The rental apartment market has been in balance or loose more often than not and the purchase market has been tight more often than not. We get more out migration from lack of SFH than we get from lack of rentals. The housing market is complex and the details matter.

The only housing in Montgomery County that matters is detached single-unit housing, and the only people in Montgomery County who matter are people for whom the only acceptable housing option is buying a unit of detached single-unit housing to live in as one household, with at least one child under age 18.

By the way, there is detached single-unit housing that is rentals, right here in Montgomery County! Did you know that?

Yes, I’m tracking. Did you know that SFH made up about a quarter of the rental housing stock in MoCo in 2021?

Meaning that 25% of the rental housing units in Montgomery County are detached houses?

[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: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?

No. Why would it be? I keep reading stuff on this thread like "I would love to live in Hawaii, but I can't afford it, oh well." Why wouldn't that apply here?

It’s a little misleading though to talk about SFH prices and suggesting that new rental apartments will make SFH prices lower. Apartments for rent have never put downward pressure on SFH prices in this county. The rental apartment market has been in balance or loose more often than not and the purchase market has been tight more often than not. We get more out migration from lack of SFH than we get from lack of rentals. The housing market is complex and the details matter.

The only housing in Montgomery County that matters is detached single-unit housing, and the only people in Montgomery County who matter are people for whom the only acceptable housing option is buying a unit of detached single-unit housing to live in as one household, with at least one child under age 18.

By the way, there is detached single-unit housing that is rentals, right here in Montgomery County! Did you know that?

Yes, I’m tracking. Did you know that SFH made up about a quarter of the rental housing stock in MoCo in 2021?

Meaning that 25% of the rental housing units in Montgomery County are detached houses?

SFH does not mean detached.

[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: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?

No. Why would it be? I keep reading stuff on this thread like "I would love to live in Hawaii, but I can't afford it, oh well." Why wouldn't that apply here?

It’s a little misleading though to talk about SFH prices and suggesting that new rental apartments will make SFH prices lower. Apartments for rent have never put downward pressure on SFH prices in this county. The rental apartment market has been in balance or loose more often than not and the purchase market has been tight more often than not. We get more out migration from lack of SFH than we get from lack of rentals. The housing market is complex and the details matter.

The only housing in Montgomery County that matters is detached single-unit housing, and the only people in Montgomery County who matter are people for whom the only acceptable housing option is buying a unit of detached single-unit housing to live in as one household, with at least one child under age 18.

By the way, there is detached single-unit housing that is rentals, right here in Montgomery County! Did you know that?

Yes, I’m tracking. Did you know that SFH made up about a quarter of the rental housing stock in MoCo in 2021?

Meaning that 25% of the rental housing units in Montgomery County are detached houses?

SFH does not mean detached.

Ok, so 25% of the rental housing units in Montgomery County are detached or attached houses?

Here's what I'm seeing:

33% of housing units in the county are rental units.
Over 70% of units in multi-unit buildings are rental units; 8% of single-unit detached buildings are rental units; 23% of single-unit attached buildings are rental units.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RentalHousingSheet.pdf

Maybe "23% of single-family attached are rentals" is what you were thinking of?

[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: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?

No. Why would it be? I keep reading stuff on this thread like "I would love to live in Hawaii, but I can't afford it, oh well." Why wouldn't that apply here?

It’s a little misleading though to talk about SFH prices and suggesting that new rental apartments will make SFH prices lower. Apartments for rent have never put downward pressure on SFH prices in this county. The rental apartment market has been in balance or loose more often than not and the purchase market has been tight more often than not. We get more out migration from lack of SFH than we get from lack of rentals. The housing market is complex and the details matter.

The only housing in Montgomery County that matters is detached single-unit housing, and the only people in Montgomery County who matter are people for whom the only acceptable housing option is buying a unit of detached single-unit housing to live in as one household, with at least one child under age 18.

By the way, there is detached single-unit housing that is rentals, right here in Montgomery County! Did you know that?

Yes, I’m tracking. Did you know that SFH made up about a quarter of the rental housing stock in MoCo in 2021?

Meaning that 25% of the rental housing units in Montgomery County are detached houses?

SFH does not mean detached.

Ok, so 25% of the rental housing units in Montgomery County are detached or attached houses?

Here's what I'm seeing:

33% of housing units in the county are rental units.
Over 70% of units in multi-unit buildings are rental units; 8% of single-unit detached buildings are rental units; 23% of single-unit attached buildings are rental units.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/RentalHousingSheet.pdf

Maybe "23% of single-family attached are rentals" is what you were thinking of?

HUD: In 2019, approximately 26 percent of all renter-occupied units were single family homes. Because of planning’s failure to stimulate housing production, the housing makeup hasn’t changed much since then, sport.

Another interesting insight from HUD: In 2021, it forecast that SFH demand would outpace production by more than 6x through 2024. It forecast that rental demand would outpace production by about 2x. The SFH housing crisis is much worse than the rental crisis. I didn’t say that. HUD did. HUD doesn’t update as often as planning but HUD is more objective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.

Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me.

Because we already have evidence that building more of a thing makes things cheaper. The only people opposing this are rich SFH owners who are afraid that their house won't double in value on the backs of the middle class.

Wait does that whole building things making them cheaper apply to SFH too? If so, what will happen to the price of SFH if we have less of them?

Dude, things are expensive because of their location, not the type of house. lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.

Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me.

Because we already have evidence that building more of a thing makes things cheaper. The only people opposing this are rich SFH owners who are afraid that their house won't double in value on the backs of the middle class.

Wait does that whole building things making them cheaper apply to SFH too? If so, what will happen to the price of SFH if we have less of them?

Dude, things are expensive because of their location, not the type of house. lol.

So if we tear down high rises and put SFH there the price of the SFH will be the same as the existing apartment unit? Cool.

[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: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?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?

No. Why would it be? I keep reading stuff on this thread like "I would love to live in Hawaii, but I can't afford it, oh well." Why wouldn't that apply here?

It’s a little misleading though to talk about SFH prices and suggesting that new rental apartments will make SFH prices lower. Apartments for rent have never put downward pressure on SFH prices in this county. The rental apartment market has been in balance or loose more often than not and the purchase market has been tight more often than not. We get more out migration from lack of SFH than we get from lack of rentals. The housing market is complex and the details matter.

The only housing in Montgomery County that matters is detached single-unit housing, and the only people in Montgomery County who matter are people for whom the only acceptable housing option is buying a unit of detached single-unit housing to live in as one household, with at least one child under age 18.

By the way, there is detached single-unit housing that is rentals, right here in Montgomery County! Did you know that?

Yes, I’m tracking. Did you know that SFH made up about a quarter of the rental housing stock in MoCo in 2021?

Meaning that 25% of the rental housing units in Montgomery County are detached houses?

SFH does not mean detached.

Can you please explain this to me? It came up earlier in the thread and I don't get it.

Current SF zoning means one unit on a lot....so detached.
One of the proposals is to allow duplexes and triplexes on lots that currently only allow one unit (SFH).

So can you give me an example of a SF unit that is attached?