MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html

Call me crazy but I like property rights and being able to use my property as I please. Don’t be a communist by collectivizing my land and restricting what I can do with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html

What do you find troubling?

I also listened in.
If there was a focus on converting commercial to multifamily homes, townhomes communities along River Road, this is ok.
But there is a disruption in established single family neighborhoods with mention of:
- Eliminating set backs and parking rules, in neighborhoods that already lack driveways
- Determining of lots to be converted to multifamily units
- Incentives for conversion of single family homes to multifamily units

I personally find this negative

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html

What do you find troubling?

I also listened in.
If there was a focus on converting commercial to multifamily homes, townhomes communities along River Road, this is ok.
But there is a disruption in established single family neighborhoods with mention of:
- Eliminating set backs and parking rules, in neighborhoods that already lack driveways
- Determining of lots to be converted to multifamily units
- Incentives for conversion of single family homes to multifamily units

I personally find this negative

OK, you got yours. I get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html

Call me crazy but I like property rights and being able to use my property as I please. Don’t be a communist by collectivizing my land and restricting what I can do with it.

That’s far fetched.
But wanting to dilute property values and impact the lifestyle of established residential neighborhoods to create this buffet of housing in the name of “attainability” is the epitome of slashing freedom of current home owners. This is where collectivizing land is happening. It is a failed playbook.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html

What do you find troubling?

I also listened in.
If there was a focus on converting commercial to multifamily homes, townhomes communities along River Road, this is ok.
But there is a disruption in established single family neighborhoods with mention of:
- Eliminating set backs and parking rules, in neighborhoods that already lack driveways
- Determining of lots to be converted to multifamily units
- Incentives for conversion of single family homes to multifamily units

I personally find this negative

OK, you got yours. I get it.

Beware The Questioner. Asks questions, sometimes claiming an "earnest interest," but does so only to draw out others' reasoning so as to attack it with hyperbole/strawman arguments, avoiding any true discussion of points made and never putting their own position up for citical analysis.

Best not to engage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html

Call me crazy but I like property rights and being able to use my property as I please. Don’t be a communist by collectivizing my land and restricting what I can do with it.

That’s far fetched.
But wanting to dilute property values and impact the lifestyle of established residential neighborhoods to create this buffet of housing in the name of “attainability” is the epitome of slashing freedom of current home owners. This is where collectivizing land is happening. It is a failed playbook.

>dilute property values

You’re treating housing as an investment when people can’t afford shelter. This is categorically bad. Stop limiting what others can do with their property. You can choose to buy your neighbors’ houses and not develop them into townhouses. You can still do that under no zoning!

[Anonymous]

Ah, but it is an investment- and the American Dream

People CAN afford shelter. Just not Bethesda housing. This is not about shelter.

Also- This is, after all, a Real Estate forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html

I don't see it here and can't find it on the Planning Board page. Any more help in pointing us to the right direction? Thank you for the help!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html

I don't see it here and can't find it on the Planning Board page. Any more help in pointing us to the right direction? Thank you for the help!

https://youtube.com/watch?v=-Gxh1ezQyOI

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html

What do you find troubling?

I also listened in.
If there was a focus on converting commercial to multifamily homes, townhomes communities along River Road, this is ok.
But there is a disruption in established single family neighborhoods with mention of:
- Eliminating set backs and parking rules, in neighborhoods that already lack driveways
- Determining of lots to be converted to multifamily units
- Incentives for conversion of single family homes to multifamily units

I personally find this negative

OK, you got yours. I get it.

Beware The Questioner. Asks questions, sometimes claiming an "earnest interest," but does so only to draw out others' reasoning so as to attack it with hyperbole/strawman arguments, avoiding any true discussion of points made and never putting their own position up for citical analysis.

Best not to engage.

huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:progressive love density and destroying neighborhoods that have good public schools. Then they live in these condo/apartments/dense areas for a few years, riding their bikes, walking around to get coffee and talk about how good it is. that is until they have kids and then they move further out into the suburbs for the same type of land and housing that existed close-in until they ruined it. They will blame it on their child needing specialized teachers that are certified in this or that b/c of how their child learns. its rinse and repeat across this country

Ding ding ding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you live in a SFA in a nice neighborhood community w/ with a strong HOA, and other SFAs in the area start to get converted to duplexes, would your house value go up due to decreased supply (of actually desirable housing)? Has this played out anywhere else in the country?

Duplex without HOA >>>> SFH with HOA

Not much would change

I'm not sure I agree that wealthy people, by and large, would prefer to share walls, rely on a stranger for maintenance of the property, and smell their neighbor's dinner every night over living in a community with an HOA. But on the other hand you do sound very confident.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will ruin neighborhoods and reduce properties values in some neighborhoods without protections from excessive density. Neighborhoods with protective covenants and HOA's that prevent multifamily housing will become more valuable. Some properties close in that have higher redevelopment potential will increase in value due to higher land prices. Many of the others will lose value and resident quality of life will go down hill. Single family communities close to high quality private schools with strong HOA/Covenants to protect thew neighborhood are likely safe. However, many middle class homeowners in desirable school attendance zones will be financially destroyed if this passes.

Oh, we are doing hyperbolic posts like this already? Cool. My turn:

It will enhance the quality of life in all neighborhoods and increase home values everywhere. The density around transit corridors will bring vibrant walkable destinations and resident-serving businesses that increase tax revenue to the county, thereby increasing the quality and quality of all county services for everyone. Within 10 years we will have the ideal mix of different housing types for all types with stable property values for all.

Progressives--you don't care about others' opinions on your objectives--so just get in power, implement what you want as is your plan--don't bother pretending here that you are looking to understand other perspectives or that you care of we agree with you or not--you don't. This whole thread is a waste of time.

this is not responsive to the PPs facts though. you conservatives hate facts. you dont want anything to change even tho the facts show it will help you

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Listening in to the Council session now. This is extremely troubling.
The session will be saved if you cannot view live:
http://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/ondemand/index.html

What do you find troubling?

I also listened in.
If there was a focus on converting commercial to multifamily homes, townhomes communities along River Road, this is ok.
But there is a disruption in established single family neighborhoods with mention of:
- Eliminating set backs and parking rules, in neighborhoods that already lack driveways
- Determining of lots to be converted to multifamily units
- Incentives for conversion of single family homes to multifamily units

I personally find this negative

See the lying YIMBYs were trying to confuse people and pretend that they county is not changing setbacks. They definitely are planning on this and it will remove any protections mitigate community impact.

[Anonymous]

the council wants to destroy SFH, while at the same time wanting local control of taxes to exorbitantly increase property taxes on SFH's.

so they basically want people to pay double in property taxes while at the same time doing everything to destroy property values.

and when property values go down, they will still increase property taxes to pay for the mess they created.

they keep talking about all these people who are going to move here, I dont know why, the county isnt creating jobs, its anti business and propped up by the federal government.