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: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?

People with kids don't want to live in apartments. Children have ten times as much energy as your stupid dog, and they need lots of space. Replacing single family homes with apartments is just removing housing for families and replacing it with housing for childless adults. All we're doing is changing the demographics of who gets housing.

It's always young people who don't have kids who are shaking their fists at single family homes. Dude, just wait...

Hard though it is for some people to believe this, the fact is: there is more to housing policy than single family homes, however you may choose to define them.

Hard though it is for some people to admit, there is more to housing than rental apartments.

Who on this thread, or anywhere else, has insisted that county housing policy should focus exclusively on rental apartments?

The same people who insisted that it should focus exclusively on SFH...no one.

[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: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.

Can't you just do this now without the 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: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.

Can't you just do this now without the policy?

Yes the PP was trying to misdirect because when anyone points out the obvious flaws in their ideas the flaws become obvious. That’s the problem with slogan policies. “We need to get rid of zoning so we can bUilD mOrE HoUSIng” sounds great until you realize zoning isn’t actually the limiting factor in how much housing gets built in the 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:

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.

Can't you just do this now without the policy?

It depends on the lot size. The zoning code includes minimum lot sizes. For example, under R-200 zoning currently, the minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet, and there are lot coverage maximums. So generally, the lot would have to be at least 40,000 square feet in order to be subdivided, currently.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/Resources/Files/ZSPE/DevelopmentStandardsForR200Zone.pdf

The area around Northwest HW is an example of R-200 zoning, and so is the area around Flower Valley ES.

[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.

Can't you just do this now without the policy?

Yes the PP was trying to misdirect because when anyone points out the obvious flaws in their ideas the flaws become obvious. That’s the problem with slogan policies. “We need to get rid of zoning so we can bUilD mOrE HoUSIng” sounds great until you realize zoning isn’t actually the limiting factor in how much housing gets built in the county.”

There is no proposal to get rid of zoning, and zoning actually is A limiting factor in how much housing gets built in the county. Not the only limiting factor, but one of the limiting factors. I'm guessing you agree, because if you didn't, you wouldn't be so upset about the proposed changes to the zoning code.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Why do you assume that if we build more housing, prices will fall? That's never been true in the DMV.

If you really do think building more housing will result in lower prices, you should tell us exactly how much lower they'll be (and when they'll be lower) so we can laugh in your face when none of that actually happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Existing housing isn’t yet expensive enough to lure new builders into the market. Think about that. Absent a recession, the most likely outcome is that prices continue to rise until new housing becomes profitable enough to bring in new sellers. At that point, prices will at best level off. If they start to fall, new construction will stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Why do you assume that if we build more housing, prices will fall? That's never been true in the DMV.

If you really do think building more housing will result in lower prices, you should tell us exactly how much lower they'll be (and when they'll be lower) so we can laugh in your face when none of that actually happens.

Please look at the cities that have built tons of housing (Austin), do your research, and quit the snarky (uninformed) nonsense. There is plenty of evidence (and common sense), you just refuse to understand it because you are a selfish NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Why do you assume that if we build more housing, prices will fall? That's never been true in the DMV.

If you really do think building more housing will result in lower prices, you should tell us exactly how much lower they'll be (and when they'll be lower) so we can laugh in your face when none of that actually happens.

Please look at the cities that have built tons of housing (Austin), do your research, and quit the snarky (uninformed) nonsense. There is plenty of evidence (and common sense), you just refuse to understand it because you are a selfish NIMBY.

Austin is a horrendous city with ridiculous traffic and it is very ugly. MOCO doesn’t want to be like Austin and it is a terrible idea to copy their policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Why do you assume that if we build more housing, prices will fall? That's never been true in the DMV.

If you really do think building more housing will result in lower prices, you should tell us exactly how much lower they'll be (and when they'll be lower) so we can laugh in your face when none of that actually happens.

Please look at the cities that have built tons of housing (Austin), do your research, and quit the snarky (uninformed) nonsense. There is plenty of evidence (and common sense), you just refuse to understand it because you are a selfish NIMBY.

Austin is a horrendous city with ridiculous traffic and it is very ugly. MOCO doesn’t want to be like Austin and it is a terrible idea to copy their policies.

If MOCO actually wanted affordable housing they would not be passing extremely stringent building performance standards for energy use. That will effectively require many old multi family units to be torn down because it is not economically to retrofit them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Why do you assume that if we build more housing, prices will fall? That's never been true in the DMV.

If you really do think building more housing will result in lower prices, you should tell us exactly how much lower they'll be (and when they'll be lower) so we can laugh in your face when none of that actually happens.

Please look at the cities that have built tons of housing (Austin), do your research, and quit the snarky (uninformed) nonsense. There is plenty of evidence (and common sense), you just refuse to understand it because you are a selfish NIMBY.

Austin is a horrendous city with ridiculous traffic and it is very ugly. MOCO doesn’t want to be like Austin and it is a terrible idea to copy their policies.

However, Austin does demonstrate that supply/demand/price works in the housing market too.

The other PP's idea seemed to be that it doesn't, i.e., that housing prices will always only go up. Which anyone who remembers 2008 already knows isn't true anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Why do you assume that if we build more housing, prices will fall? That's never been true in the DMV.

If you really do think building more housing will result in lower prices, you should tell us exactly how much lower they'll be (and when they'll be lower) so we can laugh in your face when none of that actually happens.

Please look at the cities that have built tons of housing (Austin), do your research, and quit the snarky (uninformed) nonsense. There is plenty of evidence (and common sense), you just refuse to understand it because you are a selfish NIMBY.

Austin is a horrendous city with ridiculous traffic and it is very ugly. MOCO doesn’t want to be like Austin and it is a terrible idea to copy their policies.

If MOCO actually wanted affordable housing they would not be passing extremely stringent building performance standards for energy use. That will effectively require many old multi family units to be torn down because it is not economically to retrofit them.

Specifically what are you referring to?

[Anonymous]

The county government is talking out of two side of their mouth with contradictory policies. Raising the cost of housing by passing building performance standards for the “environment”. The MOCO turns around and promotes environmentally damaging sprawl with a proposal to increase the allowable density throughout the county by 4x+ in areas with minimal or no access to public transportation. So do they really care about affordability or the environment?? They are just making up reasons to justify trendy policy goals that are in vogue with YIMBYs and Urbanists, without concern for the impact on court residents. This comprehensive zoning reform is just a box to check on their resume before the take a highly paid job with a developer or political advocacy organization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Why do you assume that if we build more housing, prices will fall? That's never been true in the DMV.

If you really do think building more housing will result in lower prices, you should tell us exactly how much lower they'll be (and when they'll be lower) so we can laugh in your face when none of that actually happens.

Please look at the cities that have built tons of housing (Austin), do your research, and quit the snarky (uninformed) nonsense. There is plenty of evidence (and common sense), you just refuse to understand it because you are a selfish NIMBY.

Austin is a horrendous city with ridiculous traffic and it is very ugly. MOCO doesn’t want to be like Austin and it is a terrible idea to copy their policies.

If MOCO actually wanted affordable housing they would not be passing extremely stringent building performance standards for energy use. That will effectively require many old multi family units to be torn down because it is not economically to retrofit them.

Specifically what are you referring to?

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DEP/energy/commercial/beps.html


The building performance standards cover multi family residential housing above 25,000 sq feet and will require expensive retrofitting to meet energy efficiency standards that did not exist when the building was actually built.