MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[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:

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.

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo.

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand: currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference. How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an increase in the number of SFHs.

OH NOW I get it.

Those people (who aren't me) are arguing about the impact of this proposal on the supply and value of detached SFH. You know that. Semantic arguments are just distractions.

I don't know that, actually. Some of them seem to include attached houses in the category of SFH. Some of them seem to think that only detached houses are SFHs. Or maybe all of the posters are the same little old lady who lives in Canarsie. Anyway, it's obviously not just semantics. If the discussion is about [thing], it's good for everyone to have a clear understanding of what everyone means when they talk about [thing].

The vast majority of people understand SFH to be a detached unit. That includes me, somebody who is very much in favor of MoCo Plannings proposal. The proposal itself does not draw a meaningful distinction between attached and detached SF units, as you are. EX:

"For small scale, these include traditional Missing Middle types, which are house-scale and include housing products like duplexes and other structures that are similar in scale
to the single-family homes to the left." p. 10

Montgomery County’s single-family neighborhoods are becoming less and less attainable to households without high incomes or the privilege of generational wealth." p.15

"Single-Unit Living means one dwelling unit contained in a detached house building type. Two-Unit Living. Two-Unit Living means two dwelling units contained in a duplex building
type. Townhouse Living. Townhouse Living means 3 or more dwelling units in a townhouse
building type." p.23

County law disagrees with you. It classifies housing by single family detached, single family attached, farm house, high-rise, etc.

It’s pretty elitist to think of only detached houses when someone says single family home. There are a lot of different types of homes out there.

I'm not disagrees with you that the longstanding commonly understood phrase is not ideal. But it is what is understood.

And by your definition would you just call any place that a single family lives a single family home.....including a large high rise apartment building?

DP. If there are several households living in a "single family home", do you call it multi-family? What if the single family home is occupied by a single person, do you call it a single-person home? What if the multi-family building is occupied only by single people (for example, because it's all studios and small 1 BR apartments), is it still multi-family?

PP here. Let me try to be clear. I don't like the term "single-family home" I never have. One of the main reasons is what you reference about it really being about the structure but the term relates to the people in it. I would be very happy is the world in general stopped using that term.

The point I am trying to make is that throughout this thread and in most discussion, and even in the MoCo proposal in places, people understand it to mean a single housing structure on a plot of land, detached. We can totally have a conversation about a movement to change that commonly understood term. I'm onboard.

But splitting hairs on it in the context of this discussion does not advance anything.

(Acknowledging that I am now engaging in that semantic debate that I said was off topic. I'll stop now.)

[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:

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.

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo.

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand: currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference. How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an increase in the number of SFHs.

OH NOW I get it.

Those people (who aren't me) are arguing about the impact of this proposal on the supply and value of detached SFH. You know that. Semantic arguments are just distractions.

I don't know that, actually. Some of them seem to include attached houses in the category of SFH. Some of them seem to think that only detached houses are SFHs. Or maybe all of the posters are the same little old lady who lives in Canarsie. Anyway, it's obviously not just semantics. If the discussion is about [thing], it's good for everyone to have a clear understanding of what everyone means when they talk about [thing].

The vast majority of people understand SFH to be a detached unit. That includes me, somebody who is very much in favor of MoCo Plannings proposal. The proposal itself does not draw a meaningful distinction between attached and detached SF units, as you are. EX:

"For small scale, these include traditional Missing Middle types, which are house-scale and include housing products like duplexes and other structures that are similar in scale
to the single-family homes to the left." p. 10

Montgomery County’s single-family neighborhoods are becoming less and less attainable to households without high incomes or the privilege of generational wealth." p.15

"Single-Unit Living means one dwelling unit contained in a detached house building type. Two-Unit Living. Two-Unit Living means two dwelling units contained in a duplex building
type. Townhouse Living. Townhouse Living means 3 or more dwelling units in a townhouse
building type." p.23

County law disagrees with you. It classifies housing by single family detached, single family attached, farm house, high-rise, etc.

It’s pretty elitist to think of only detached houses when someone says single family home. There are a lot of different types of homes out there.

