Maryland’s governor wants to tackle the state’s housing shortage

[Anonymous]

https://ggwash.org/view/92158/marylands-governor-wants-to-tackle-the-states-housing-shortage


The Housing Expansion and Affordability Act would allow taller or denser developments than what the local zoning allows. In areas zoned for single-family homes, that could mean duplexes or triplexes. In other areas, you could make buildings up to 30% larger. This would apply in areas within one mile of rail transit stations like Metro, MARC, and the Baltimore light rail and subway, on land owned by nonprofits, or on some state-owned properties.

Landlords also couldn’t charge more than a month’s rent for security deposits, or evict tenants in extreme weather conditions like snowstorms or heat waves.

Renters living in single-family homes or smaller buildings like duplexes would get the right of first refusal if their landlords wanted to sell, giving them the option to buy the property first.


BUT

The state has the lowest unemployment rate in the US, in part because people have stopped looking for work. It’s one of the nation’s wealthiest states, but higher-income residents are leaving.

Maryland also has growing budget problems, and Governor Moore has already proposed billions of dollars in transportation cuts.

It also suggests we need legislation that makes it easier to build market-rate homes that bring in lots of tax revenue to offset the costs of providing more subsidized, affordable homes.

Maryland is seeking to shoot itself in the foot by alienating the affluent residents it needs.

[Anonymous]

Great! They should do this in Crownsville, MD.

[Anonymous]

“….on land owned by nonprofits, or on some state-owned properties.”

Does that mean I can register as a non-profit to buy land and then start cramming below market rate duplexes and triplexes in SFH neighborhoods?

Could Habitat for Humanity do the same?

A lot of it seems ok, but the SFH “upzoning” bits are a bridge too far and will kill the entire thing.

[Anonymous]

Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

[Anonymous]

Cute moniker “Moore Housing” but when all the affluent Maryland residents leave and take their tax dollars with them, there will be plenty of homes people can’t afford.

Politicians really need to have business, economics or math backgrounds or hire people that do and listen to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Hate to break it to you but America has had property controls and restrictions on what you can and can't do with your land ever since the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower in 1620. Historians on planning and building controls have documented it.

But that said, the problem IS people paying more than asking price. They are creating artificial bubbles in real estate costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Hate to break it to you but America has had property controls and restrictions on what you can and can't do with your land ever since the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower in 1620. Historians on planning and building controls have documented it.

But that said, the problem IS people paying more than asking price. They are creating artificial bubbles in real estate costs.

Along with the greedy investors, AirBNBers and everything else.

[Anonymous]

God, I'm glad I don't live in MD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:God, I'm glad I don't live in MD.

Oh, the horror. None of us should have to deal with the atrocity of being able to afford homes on basic incomes like our boomer parents did. /s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Hate to break it to you but America has had property controls and restrictions on what you can and can't do with your land ever since the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower in 1620. Historians on planning and building controls have documented it.

But that said, the problem IS people paying more than asking price. They are creating artificial bubbles in real estate costs.

Wrong

This is the govt trying to control your ability to sell it to whomever you wish. This is even closer to communism. The govt can tell you what you can and can't do with your land. They have never tried before to control who you can and cannot sell your private property to. Eminent domain is not an apt comparison before you try to point to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:God, I'm glad I don't live in MD.

Oh, the horror. None of us should have to deal with the atrocity of being able to afford homes on basic incomes like our boomer parents did. /s

Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right affordable housing? Also, please provide a hard definition for what defines 'affordable' for affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Huh? Just study comps and set a price that you want. Either the renter pays it or you put it on the market. Seems like a dumb proposal but ultimately it's harmless. Actually, if the renter chooses to buy, you save yourself realtor commissions and staging costs, so you'll be ahead by at least 5%.

[Anonymous]

i believe the soviet union tried this and you got this

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/what-is-it-like-living-in-soviet-era-housing-today/index.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Huh? Just study comps and set a price that you want. Either the renter pays it or you put it on the market. Seems like a dumb proposal but ultimately it's harmless. Actually, if the renter chooses to buy, you save yourself realtor commissions and staging costs, so you'll be ahead by at least 5%.

If I am a builder, I would negotiate with the renters to make a straw purchase so that I don't need to bid against other builders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://ggwash.org/view/92158/marylands-governor-wants-to-tackle-the-states-housing-shortage


[i]The Housing Expansion and Affordability Act ...

So the housing secretary is touting the 8100 new units approved quickly in Salisbury MD. That is over the bridge, almost 90 miles from Annapolis and near Ocean City-Delmarva beaches. What were the permits for? Building new apartments etc on unoccupied land? A MD drain to PA and DE for more favorable taxes?

Sounds like a missing middle for Moco, PG.