MoCo Council Vote Today

[Anonymous]

Start the lawsuits people. This ZTA can potentially be overturned with a lawsuit. These changes will stack with all of the state level zoning reforms pushed through and increase permissible density significantly more than allowed in the MOCO ZTA. The clock is ticking and there is only so much time to save your communities from overcrowded schools and dangerous amounts of traffic. The other thing you can do to protect your quality of life in your neighborhood is establish protective covenants with neighbors that prevent lot splitting and ban multifamily housing. It would also be wise to add a covenant that prevents neighbors from converting their property into a disruptive commercial use eg. (bar, marijuana dispensary, halfway house/rehab center). The social compact has been broken; MOCO supervisor no longer cares about protecting the health and welfare of county residents when making zoning decisions. Unless you live in a very wealthy neighborhood that is not allowed to connect to public sewer/water, your home is under threat without protective covenants or a militant HOA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people seem to think there is some affordable housing in this bill. There isn’t. The “workforce” requirement replaced the MPDU requirement and the income cap for the workforce housing is 120 percent AMI. That translates to rents well above the average rent and in line with the rents at new high-rise apartment buildings.

If you are doing better than most and still can’t afford housing, this bill will not help you at all. It’s not affordable housing or even more attainable housing.

It’s all a huge win for developers, who have been trying to kill the MPDU program as long as it’s been around.

X10000

Nailed it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I'm not asking anything. I'm pointing out that the cries of "affordable housing" are fake. NIMBYs don't care about affordable housing.

NP, and this is exactly right.

Here's a thought experiment - say that this zoning change was the same in every way, but that it required true affordable housing, or workforce housing. And also assume that the magical revenue fairy was going to underwrite the costs of that affordable/workforce housing. Does anyone think, for one second, that the people complaining "it doesn't *really* provide workforce housing" would support it?

Of course not - because their real objection is that they don;t want to live near people who live in affordable/workforce housing, because they are too poor (if you're being charitable) or too brown (if you're not).

I’m surprised to see an advocate of this proposal admit so quickly that it was based on a lie.

I would have supported this proposal if it had no workforce or affordable housing component instead of the lies. The lies made me skeptical of the proposal because the sponsors never were clear about their real objectives. If you have to lie about something to get support, you’re probably not doing something good.

The crowd that showed up to oppose this had a lot brown people in it. But maybe you don’t really see brown people?

I didn't admit that it was based on a lie, just that the opponents were disingenuous in the reasons for their opposition. And there are plenty of brown people who own SFHs who don't want to live near poor people who live in apartments.

Although I will admit, I am basing my impressions of the race of the opponents, and their motives, on my neighborhood, and the people in it (Westgate/Westmoreland Hills). Very thinly veiled racial animus.

This isn't housing for poor people. It's workforce housing which is affordable to those making 120% of the median salary and ONLY applies to 15% of new units. The rest is going to be market rate. In order to get poor people, MoCo would need to do subsidized housing.

[Anonymous]

The next bill in this package is an SRA that Andrew Friedson introduced Tuesday. As proposed, the SRA would allow developers to combine three lots and still build under the ZTA. In effect, the SRA moves the ZTA from duplexes and small apartment buildings to apartment buildings that can stretch half a block or more, with ground floor retail in some locations and effectively no affordable housing requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m seriously thinking about running for council in the primary with the sole platform of reversing this vote and ending the political career of whatever at-large member I would replace.

I will serve one term, and not run again. No reelection campaign to accept donations from developers for, no way to buy me.

I just want to help wreck the council as it currently is composed. FIRE THEM ALL.

Please do this. You will get many many votes.

Second.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I'm not asking anything. I'm pointing out that the cries of "affordable housing" are fake. NIMBYs don't care about affordable housing.

NP, and this is exactly right.

Here's a thought experiment - say that this zoning change was the same in every way, but that it required true affordable housing, or workforce housing. And also assume that the magical revenue fairy was going to underwrite the costs of that affordable/workforce housing. Does anyone think, for one second, that the people complaining "it doesn't *really* provide workforce housing" would support it?

Of course not - because their real objection is that they don;t want to live near people who live in affordable/workforce housing, because they are too poor (if you're being charitable) or too brown (if you're not).