I'm not disagrees with you that the longstanding commonly understood phrase is not ideal. But it is what is understood.

And by your definition would you just call any place that a single family lives a single family home.....including a large high rise apartment building?

DP. If there are several households living in a "single family home", do you call it multi-family? What if the single family home is occupied by a single person, do you call it a single-person home? What if the multi-family building is occupied only by single people (for example, because it's all studios and small 1 BR apartments), is it still multi-family?

PP here. Let me try to be clear. I don't like the term "single-family home" I never have. One of the main reasons is what you reference about it really being about the structure but the term relates to the people in it. I would be very happy is the world in general stopped using that term.

The point I am trying to make is that throughout this thread and in most discussion, and even in the MoCo proposal in places, people understand it to mean a single housing structure on a plot of land, detached. We can totally have a conversation about a movement to change that commonly understood term. I'm onboard.

But splitting hairs on it in the context of this discussion does not advance anything.

(Acknowledging that I am now engaging in that semantic debate that I said was off topic. I'll stop now.)

I don't think it is a semantic debate. I agree with you about the term "single-family home", which is a very loaded term, as well as inaccurate. Although I suppose it would be funny if the SFH-fixated people said things like "Families don't live in multi-family buildings."

[Anonymous]

^^^I mean, I don't think it is a semantic debate; I think it's meaningful and important.

[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:

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.

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo.

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand: currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference. How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an increase in the number of SFHs.

Please explain how the supply of SFH available for purchase would increase as a result of a policy whose objective is replacing SFH with MFH.

Step 1: take one SFH on one lot
Step 2: subdivide the lot into two lots
Step 3: build a SFH on the second lot
Result: two SFHs where there used to be only one

It's not true, though, that the policy's objective is replacing SFH (however defined) with MFH. That may be a result, but it's not the objective.

Lot splitting is different from upzoning.

Do you think all of the panic is about duplexes where the owner lives on one side and rents out the other?

No the disagreement (not panic) isn’t about lot splitting (which is already very easy to do). It’s about upzoning. You’re the only one who’s talking about lot splitting.

I support both upzoning and lot splitting but I think it needs to be accompanied by a strategy to encourage more new SFH (attached and detached) because they play an important role in maintaining a healthy housing market. If the council adopts this proposal, it needs to implement programs to stimulate SFH construction in places already approved for SFH. At some point, it may need to consider encroachment into the ag reserve but we’re a long way from that. Even Clarksburg is built to just two thirds of plan potential.

Anyone who fails to recognize the negative impact that reducing SFH supply would have throughout the housing market (purchase and rental) hasn’t thought seriously about housing policy. If we adopt a meme policy and don’t address SFH supply we’ll probably break the housing market here beyond repair.

[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:

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.

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo.

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand: currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference. How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an increase in the number of SFHs.

Please explain how the supply of SFH available for purchase would increase as a result of a policy whose objective is replacing SFH with MFH.

Step 1: take one SFH on one lot
Step 2: subdivide the lot into two lots
Step 3: build a SFH on the second lot
Result: two SFHs where there used to be only one

It's not true, though, that the policy's objective is replacing SFH (however defined) with MFH. That may be a result, but it's not the objective.

Lot splitting is different from upzoning.

Do you think all of the panic is about duplexes where the owner lives on one side and rents out the other?

No the disagreement (not panic) isn’t about lot splitting (which is already very easy to do). It’s about upzoning. You’re the only one who’s talking about lot splitting.

I support both upzoning and lot splitting but I think it needs to be accompanied by a strategy to encourage more new SFH (attached and detached) because they play an important role in maintaining a healthy housing market. If the council adopts this proposal, it needs to implement programs to stimulate SFH construction in places already approved for SFH. At some point, it may need to consider encroachment into the ag reserve but we’re a long way from that. Even Clarksburg is built to just two thirds of plan potential.

Anyone who fails to recognize the negative impact that reducing SFH supply would have throughout the housing market (purchase and rental) hasn’t thought seriously about housing policy. If we adopt a meme policy and don’t address SFH supply we’ll probably break the housing market here beyond repair.

Which parts of Clarksburg already approved for SFH haven't been built?

[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:

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.

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo.

