Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

There is a big difference between saying the impact fees don't meet per pupil cost and saying that the county loses money on housing units. Two erroneous assumptions off the top of my head: 1) not every unit results in a student; 2) It does not take into account ongoing tax revenue

I didn’t say pupil costs. I said average per seat construction costs. If impact fees are below cost recovery levels (which they are), then the county loses money every time it adds a housing unit. It is simple math. If fees are below cost recovery, the difference must be financed through debt issuance or taken from somewhere else. If it’s financed, then debt service costs eat away at the rest of the budget. (There’s also the choice of not building schools at all but that’s a bad outcome)

Ongoing tax revenue is going to support other services for new residents. For very expensive housing, ongoing tax revenue exceeds what services residents consume fairly quickly. For less expensive housing, it may take a long time. Either way, if impact fees are below recovery costs, something else gets hit or we don’t build schools.

And remember none of these fee cuts caused developers to lower prices or push the housing market into surplus. The fee cuts just made the developers’ profits bigger. It’s good for the county to spend money to achieve a public policy goal (lower housing prices in this case) but it’s not good for the county to spend scarce funds subsidizing developers to build high-end housing.

I appreciate your explanation. But I still disagree with the bolded. It is true that the discrete costs for building a new school are not explicitly met by new development, at this particular time. That remains a very different thing that the county as a whole losing money as a result of the development. For example, counties and municipalities frequently subsidize development on all scales (Amazon HQ, smaller cities attracting and retaining other company HQs, entertainment venues.) It is an immediate loss for a long term net gain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

By that same straw man, you'd be arguing against schools.

The point is to enact legislation that properly covers both housing and schools at once, instead of supporting legislation that covers housing at the expense of schools, without guarantee of legislation to fill the gap. Anyone paying attention over the past 20+ years or more knows that adequate school funding doesn't magically follow.

Why is that the point? Let's support housing. Let's support schools. Your position - I oppose this more-housing bill because it doesn't also include more schools - is opposing more housing.

DP bill it’s so hard to have a proper conversation with some of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

There is a big difference between saying the impact fees don't meet per pupil cost and saying that the county loses money on housing units. Two erroneous assumptions off the top of my head: 1) not every unit results in a student; 2) It does not take into account ongoing tax revenue

I didn’t say pupil costs. I said average per seat construction costs. If impact fees are below cost recovery levels (which they are), then the county loses money every time it adds a housing unit. It is simple math. If fees are below cost recovery, the difference must be financed through debt issuance or taken from somewhere else. If it’s financed, then debt service costs eat away at the rest of the budget. (There’s also the choice of not building schools at all but that’s a bad outcome)

Ongoing tax revenue is going to support other services for new residents. For very expensive housing, ongoing tax revenue exceeds what services residents consume fairly quickly. For less expensive housing, it may take a long time. Either way, if impact fees are below recovery costs, something else gets hit or we don’t build schools.

And remember none of these fee cuts caused developers to lower prices or push the housing market into surplus. The fee cuts just made the developers’ profits bigger. It’s good for the county to spend money to achieve a public policy goal (lower housing prices in this case) but it’s not good for the county to spend scarce funds subsidizing developers to build high-end housing.

I appreciate your explanation. But I still disagree with the bolded. It is true that the discrete costs for building a new school are not explicitly met by new development, at this particular time. That remains a very different thing that the county as a whole losing money as a result of the development. For example, counties and municipalities frequently subsidize development on all scales (Amazon HQ, smaller cities attracting and retaining other company HQs, entertainment venues.) It is an immediate loss for a long term net gain.

You can’t compare commercial real estate and residential. Commercial consumes little in the way of services but pays a lot in tax revenue and has a high multiplier. The opposite is true of residential, and it’s worse when we subsidize developers to build market rate housing (income restricted is a different story).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

There is a big difference between saying the impact fees don't meet per pupil cost and saying that the county loses money on housing units. Two erroneous assumptions off the top of my head: 1) not every unit results in a student; 2) It does not take into account ongoing tax revenue

I didn’t say pupil costs. I said average per seat construction costs. If impact fees are below cost recovery levels (which they are), then the county loses money every time it adds a housing unit. It is simple math. If fees are below cost recovery, the difference must be financed through debt issuance or taken from somewhere else. If it’s financed, then debt service costs eat away at the rest of the budget. (There’s also the choice of not building schools at all but that’s a bad outcome)

Ongoing tax revenue is going to support other services for new residents. For very expensive housing, ongoing tax revenue exceeds what services residents consume fairly quickly. For less expensive housing, it may take a long time. Either way, if impact fees are below recovery costs, something else gets hit or we don’t build schools.

