MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

The beyond-awful traffic is because of the spread-out-ness, actually.

Partly. But I live walking distance to a metro station, which is where they want to build more dense housing, and we are still very car dependent for anything beyond going to downtown DC. There’s no plan to build more walkable amenities like a grocery store, etc., just more apartments. Whose residents will also largely be car dependent.

Well, sure, if you live within walking distance of Forest Glen Metro, for example. There's lots of stuff a mile and a half north at Wheaton Metro, and there's lots of stuff half a mile south on the other side of the Beltway, but Georgia Avenue is awful, so you don't want to walk to either one. Fortunately, there are plans to fix this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

The beyond-awful traffic is because of the spread-out-ness, actually.

Partly. But I live walking distance to a metro station, which is where they want to build more dense housing, and we are still very car dependent for anything beyond going to downtown DC. There’s no plan to build more walkable amenities like a grocery store, etc., just more apartments. Whose residents will also largely be car dependent.

Well, sure, if you live within walking distance of Forest Glen Metro, for example. There's lots of stuff a mile and a half north at Wheaton Metro, and there's lots of stuff half a mile south on the other side of the Beltway, but Georgia Avenue is awful, so you don't want to walk to either one. Fortunately, there are plans to fix this.

You haven't looked into those plans very well. Doesn't address crossing the beltway, among many other shortcomings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

The beyond-awful traffic is because of the spread-out-ness, actually.

Partly. But I live walking distance to a metro station, which is where they want to build more dense housing, and we are still very car dependent for anything beyond going to downtown DC. There’s no plan to build more walkable amenities like a grocery store, etc., just more apartments. Whose residents will also largely be car dependent.

Well, sure, if you live within walking distance of Forest Glen Metro, for example. There's lots of stuff a mile and a half north at Wheaton Metro, and there's lots of stuff half a mile south on the other side of the Beltway, but Georgia Avenue is awful, so you don't want to walk to either one. Fortunately, there are plans to fix this.

You haven't looked into those plans very well. Doesn't address crossing the beltway, among many other shortcomings.

https://www.roads.maryland.gov/mdotsha/pages/pressreleasedetails.aspx?PageId=0&newsId=4685

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Great, I can buy the neighbor’s tear down and turn it into a rental parking lot to house all of the new missing middle cars. I think that would be way more profitable that building housing there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

PP here. Yes, Exactly that is the "argument" I am referring to. Thanks.

Terrific, we are in agreement, you just think that building an apartment building in a SFH area is a very minor thing and that people who think that’s a terrible idea are just complaining about “something different,” which pretty neatly sums up the YIMBY narcissism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Great, I can buy the neighbor’s tear down and turn it into a rental parking lot to house all of the new missing middle cars. I think that would be way more profitable that building housing there.

People keep thinking it's a winning rhetorical argument to compare duplexes or fourplexes to toxic waste dumps, rental parking lots, chemical factories...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

PP here. Yes, Exactly that is the "argument" I am referring to. Thanks.

Terrific, we are in agreement, you just think that building an apartment building in a SFH area is a very minor thing and that people who think that’s a terrible idea are just complaining about “something different,” which pretty neatly sums up the YIMBY narcissism.

Apparently YIMBY narcissism is pointing out that "I don't want to live next to a duplex" is not the basis for good housing policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

The beyond-awful traffic is because of the spread-out-ness, actually.

Partly. But I live walking distance to a metro station, which is where they want to build more dense housing, and we are still very car dependent for anything beyond going to downtown DC. There’s no plan to build more walkable amenities like a grocery store, etc., just more apartments. Whose residents will also largely be car dependent.

Well, sure, if you live within walking distance of Forest Glen Metro, for example. There's lots of stuff a mile and a half north at Wheaton Metro, and there's lots of stuff half a mile south on the other side of the Beltway, but Georgia Avenue is awful, so you don't want to walk to either one. Fortunately, there are plans to fix this.

You haven't looked into those plans very well. Doesn't address crossing the beltway, among many other shortcomings.

And no dedicated funding. GA Ave is the worst.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

The beyond-awful traffic is because of the spread-out-ness, actually.