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand: currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference. How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an increase in the number of SFHs.

Please explain how the supply of SFH available for purchase would increase as a result of a policy whose objective is replacing SFH with MFH.

Step 1: take one SFH on one lot
Step 2: subdivide the lot into two lots
Step 3: build a SFH on the second lot
Result: two SFHs where there used to be only one

It's not true, though, that the policy's objective is replacing SFH (however defined) with MFH. That may be a result, but it's not the objective.

Lot splitting is different from upzoning.

Do you think all of the panic is about duplexes where the owner lives on one side and rents out the other?

Changing the lot splitting rules is up zoning if it increases the allowable density. IMO, lot splitting by lowering minimum lot size is a more reasonable policy than allowing quadplexes everywhere.

[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:

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.

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo.

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand: currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference. How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an increase in the number of SFHs.

Please explain how the supply of SFH available for purchase would increase as a result of a policy whose objective is replacing SFH with MFH.

Step 1: take one SFH on one lot
Step 2: subdivide the lot into two lots
Step 3: build a SFH on the second lot
Result: two SFHs where there used to be only one

It's not true, though, that the policy's objective is replacing SFH (however defined) with MFH. That may be a result, but it's not the objective.

Lot splitting is different from upzoning.

Do you think all of the panic is about duplexes where the owner lives on one side and rents out the other?

No the disagreement (not panic) isn’t about lot splitting (which is already very easy to do). It’s about upzoning. You’re the only one who’s talking about lot splitting.

I support both upzoning and lot splitting but I think it needs to be accompanied by a strategy to encourage more new SFH (attached and detached) because they play an important role in maintaining a healthy housing market. If the council adopts this proposal, it needs to implement programs to stimulate SFH construction in places already approved for SFH. At some point, it may need to consider encroachment into the ag reserve but we’re a long way from that. Even Clarksburg is built to just two thirds of plan potential.

Anyone who fails to recognize the negative impact that reducing SFH supply would have throughout the housing market (purchase and rental) hasn’t thought seriously about housing policy. If we adopt a meme policy and don’t address SFH supply we’ll probably break the housing market here beyond repair.

Which parts of Clarksburg already approved for SFH haven't been built?

I see you’re giving up on addressing the substance of the post, probably because you agree with it but can’t bring yourself to admit it.

[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:

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.

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo.

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand: currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference. How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an increase in the number of SFHs.

Please explain how the supply of SFH available for purchase would increase as a result of a policy whose objective is replacing SFH with MFH.

Step 1: take one SFH on one lot
Step 2: subdivide the lot into two lots
Step 3: build a SFH on the second lot
Result: two SFHs where there used to be only one

It's not true, though, that the policy's objective is replacing SFH (however defined) with MFH. That may be a result, but it's not the objective.

Lot splitting is different from upzoning.

Do you think all of the panic is about duplexes where the owner lives on one side and rents out the other?

No the disagreement (not panic) isn’t about lot splitting (which is already very easy to do). It’s about upzoning. You’re the only one who’s talking about lot splitting.

I support both upzoning and lot splitting but I think it needs to be accompanied by a strategy to encourage more new SFH (attached and detached) because they play an important role in maintaining a healthy housing market. If the council adopts this proposal, it needs to implement programs to stimulate SFH construction in places already approved for SFH. At some point, it may need to consider encroachment into the ag reserve but we’re a long way from that. Even Clarksburg is built to just two thirds of plan potential.

Anyone who fails to recognize the negative impact that reducing SFH supply would have throughout the housing market (purchase and rental) hasn’t thought seriously about housing policy. If we adopt a meme policy and don’t address SFH supply we’ll probably break the housing market here beyond repair.

Which parts of Clarksburg already approved for SFH haven't been built?

I see you’re giving up on addressing the substance of the post, probably because you agree with it but can’t bring yourself to admit it.

Why so defensive? You could answer the question, which actually does address the substance of your post. Where are those places in Clarksburg, which, according to you, are already approved for SFH but the county needs to stimulate SFH construction?

[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:

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.

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo.

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand: currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference. How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an increase in the number of SFHs.

