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:

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.

I’m not upset about the proposed changes. I don’t mind the proposed changes but I think they’re a waste of time that could be better spent on economic stimulus that would have a greater impact on housing supply than zoning changes.

Zoning is only a theoretical limiting factor in how much housing can get built in Montgomery County. It’s irrelevant in the real world. If zoning allows 350 units in a high rise but only 250 are built, did zoning limit housing? Of course not, and developers frequently deliver fewer units than are authorized. On top of that, there are a lot of unbuilt units in approved plans. The developers just need to go get a permit and start building, but they don’t. Just last month, a developer abandoned a project across the street from a metro station almost immediately after it was approved because it didn’t think market conditions would ever be right for it.

The main factor suppressing housing supply in Montgomery County is lack of demand at price points high enough to result in sufficient profit. Developers view MoCo as a riskier market than DC or Fairfax and require higher profits before they’ll build here. Until we address that risk perception, our housing market will be stagnant.

The risk perception largely arises from weak employment and wage growth. You can read more about that in this series: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/07/11/moco-economy-keeps-lagging-part-five/. Increasingly, MoCo will only be a second or third choice for people who can’t afford housing in DC or Fairfax. County policy has embraced this outcome by only focusing housing policy on the supply side. It needs to focus on creating sustainable demand from higher income households as well. When there is reliable demand at a profitable price point, there will be more housing.

Dandy. Then the sooner they get passed, the sooner everyone can move on to doing the things you want them to do.

It’s too bad that we’ll have to wait decades for that because YIMBYs hate admitting they’re wrong and insist on incessant tinkering to their bad ideas instead of moving on to different approaches.

I think you're a different poster. You should make that clear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

[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: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.

Thank you. That looks like a good program.

So you don’t actually care about affordable housing? This will make housing less affordable and raise rents.

[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: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.

Thank you. That looks like a good program.

So you don’t actually care about affordable housing? This will make housing less affordable and raise rents.

And before you save money on utilities for renters. I will stop you right there. Landlords are required to make these updates and they will increase rent to offset the costs. The potential savings by renters will be more than offset by higher rental rates. Some units will also be torn down and replaced with more expensive housing if it is not economically viable to retrofit

[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.

Ok well then you should be able to tell us how much all of this will reduce housing prices. So, let's here it. Be specific. What can we expect?

Insulting people is not evidence, and nor is citing apocryphal anecdotes about how, "you know, there's this one neighborhood in Helsinki that did this and it totally worked and you should Google it."

The number of housing units in many areas of DC has skyrocketed over the past 10 years (14th Street, Logan Circle, Navy Yard, etc) and prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Yeah, it's weird how housing prices went up in Navy Yard, as it was transformed from a small rundown area with very little housing, to a small happening area with lots of housing!

You mean, they bought a bunch of single family homes from black families for $250,000 a pop and replaced them with apartments that cost $1 million each.

Yes, hooray for gentrification.

[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.

Ok well then you should be able to tell us how much all of this will reduce housing prices. So, let's here it. Be specific. What can we expect?

Insulting people is not evidence, and nor is citing apocryphal anecdotes about how, "you know, there's this one neighborhood in Helsinki that did this and it totally worked and you should Google it."

The number of housing units in many areas of DC has skyrocketed over the past 10 years (14th Street, Logan Circle, Navy Yard, etc) and prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Still waiting on an answer here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

[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.

Ok well then you should be able to tell us how much all of this will reduce housing prices. So, let's here it. Be specific. What can we expect?

Insulting people is not evidence, and nor is citing apocryphal anecdotes about how, "you know, there's this one neighborhood in Helsinki that did this and it totally worked and you should Google it."

The number of housing units in many areas of DC has skyrocketed over the past 10 years (14th Street, Logan Circle, Navy Yard, etc) and prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Yeah, it's weird how housing prices went up in Navy Yard, as it was transformed from a small rundown area with very little housing, to a small happening area with lots of housing!

You mean, they bought a bunch of single family homes from black families for $250,000 a pop and replaced them with apartments that cost $1 million each.