Partly. But I live walking distance to a metro station, which is where they want to build more dense housing, and we are still very car dependent for anything beyond going to downtown DC. There’s no plan to build more walkable amenities like a grocery store, etc., just more apartments. Whose residents will also largely be car dependent.

Well, sure, if you live within walking distance of Forest Glen Metro, for example. There's lots of stuff a mile and a half north at Wheaton Metro, and there's lots of stuff half a mile south on the other side of the Beltway, but Georgia Avenue is awful, so you don't want to walk to either one. Fortunately, there are plans to fix this.

You haven't looked into those plans very well. Doesn't address crossing the beltway, among many other shortcomings.

https://www.roads.maryland.gov/mdotsha/pages/pressreleasedetails.aspx?PageId=0&newsId=4685

Your link to last summer's meeting announcement is just a misdirection, yes? The plan doesn't have any significant improvement for getting pedestrians across the beltway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

The beyond-awful traffic is because of the spread-out-ness, actually.

Partly. But I live walking distance to a metro station, which is where they want to build more dense housing, and we are still very car dependent for anything beyond going to downtown DC. There’s no plan to build more walkable amenities like a grocery store, etc., just more apartments. Whose residents will also largely be car dependent.

Well, sure, if you live within walking distance of Forest Glen Metro, for example. There's lots of stuff a mile and a half north at Wheaton Metro, and there's lots of stuff half a mile south on the other side of the Beltway, but Georgia Avenue is awful, so you don't want to walk to either one. Fortunately, there are plans to fix this.

You haven't looked into those plans very well. Doesn't address crossing the beltway, among many other shortcomings.

And no dedicated funding. GA Ave is the worst.

Yes, Georgia Avenue is the worst now, but there are plans to make it better. And some of those plans are funded.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

The beyond-awful traffic is because of the spread-out-ness, actually.

Partly. But I live walking distance to a metro station, which is where they want to build more dense housing, and we are still very car dependent for anything beyond going to downtown DC. There’s no plan to build more walkable amenities like a grocery store, etc., just more apartments. Whose residents will also largely be car dependent.

Well, sure, if you live within walking distance of Forest Glen Metro, for example. There's lots of stuff a mile and a half north at Wheaton Metro, and there's lots of stuff half a mile south on the other side of the Beltway, but Georgia Avenue is awful, so you don't want to walk to either one. Fortunately, there are plans to fix this.

You haven't looked into those plans very well. Doesn't address crossing the beltway, among many other shortcomings.

And no dedicated funding. GA Ave is the worst.

Yes, Georgia Avenue is the worst now, but there are plans to make it better. And some of those plans are funded.

Those plans are limited and piecemeal in geography, don't address holistic area needs holistically and are inadequate to the now-stated aims, cut back from the inadequate plans that had been put forward years back. They don't want to spend the money it would take to really improve things in less wealthy areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

The beyond-awful traffic is because of the spread-out-ness, actually.

Partly. But I live walking distance to a metro station, which is where they want to build more dense housing, and we are still very car dependent for anything beyond going to downtown DC. There’s no plan to build more walkable amenities like a grocery store, etc., just more apartments. Whose residents will also largely be car dependent.

Well, sure, if you live within walking distance of Forest Glen Metro, for example. There's lots of stuff a mile and a half north at Wheaton Metro, and there's lots of stuff half a mile south on the other side of the Beltway, but Georgia Avenue is awful, so you don't want to walk to either one. Fortunately, there are plans to fix this.

You haven't looked into those plans very well. Doesn't address crossing the beltway, among many other shortcomings.

https://www.roads.maryland.gov/mdotsha/pages/pressreleasedetails.aspx?PageId=0&newsId=4685

Your link to last summer's meeting announcement is just a misdirection, yes? The plan doesn't have any significant improvement for getting pedestrians across the beltway.

There is already a whole bridge for getting pedestrians across the Beltway. That's not the problem. The problem is that Georgia Avenue south of the Beltway is miserable for pedestrians, and Georgia Avenue north of the Beltway is miserable for pedestrians.