MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

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

Ding ding ding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Duplex without HOA >>>> SFH with HOA

Not much would change

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What do you find troubling?

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

I personally find this negative

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

[Anonymous]

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

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

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

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

Yeah, the part about encouraging conversions from single family detached to duplex/triplex/quadriplex by reducing property tax really caught my notice. A convering owner-occupant would get a 50% break for a duplex, a 66% break for a triplex and a 75% break for a quadriplex. For 10 years. Those buying the other units in the plex would get it for 5 years.

Public burden goes up with the additional units/population, but property tax revenue from them is hamstrung. Guess who pays to fill that gap?

[Anonymous]

Property tax cuts wont be enough of a motivator unless you have very high property taxes likely in close in areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What do you find troubling?

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

I personally find this negative

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

I support this proposal and would likely qualify under your definition of "YIMBY." I have not had a chance to watch the video, but am very curious what was actually said in the "mention" of setbacks. Quite literally everything I have seen from the County on this, including what is written in the proposal itself is that setbacks will be retained. If in fact setback requirements will be altered, I would agree with you that would be counter to what has been explained to date and it would upset me.

However "mentioning" setbacks is not the same as saying that the proposal would do away with setbacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What do you find troubling?

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

I personally find this negative

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

I support this proposal and would likely qualify under your definition of "YIMBY." I have not had a chance to watch the video, but am very curious what was actually said in the "mention" of setbacks. Quite literally everything I have seen from the County on this, including what is written in the proposal itself is that setbacks will be retained. If in fact setback requirements will be altered, I would agree with you that would be counter to what has been explained to date and it would upset me.

However "mentioning" setbacks is not the same as saying that the proposal would do away with setbacks.

Watch the video. They say setbacks would be eliminated. Take note about what they say about parking, too.

[Anonymous]

So people know what is going on re: attainable housing, here is what the Town of Chevy Chase Council emailed town residents a few days ago.

However, it is crucial for residents to share their thoughts and engage on this issue now.

Under prospective County regulations, several possibilities exist for how a Town lot could be redeveloped to accommodate multifamily housing:

-- Duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes could be built by-right on Town lots.

-- 3-4 story stacked flats, apartment buildings up to 19 units, and townhouses could be built on Town lots located within 500 feet of Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues with public input.

In addition, because the County intends to designate the Town as a multifamily residential zone, a newly enacted State housing law may allow density bonuses and mixed-use (e.g., restaurant, retail, recreation, office) components in these projects. This would result in larger structures and different uses on Town lots, potentially regardless of Town building regulations. For example,

-- A small-scale 6,000 square foot duplex that includes an affordable unit may become a 10,140 square foot development that could include a mixed-use component by right and without public input.

-- A medium-scale 15,000 square foot apartment building with at least 15% affordable housing units may increase to a 25,350 square foot development after accounting for County and State density bonuses. These developments would be subject to public input.

The Town will provide more information on the County's housing proposals as it becomes available.

In the meantime, you may send an email to all County Councilmembers here.

Also, we encourage you to attend Council President Friedson’s Community Conversation tomorrow evening (Wednesday, July 24 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.) to ask questions and provide comments about these proposals.

As people are discussing setbacks, parking, etc. it's important to understand the scope of this plan and how it will change many existing neighborhoods int the county, and not just close-in neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

^this doesn’t go far enough. Maryland being anti business and anti development as usual. I should be able to build a skyscraper if I wanted on my land

[Anonymous]

It’s like the Council wants to destroy wealth and prosperity in the name of “attainable” housing. A better use of efforts and funding would be to improve and add this construction in areas that have lots ready for development, like White Flint. Improve safety and schools in areas like Wheaton and Silver Spring. But, no, the Council wants to destroy long established neighborhoods. Completely and utterly irresponsible.
Fix River Road, make sure Friendship Heights improvements are one and done, and leave us alone!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So people know what is going on re: attainable housing, here is what the Town of Chevy Chase Council emailed town residents a few days ago.

However, it is crucial for residents to share their thoughts and engage on this issue now.

Under prospective County regulations, several possibilities exist for how a Town lot could be redeveloped to accommodate multifamily housing:

-- Duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes could be built by-right on Town lots.