Yes, hooray for gentrification.

Are you posting from Vladivostok? Because here in DC, that's not what happened.

[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.

Ok well then you should be able to tell us how much all of this will reduce housing prices. So, let's here it. Be specific. What can we expect?

Insulting people is not evidence, and nor is citing apocryphal anecdotes about how, "you know, there's this one neighborhood in Helsinki that did this and it totally worked and you should Google it."

The number of housing units in many areas of DC has skyrocketed over the past 10 years (14th Street, Logan Circle, Navy Yard, etc) and prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Still waiting on an answer here.

You'll probably need to wait a long time. There are a host of posts/points those supporting higher densities via the current effort have avoided, hoping they get lost amid repeated back and forth on less meaningful points.

[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.

Ok well then you should be able to tell us how much all of this will reduce housing prices. So, let's here it. Be specific. What can we expect?

Insulting people is not evidence, and nor is citing apocryphal anecdotes about how, "you know, there's this one neighborhood in Helsinki that did this and it totally worked and you should Google it."

The number of housing units in many areas of DC has skyrocketed over the past 10 years (14th Street, Logan Circle, Navy Yard, etc) and prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Still waiting on an answer here.

What kind of an answer would satisfy you? As Yogi Berra famously said, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

I have no problem with upzoning within walking distance of metro rail stations. However, I don’t think it makes sense to upzone 4x anywhere that happens to be near a bus stop when there is no real world data to support that bus ridership will account for a plurality of commuter trips for these new residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

I have no problem with upzoning within walking distance of metro rail stations. However, I don’t think it makes sense to upzone 4x anywhere that happens to be near a bus stop when there is no real world data to support that bus ridership will account for a plurality of commuter trips for these new residents.

Here's the thing. More people in a given area supports more frequent bus service. More frequent bus service produces more riders.

Since most of people's trips are not commuter trips (the trip to or from work), it does not make sense to focus exclusively on commuter trips. There is also no reason to insist that most of most new residents' trips be bus trips.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

This is what I was getting at in earlier posts. Buses CAN be mass transit in urban environments. These are suburban environments. So, they are urbanizing? They expect people that currently use cars to switch to the bus? Are they specifically trying to attract bus riders to the area?

A log flume could be “mass transit” if you float enough logs, but if people don’t want to take them down the river, who cares?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Are you one of the "buses don't count"/"people don't take buses" posters? Buses are public transportation.

Of course it’s public transportation, it’s just not mass transit as being sold here locally or allow for zoning changes. It’s mass transit in the way that I could paint my car yellow and call it a school bus.

I think you'll find that Team Buses Aren't Mass Transit is not a winning team.

It’s doesn’t matter if they are mass transit or not if most residents don’t actually use it. This is a fallacious argument. The ridership rate for buses is well under 10% of passenger miles traveled. You are using a hypothetical that is not consistent with actual behavior to justify upzoning the entire county. Yes, there are a few people that use the buses, but vast majority of these new residents will not be riding the bus to work and biking to get their groceries. This argument that bus ridership will be high enough to offset traffic from quadplex/triplex units is a magical belief that has no basis in reality.

What's the fallacious argument, exactly?

Fact: Buses are mass transit.
Fact: Buses are public transportation.

My advice: next time, specify that you're talking about Metrorail.

The false argument you are making is that people will ride the bus at a level that mitigates traffic issues for upzoning to 4x+ population density. I didn’t say it’s not mass transit, but if most people don’t actually use the bus 90% plus aren’t using it, then it’s doesn’t matter if it “mass transit” or not. It’s completely illogical to claim that buses will prevent traffic when the vast majority of residents never use the this transportation option.

Whoever said that, it's not me. Traffic issues - meaning car traffic issues - are not my primary concern, because people make transportation choices as well as housing choices. People choose to use the transportation options that work best for them, depending on the circumstances. People might also choose alternative car trips. For example, you might choose to drive at a different time, and/or to a different destination. Or if you're driving to get an item, you might choose to have the item delivered instead. Plus traffic modeling is not much more accurate than tarot-card-reading, anyway.