And remember none of these fee cuts caused developers to lower prices or push the housing market into surplus. The fee cuts just made the developers’ profits bigger. It’s good for the county to spend money to achieve a public policy goal (lower housing prices in this case) but it’s not good for the county to spend scarce funds subsidizing developers to build high-end housing.

I appreciate your explanation. But I still disagree with the bolded. It is true that the discrete costs for building a new school are not explicitly met by new development, at this particular time. That remains a very different thing that the county as a whole losing money as a result of the development. For example, counties and municipalities frequently subsidize development on all scales (Amazon HQ, smaller cities attracting and retaining other company HQs, entertainment venues.) It is an immediate loss for a long term net gain.

You can’t compare commercial real estate and residential. Commercial consumes little in the way of services but pays a lot in tax revenue and has a high multiplier. The opposite is true of residential, and it’s worse when we subsidize developers to build market rate housing (income restricted is a different story).

My point was that there are multiple circumstance in which counties/municipalities will SPEND money for long term gain(above examples, building a new park, offering more city services, etc). You are talking about an example where a place is paying no money at all while still recouping a percentage of potential future cost.

To not have 100% immediate cost recovery (that is only hypothetical) does not in any way make something a net loss overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

By that same straw man, you'd be arguing against schools.

The point is to enact legislation that properly covers both housing and schools at once, instead of supporting legislation that covers housing at the expense of schools, without guarantee of legislation to fill the gap. Anyone paying attention over the past 20+ years or more knows that adequate school funding doesn't magically follow.

Why is that the point? Let's support housing. Let's support schools. Your position - I oppose this more-housing bill because it doesn't also include more schools - is opposing more housing.

DP bill it’s so hard to have a proper conversation with some of you.

There is sufficient housing but insufficient schools. Let's fix this before making things even worse with more developer giveaways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

We lack sufficient schools for the population we currently have. There isn't even a single high-school inside the beltway east of the park . There just isn't sufficient land that meets their requirements where they need it.

If they can’t find a place to build new schools, then they should focus on building more housing in areas they can. Or they need to get creative and secure funding to buy land and find a way to do it. Building housing without the infrastructure to support it is not the answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

Enough with your distortion. Using your logic, you support overcrowded schools with portables on the playground, right? That’s essentially what you are saying. There are alternatives to what is being done and proposed, you just have tunnel vision that we need housing right. now. above everything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

We lack sufficient schools for the population we currently have. There isn't even a single high-school inside the beltway east of the park . There just isn't sufficient land that meets their requirements where they need it.

If they can’t find a place to build new schools, then they should focus on building more housing in areas they can. Or they need to get creative and secure funding to buy land and find a way to do it. Building housing without the infrastructure to support it is not the answer.

They also need to plan when they rebuild schools. They just completed the new Woodlin rebuild which pulls from DTSS apartments. But with the new Falkland chase development and others in DTSS it will have portables in 2 years. Should have just added another floor to the school they were planning/building. The foundation and roof are the priciest, adding another floor is a much smaller cost. And it could have been used it for central office staff while its not needed for students. Planning by MCPS is in a vacuum from development in the county and nothing is ever aligned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

Enough with your distortion. Using your logic, you support overcrowded schools with portables on the playground, right? That’s essentially what you are saying. There are alternatives to what is being done and proposed, you just have tunnel vision that we need housing right. now. above everything else.

+1000 address school overcrowding then we can talk about additional housing

[Anonymous]

Can I ask a question I know I will get flamed for?

I fully appreciate the class overcrowding and impact on quality education that comes from classroom sizes being too small....a result of a teacher shortage. Totally on board with that problem.

But what really is the quantifiable impact to quality of education (that outweighs the countervailing benefit) of a school needing to supplement the main building with portables?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask a question I know I will get flamed for?

I fully appreciate the class overcrowding and impact on quality education that comes from classroom sizes being too small....a result of a teacher shortage. Totally on board with that problem.

But what really is the quantifiable impact to quality of education (that outweighs the countervailing benefit) of a school needing to supplement the main building with portables?

FWIW, our school has portables and the heat doesn't always work. My kid had 'homeroom' in one last year and they were unable to hear the daily announcements.

In ES, we had issues where one kid would run out of the portables. Our principal once had to chase after the kid!