Please explain how the supply of SFH available for purchase would increase as a result of a policy whose objective is replacing SFH with MFH.

Step 1: take one SFH on one lot
Step 2: subdivide the lot into two lots
Step 3: build a SFH on the second lot
Result: two SFHs where there used to be only one

It's not true, though, that the policy's objective is replacing SFH (however defined) with MFH. That may be a result, but it's not the objective.

Lot splitting is different from upzoning.

Do you think all of the panic is about duplexes where the owner lives on one side and rents out the other?

No the disagreement (not panic) isn’t about lot splitting (which is already very easy to do). It’s about upzoning. You’re the only one who’s talking about lot splitting.

I support both upzoning and lot splitting but I think it needs to be accompanied by a strategy to encourage more new SFH (attached and detached) because they play an important role in maintaining a healthy housing market. If the council adopts this proposal, it needs to implement programs to stimulate SFH construction in places already approved for SFH. At some point, it may need to consider encroachment into the ag reserve but we’re a long way from that. Even Clarksburg is built to just two thirds of plan potential.

Anyone who fails to recognize the negative impact that reducing SFH supply would have throughout the housing market (purchase and rental) hasn’t thought seriously about housing policy. If we adopt a meme policy and don’t address SFH supply we’ll probably break the housing market here beyond repair.

Which parts of Clarksburg already approved for SFH haven't been built?

I see you’re giving up on addressing the substance of the post, probably because you agree with it but can’t bring yourself to admit it.

Why so defensive? You could answer the question, which actually does address the substance of your post. Where are those places in Clarksburg, which, according to you, are already approved for SFH but the county needs to stimulate SFH construction?

So what you’re saying is you’re too lazy to even look up the Clarksburg page on the planning website but we should all trust you because you’re really passionate about housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's lots of neighborhoods in DC where the housing density has gone up dramatically in recent years. Without exception, they are far, far more expensive now than they were before. Housing prices in our neighborhood didnt take off until they started building condos everywhere.

What is your neighborhood?

Do you think that the way to make housing more affordable is to NOT build more housing?

In DC, housing prices go up, not down, when you add housing units. Sorry, but that's been the experience. When you add more people, then more bars and restaurants and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more demand to live there. That leads to more businesses wanting to move in. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which increases prices.

[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:

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.

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo.

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand: currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference. How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an increase in the number of SFHs.

Please explain how the supply of SFH available for purchase would increase as a result of a policy whose objective is replacing SFH with MFH.

Step 1: take one SFH on one lot
Step 2: subdivide the lot into two lots
Step 3: build a SFH on the second lot
Result: two SFHs where there used to be only one

It's not true, though, that the policy's objective is replacing SFH (however defined) with MFH. That may be a result, but it's not the objective.

Lot splitting is different from upzoning.

Do you think all of the panic is about duplexes where the owner lives on one side and rents out the other?

No the disagreement (not panic) isn’t about lot splitting (which is already very easy to do). It’s about upzoning. You’re the only one who’s talking about lot splitting.

I support both upzoning and lot splitting but I think it needs to be accompanied by a strategy to encourage more new SFH (attached and detached) because they play an important role in maintaining a healthy housing market. If the council adopts this proposal, it needs to implement programs to stimulate SFH construction in places already approved for SFH. At some point, it may need to consider encroachment into the ag reserve but we’re a long way from that. Even Clarksburg is built to just two thirds of plan potential.

Anyone who fails to recognize the negative impact that reducing SFH supply would have throughout the housing market (purchase and rental) hasn’t thought seriously about housing policy. If we adopt a meme policy and don’t address SFH supply we’ll probably break the housing market here beyond repair.

Which parts of Clarksburg already approved for SFH haven't been built?

I see you’re giving up on addressing the substance of the post, probably because you agree with it but can’t bring yourself to admit it.

Why so defensive? You could answer the question, which actually does address the substance of your post. Where are those places in Clarksburg, which, according to you, are already approved for SFH but the county needs to stimulate SFH construction?

So what you’re saying is you’re too lazy to even look up the Clarksburg page on the planning website but we should all trust you because you’re really passionate about housing.

Or you could answer the question?

