MoCo Housing Strategies effect on MCPS

[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:Very little of this thread seems to be about the effect on MCPS.

The main effect of this on MCPS is that the gap in the capital budget will get even bigger because impact fees are set below seat costs and because the Attainable Housing Strategy proposed setting some impact fees at zero. If you like overcrowded schools, this is your strategy.

The capital budget does not need to come from only impact fees. We paid for schools long before impact fees.

And it doesn’t come only from impact fees! It comes from impact fees, recordation tax, and GO bonds. We’ve had impact fees for more than 30 years and before that we had proffer. I don’t know why you’re so opposed to the county capturing part of the value it adds to land through taxes.

Paying for schools through local property taxes and income taxes is what we should do. But large one-time fees discourage the activity they're attached to. And we shouldn't be discouraging more housing.

Austin has the highest impact fees in its region and the fastest housing growth. I get that developers don’t want to pay taxes. No one does, really, but you’re overstating their impact on production. Developers usually spend more on lawyers to get their projects approved than they do on impact fees, so maybe we should work on getting rid of that really high cost, which doesn’t provide societal benefit, before we talk about lowering taxes.

Austin's impact fees are far less than Montgomery County's.

Not as a percentage of the median sales price. They anre about the same, with Austin maybe slightly higher.

Part of the value of a housing is the value of the infrastructure that services it. You think developers should be able to book all of that as profit. I think the county should recapture that value so it can build more nice things for the community.

They can and will-- through local taxes on the property and its occupants.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Austin's is higher. Median sales prices are similar between MoCo and Austin, yet Austin's impact fees are about half that of MoCo's.

Austin single family detached median price was $600k in August.

MoCo single family detached median price was $810k in August.

A 33 percent spread isn’t similar. You don’t seem to have a very good handle on the numbers or the tax regime but you’re convinced we should let developers capture the value of public infrastructure as profit.

Is that representative of the year, or is it an anomaly? The Planning justification/baseline for the crisis is based, in part, on MoCo SFH sales averaging in the mid 900s.

I agree that we should build more SFH and collect taxes when they’re built. I’m sure Planning, having identified the most severe part of the housing crisis, has plans for increasing the SFH stock.

Where do you think we're going to fit these SFHs? And the roads to get people to their jobs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gaithersburg council approved plan for old Lake Forest Mall site to include "affordable" housing. Whatever Hs serve that area is probably already overcrowded but will add students. Do they plan to boundary study Lake Forest area schools?

Even if these new residents won't be contributing much in the way of taxes, we can always raise taxes to help cover the shortfall.

[Anonymous]

So the people who moved to the suburbs to escape high density cities will move further out to suburbs with better schools (think Moco to Howard County).

[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:Very little of this thread seems to be about the effect on MCPS.

The main effect of this on MCPS is that the gap in the capital budget will get even bigger because impact fees are set below seat costs and because the Attainable Housing Strategy proposed setting some impact fees at zero. If you like overcrowded schools, this is your strategy.

The capital budget does not need to come from only impact fees. We paid for schools long before impact fees.

And it doesn’t come only from impact fees! It comes from impact fees, recordation tax, and GO bonds. We’ve had impact fees for more than 30 years and before that we had proffer. I don’t know why you’re so opposed to the county capturing part of the value it adds to land through taxes.

Paying for schools through local property taxes and income taxes is what we should do. But large one-time fees discourage the activity they're attached to. And we shouldn't be discouraging more housing.

Austin has the highest impact fees in its region and the fastest housing growth. I get that developers don’t want to pay taxes. No one does, really, but you’re overstating their impact on production. Developers usually spend more on lawyers to get their projects approved than they do on impact fees, so maybe we should work on getting rid of that really high cost, which doesn’t provide societal benefit, before we talk about lowering taxes.

Austin's impact fees are far less than Montgomery County's.

Not as a percentage of the median sales price. They anre about the same, with Austin maybe slightly higher.

Part of the value of a housing is the value of the infrastructure that services it. You think developers should be able to book all of that as profit. I think the county should recapture that value so it can build more nice things for the community.

They can and will-- through local taxes on the property and its occupants.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Austin's is higher. Median sales prices are similar between MoCo and Austin, yet Austin's impact fees are about half that of MoCo's.

Austin single family detached median price was $600k in August.

MoCo single family detached median price was $810k in August.

A 33 percent spread isn’t similar. You don’t seem to have a very good handle on the numbers or the tax regime but you’re convinced we should let developers capture the value of public infrastructure as profit.

Is that representative of the year, or is it an anomaly? The Planning justification/baseline for the crisis is based, in part, on MoCo SFH sales averaging in the mid 900s.

I agree that we should build more SFH and collect taxes when they’re built. I’m sure Planning, having identified the most severe part of the housing crisis, has plans for increasing the SFH stock.

Um, that wasn't the question.

Is the average closer to the $810k noted earlier or the mid-$900s that Montgomery Planning used to show unaffordability? Neither is particularly affordable, but there's a gap, there, and it would be a shame if Planning was picking a non-representative number as justification. Maybe Planning was using mean instead of median? Median does a much better job of identifying affordability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So the people who moved to the suburbs to escape high density cities will move further out to suburbs with better schools (think Moco to Howard County).

All the progressives pushing to urbanize MoCo are more than welcome to DC. We live so close to a densely populated city with access to public transport.

My family and I, and our neighbors moved to MoCo to live in our suburban neighborhood. And we’d like to preserve that. Why are the politicians pushing to urbanize our middle class neighborhoods against our will?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So the people who moved to the suburbs to escape high density cities will move further out to suburbs with better schools (think Moco to Howard County).

All the progressives pushing to urbanize MoCo are more than welcome to DC. We live so close to a densely populated city with access to public transport.

My family and I, and our neighbors moved to MoCo to live in our suburban neighborhood. And we’d like to preserve that. Why are the politicians pushing to urbanize our middle class neighborhoods against our will?

You are assuming your views represent those of all MoCo residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our high school was placed on an intersection that was probably scarcely traveled 30 years ago when the school was built. Today it is a heavily traveled intersection that is clogged each morning by cars trying to get into and out of the school. The overcrowding doesn't have an effect on the students ability to do well, alone. The cars honking and frustrated drivers have an effect on the quality of life in the entire neighborhood.
We need to vote in such a way as to have a different class of people making the decisions that affect our children ans neighborhoods.

Yes please. Because your current politicians simply do not care about the middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Gaithersburg council approved plan for old Lake Forest Mall site to include "affordable" housing. Whatever Hs serve that area is probably already overcrowded but will add students. Do they plan to boundary study Lake Forest area schools?

Even if these new residents won't be contributing much in the way of taxes, we can always raise taxes to help cover the shortfall.

That’s the plan. Until the actual tax paying base just leaves because they are fed up.