And bathrooms are an issue. It's hard to get back in and out of the building, because there is a push to lock all doors except the main entrance door (which is fair, for security).

Plus, portables often take up field space. They put them out on the field, which means less space for sports teams to practice, or if in a parking lot, less parking spaces for faculty.

Definitely not ideal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask a question I know I will get flamed for?

I fully appreciate the class overcrowding and impact on quality education that comes from classroom sizes being too small....a result of a teacher shortage. Totally on board with that problem.

But what really is the quantifiable impact to quality of education (that outweighs the countervailing benefit) of a school needing to supplement the main building with portables?

Portables just give you more classrooms, but they don't add to the common spaces which are still insufficient for the numbers of students now attending: the cafeteria, the media center, the hallways, the restrooms, the parking lot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask a question I know I will get flamed for?

I fully appreciate the class overcrowding and impact on quality education that comes from classroom sizes being too small....a result of a teacher shortage. Totally on board with that problem.

But what really is the quantifiable impact to quality of education (that outweighs the countervailing benefit) of a school needing to supplement the main building with portables?

Sorry, clearly I meant "large" when I wrote "small". Hopefully that was obvious...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can I ask a question I know I will get flamed for?

I fully appreciate the class overcrowding and impact on quality education that comes from classroom sizes being too small....a result of a teacher shortage. Totally on board with that problem.

But what really is the quantifiable impact to quality of education (that outweighs the countervailing benefit) of a school needing to supplement the main building with portables?

Portables just give you more classrooms, but they don't add to the common spaces which are still insufficient for the numbers of students now attending: the cafeteria, the media center, the hallways, the restrooms, the parking lot.

Yes. So you have a cafeteria built for 300 kids, but 500 kids in the school. This means some kids are eating lunch at 10:30 and others not until 2:00. It's not great for anyone and impedes learning. It also means things like splitting the gym between 4 classes doing PE at the same time, and giving up recess space, which means kids don't get adequate exercise and are harder to teach.

Classrooms that would have been used for specials are used for grade-level classrooms as well, so art and music teachers are forced to teach from carts, which means kids are getting a worse education in those areas.

Finally, and it sucks that we have to consider this, but the portables are hard to secure in an emergency.

[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:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

There is a big difference between saying the impact fees don't meet per pupil cost and saying that the county loses money on housing units. Two erroneous assumptions off the top of my head: 1) not every unit results in a student; 2) It does not take into account ongoing tax revenue

I didn’t say pupil costs. I said average per seat construction costs. If impact fees are below cost recovery levels (which they are), then the county loses money every time it adds a housing unit. It is simple math. If fees are below cost recovery, the difference must be financed through debt issuance or taken from somewhere else. If it’s financed, then debt service costs eat away at the rest of the budget. (There’s also the choice of not building schools at all but that’s a bad outcome)

Ongoing tax revenue is going to support other services for new residents. For very expensive housing, ongoing tax revenue exceeds what services residents consume fairly quickly. For less expensive housing, it may take a long time. Either way, if impact fees are below recovery costs, something else gets hit or we don’t build schools.

And remember none of these fee cuts caused developers to lower prices or push the housing market into surplus. The fee cuts just made the developers’ profits bigger. It’s good for the county to spend money to achieve a public policy goal (lower housing prices in this case) but it’s not good for the county to spend scarce funds subsidizing developers to build high-end housing.

I appreciate your explanation. But I still disagree with the bolded. It is true that the discrete costs for building a new school are not explicitly met by new development, at this particular time. That remains a very different thing that the county as a whole losing money as a result of the development. For example, counties and municipalities frequently subsidize development on all scales (Amazon HQ, smaller cities attracting and retaining other company HQs, entertainment venues.) It is an immediate loss for a long term net gain.

You can’t compare commercial real estate and residential. Commercial consumes little in the way of services but pays a lot in tax revenue and has a high multiplier. The opposite is true of residential, and it’s worse when we subsidize developers to build market rate housing (income restricted is a different story).

My point was that there are multiple circumstance in which counties/municipalities will SPEND money for long term gain(above examples, building a new park, offering more city services, etc). You are talking about an example where a place is paying no money at all while still recouping a percentage of potential future cost.

To not have 100% immediate cost recovery (that is only hypothetical) does not in any way make something a net loss overall.

Your approach makes almost all housing units a short-term loss and causes the county to accrue debt service costs, which are deadweight costs. The benefit of your approach accrues almost entirely to the developer with costs imposed on everyone else.