Here's the Clarksburg page: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/communities/upcounty/clarksburg/

Now, where are you talking about?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's lots of neighborhoods in DC where the housing density has gone up dramatically in recent years. Without exception, they are far, far more expensive now than they were before. Housing prices in our neighborhood didnt take off until they started building condos everywhere.

What is your neighborhood?

Do you think that the way to make housing more affordable is to NOT build more housing?

In DC, housing prices go up, not down, when you add housing units. Sorry, but that's been the experience. When you add more people, then more bars and restaurants and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more demand to live there. That leads to more businesses wanting to move in. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which increases prices.

Just because you increase the supply doesnt mean demand stays the same. It can go up too, alongside the supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's lots of neighborhoods in DC where the housing density has gone up dramatically in recent years. Without exception, they are far, far more expensive now than they were before. Housing prices in our neighborhood didnt take off until they started building condos everywhere.

What is your neighborhood?

Do you think that the way to make housing more affordable is to NOT build more housing?

In DC, housing prices go up, not down, when you add housing units. Sorry, but that's been the experience. When you add more people, then more bars and restaurants and other businesses want to be there too. That leads to more demand to live there. That leads to more businesses wanting to move in. That leads to more people wanting to live there, which increases prices.

Yes, it's true, in the sense that housing costs are generally low in places where people don't want to live, but is that really good housing policy?

[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:

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.

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo.

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand: currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference. How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an increase in the number of SFHs.

Please explain how the supply of SFH available for purchase would increase as a result of a policy whose objective is replacing SFH with MFH.

Step 1: take one SFH on one lot
Step 2: subdivide the lot into two lots
Step 3: build a SFH on the second lot
Result: two SFHs where there used to be only one

It's not true, though, that the policy's objective is replacing SFH (however defined) with MFH. That may be a result, but it's not the objective.

Lot splitting is different from upzoning.

Do you think all of the panic is about duplexes where the owner lives on one side and rents out the other?

No the disagreement (not panic) isn’t about lot splitting (which is already very easy to do). It’s about upzoning. You’re the only one who’s talking about lot splitting.

I support both upzoning and lot splitting but I think it needs to be accompanied by a strategy to encourage more new SFH (attached and detached) because they play an important role in maintaining a healthy housing market. If the council adopts this proposal, it needs to implement programs to stimulate SFH construction in places already approved for SFH. At some point, it may need to consider encroachment into the ag reserve but we’re a long way from that. Even Clarksburg is built to just two thirds of plan potential.

Anyone who fails to recognize the negative impact that reducing SFH supply would have throughout the housing market (purchase and rental) hasn’t thought seriously about housing policy. If we adopt a meme policy and don’t address SFH supply we’ll probably break the housing market here beyond repair.

Which parts of Clarksburg already approved for SFH haven't been built?

I see you’re giving up on addressing the substance of the post, probably because you agree with it but can’t bring yourself to admit it.

Why so defensive? You could answer the question, which actually does address the substance of your post. Where are those places in Clarksburg, which, according to you, are already approved for SFH but the county needs to stimulate SFH construction?

So what you’re saying is you’re too lazy to even look up the Clarksburg page on the planning website but we should all trust you because you’re really passionate about housing.

Or you could answer the question?

Here's the Clarksburg page: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/communities/upcounty/clarksburg/

Now, where are you talking about?

Read the report from last fall or look at the housing pipeline. You probably won’t because you seem more interested in arguing about housing than you do about lowering housing prices. Is the point you’re trying to make that there is no more room for SFH in the county without tapping into the ag reserve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's lots of neighborhoods in DC where the housing density has gone up dramatically in recent years. Without exception, they are far, far more expensive now than they were before. Housing prices in our neighborhood didnt take off until they started building condos everywhere.

What is your neighborhood?

Do you think that the way to make housing more affordable is to NOT build more housing?

Reading through this thread it looks like the YIMBY plan is to make housing more affordable is by eliminating housing.

I’d also like them to be more clear, are they trying to build more affordable (or attainable) housing, or are they trying to make housing more affordable?

The second implies that they are trying to decrease property values, which I think that many of them are actually trying to do. They want to saturate the market until our property values decrease.