-- 3-4 story stacked flats, apartment buildings up to 19 units, and townhouses could be built on Town lots located within 500 feet of Connecticut and Wisconsin Avenues with public input.

In addition, because the County intends to designate the Town as a multifamily residential zone, a newly enacted State housing law may allow density bonuses and mixed-use (e.g., restaurant, retail, recreation, office) components in these projects. This would result in larger structures and different uses on Town lots, potentially regardless of Town building regulations. For example,

-- A small-scale 6,000 square foot duplex that includes an affordable unit may become a 10,140 square foot development that could include a mixed-use component by right and without public input.

-- A medium-scale 15,000 square foot apartment building with at least 15% affordable housing units may increase to a 25,350 square foot development after accounting for County and State density bonuses. These developments would be subject to public input.

The Town will provide more information on the County's housing proposals as it becomes available.

In the meantime, you may send an email to all County Councilmembers here.

Also, we encourage you to attend Council President Friedson’s Community Conversation tomorrow evening (Wednesday, July 24 from 7 to 8:30 p.m.) to ask questions and provide comments about these proposals.

As people are discussing setbacks, parking, etc. it's important to understand the scope of this plan and how it will change many existing neighborhoods int the county, and not just close-in neighborhoods.

The Council has lost its mind!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What do you find troubling?

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

I personally find this negative

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

I support this proposal and would likely qualify under your definition of "YIMBY." I have not had a chance to watch the video, but am very curious what was actually said in the "mention" of setbacks. Quite literally everything I have seen from the County on this, including what is written in the proposal itself is that setbacks will be retained. If in fact setback requirements will be altered, I would agree with you that would be counter to what has been explained to date and it would upset me.

However "mentioning" setbacks is not the same as saying that the proposal would do away with setbacks.

Watch the video. They say setbacks would be eliminated. Take note about what they say about parking, too.

So I just watched the whole thing.

At the outset (19:55), the speaker indicated that there would be standards applied to multiplexes in residential zones, as the written proposal indicates, which are intended to retain similar massing, scale, and setbacks.
Friedson then also makes clear at (27:01) that his understanding is that "same setbacks" would apply.
There was a brief mention of the word "setback" (1:04) in a discussion of local municipalities, but it wasn't an indication of a change, but rather intersecting authorities. Friedson indicated that there is a question about whether county could allow two units instead of one SO LONG as local/municipal setback requirements are retained.

Where did I miss any indication that there will be a reduction in setbacks?
It also says that there will be a public approval process for site plans when these
And I am totally fine with reducing or eliminating parking requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What do you find troubling?

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

I personally find this negative

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

I support this proposal and would likely qualify under your definition of "YIMBY." I have not had a chance to watch the video, but am very curious what was actually said in the "mention" of setbacks. Quite literally everything I have seen from the County on this, including what is written in the proposal itself is that setbacks will be retained. If in fact setback requirements will be altered, I would agree with you that would be counter to what has been explained to date and it would upset me.

However "mentioning" setbacks is not the same as saying that the proposal would do away with setbacks.

Watch the video. They say setbacks would be eliminated. Take note about what they say about parking, too.

So I just watched the whole thing.

At the outset (19:55), the speaker indicated that there would be standards applied to multiplexes in residential zones, as the written proposal indicates, which are intended to retain similar massing, scale, and setbacks.
Friedson then also makes clear at (27:01) that his understanding is that "same setbacks" would apply.
There was a brief mention of the word "setback" (1:04) in a discussion of local municipalities, but it wasn't an indication of a change, but rather intersecting authorities. Friedson indicated that there is a question about whether county could allow two units instead of one SO LONG as local/municipal setback requirements are retained.

Where did I miss any indication that there will be a reduction in setbacks?
It also says that there will be a public approval process for site plans when these
And I am totally fine with reducing or eliminating parking requirements.

If they were intended on making the setbacks the same, the language would say something else that clearly indicates they will be identical. “Similar” provides no assurance that they will be the same. It creates substantial leeway for reducing them through an opaque administrative using staff that are unaccountable yo voters.