Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

LOL so you'd like to put big buildings with lots of cars on little streets..genius.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure they will be completely surprised when a significant segment of the affluent county residents leave for Virginia due to failing schools, increasing crime, and high taxes.

I mean, it’s already happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't adding more people naturally increase the amount of taxes collected?

Yes, taxes collected will go up, but it’s very possible that expenses for new residents will exceed tax revenue. Unfortunately, most places do not do comprehensive fiscal analysis of projected tax revenue and expenses from zoning changes before making decisions. Residential development is usually tax negative because it increases public school enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

Cool, let’s vote on it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

Cool, let’s vote on it.

"Let's vote on" what? We voted in 2022. We will vote again in 2026.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

First, if you do not think that people who buy top dollar SFHs do not want to live in a neighborhood of SFHs, then you need to do more research. Because most do. That is why they paid top dollar for their SFHs. Second, no, MoCo will not be fine without rich people. Sorry. Look at the numbers above. Look at the budget issues facing CA and NY. The FACT is that the rich people pay the taxes that fund the social services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't adding more people naturally increase the amount of taxes collected?

Yes, taxes collected will go up, but it’s very possible that expenses for new residents will exceed tax revenue. Unfortunately, most places do not do comprehensive fiscal analysis of projected tax revenue and expenses from zoning changes before making decisions. Residential development is usually tax negative because it increases public school enrollment.

There is a real dilemma here. MoCo should have reasonably generous social services, simply because we should. But, if MoCo becomes too generous, MoCo will only attract more residents that require those social services, busting the budget, increasing the taxes, and driving away taxpayers. And, yes, those who need social services look for places where they can obtain them. Why? Because they are not stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

A duplex or a multiplex? How tall? Depending on what is built, it gets scarier. A duplex, I live in one, is essentially a house split in two. It has the look of a house, the feel of a house, and ample room for the people within proportional to space occupied. We live in a charming street of duplexes in DC, with sfhs across the street. All built in the same era, all aesthetically compatible. A taller multiplex would look horrible on our street, and add significant traffic etc. I realize this conversations is about MoCo. Am following as we are considering a move. The Sfh new builds/flips I've seen in MoCo are similar to AU Park--a few are nice, most are outsized on small lots. I sure wouldn't trust the Pandora's box if multiplexes were allowed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

A duplex or a multiplex? How tall? Depending on what is built, it gets scarier. A duplex, I live in one, is essentially a house split in two. It has the look of a house, the feel of a house, and ample room for the people within proportional to space occupied. We live in a charming street of duplexes in DC, with sfhs across the street. All built in the same era, all aesthetically compatible. A taller multiplex would look horrible on our street, and add significant traffic etc. I realize this conversations is about MoCo. Am following as we are considering a move. The Sfh new builds/flips I've seen in MoCo are similar to AU Park--a few are nice, most are outsized on small lots. I sure wouldn't trust the Pandora's box if multiplexes were allowed.

It is your choice to move away if your cookie-cutter neighborhood of uniplexes and duplexes gets a triplex or fourplex that you consider uncharming or aesthetically incompatible or scary or having insufficient room for its residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

First, if you do not think that people who buy top dollar SFHs do not want to live in a neighborhood of SFHs, then you need to do more research. Because most do. That is why they paid top dollar for their SFHs. Second, no, MoCo will not be fine without rich people. Sorry. Look at the numbers above. Look at the budget issues facing CA and NY. The FACT is that the rich people pay the taxes that fund the social services.

Well. You think Montgomery County should base its housing policy on the preferences of "people who buy top dollar SFHs". I disagree. Simple as that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure they will be completely surprised when a significant segment of the affluent county residents leave for Virginia due to failing schools, increasing crime, and high taxes.

I mean, it’s already happening.

I see no hard data to support that this is happening.

Some may have a few anecdotes of people they know moving. But there are also anecdotes (and data) about more people coming in.

If you have something to cite, that would be great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

Cool, my SFH neighborhood is more important to me than a hybrid car or whatever environmental benefits come from building multi-family property. Many people in these targeted areas will say the same thing when push comes to shove. Close in moco doesn't need MORE density. The only people thinking so are the ones who can't afford to live there.