I’m surprised to see an advocate of this proposal admit so quickly that it was based on a lie.

I would have supported this proposal if it had no workforce or affordable housing component instead of the lies. The lies made me skeptical of the proposal because the sponsors never were clear about their real objectives. If you have to lie about something to get support, you’re probably not doing something good.

The crowd that showed up to oppose this had a lot brown people in it. But maybe you don’t really see brown people?

I didn't admit that it was based on a lie, just that the opponents were disingenuous in the reasons for their opposition. And there are plenty of brown people who own SFHs who don't want to live near poor people who live in apartments.

Although I will admit, I am basing my impressions of the race of the opponents, and their motives, on my neighborhood, and the people in it (Westgate/Westmoreland Hills). Very thinly veiled racial animus.

This isn't housing for poor people. It's workforce housing which is affordable to those making 120% of the median salary and ONLY applies to 15% of new units. The rest is going to be market rate. In order to get poor people, MoCo would need to do subsidized housing.

120% AMi for a single person translates to income of about $136k which translates to a max rent of about $3,700 a month, which is the high end of market rate and well above the county’s average rent. This is all going to be market rate. There is effectively no affordable housing or workforce housing in the ZTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The next bill in this package is an SRA that Andrew Friedson introduced Tuesday. As proposed, the SRA would allow developers to combine three lots and still build under the ZTA. In effect, the SRA moves the ZTA from duplexes and small apartment buildings to apartment buildings that can stretch half a block or more, with ground floor retail in some locations and effectively no affordable housing requirements.

This is a selling point for some. Many delusional neighbors seem to think we will get artisanal cheese shops and local coffee roasters, rather than Jersey's Mike's and mattress stores. Ah, nothing like a nice Sunday morning walk to test out a new Tempur-Pedic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To those of us who want to preserve our SFM neighborhoods -- I was encouraged to hear a story on NPR this morning about how Arlington tried this expanded zoning thing two years ago (they call it "missing middle"). Residents sued to prevent the change and the county lost. It's now on appeal.

I expect MoCo will face similar litigation to defend action.

I hope so!

[Anonymous]

At the end of the day, this isn’t going to be workforce housing. It’s always going to end up being out of price and out of reach for teachers, police officers, firefighters. Those are just professions and names that they add into the bill because who would be against housing for teachers and police officers? So they need to make it sound nice to gain approval. I think we all know that this will be Luxury and expensive housing built in the name of “workforce housing”. And every single council member who voted for this is a liar and or a fool maybe both.

[Anonymous]

Correct- the coalition is a combination of liars ("oh here we are going to build housing for middle class teachers and nurses!" knowing full well it will be well outside of their price range).

And useful idiots who truly believe in a cult/religious like way that we just build, build, build- and it will somehow work out.

[Anonymous]

I dont agree with Jawando and Mink on much politically- but they were dead on in their opposition of this one.

Why? Because the actual bill does not at all do what it claims to- create affordable housing. That's the bottom line here- you have people citing a very lofty goal, but the reality of the new builds will not accomplish that in any way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next bill in this package is an SRA that Andrew Friedson introduced Tuesday. As proposed, the SRA would allow developers to combine three lots and still build under the ZTA. In effect, the SRA moves the ZTA from duplexes and small apartment buildings to apartment buildings that can stretch half a block or more, with ground floor retail in some locations and effectively no affordable housing requirements.

This is a selling point for some. Many delusional neighbors seem to think we will get artisanal cheese shops and local coffee roasters, rather than Jersey's Mike's and mattress stores. Ah, nothing like a nice Sunday morning walk to test out a new Tempur-Pedic.

Maryland has literally passed zoning reforms to preempt local control over the regulations regarding the placement of marijuana dispensaries. There is a significant chance that some of these "mixed use" commercial storefronts become marijuana dispensaries rather than a local coffee shop or bookstore. The state of Maryland has stripped away local zoning authority and it is illegal for MOCO to implement protections for county residents. Now the county is only allowed to restrict marijuana dispensary from being within 100 feet of an exclusively residentially zoned area and within 500 feet of a school, church, or playground.
https://cannabis.maryland.gov/Documents/2024_Laws_and_Regulations/Zoning%20Update%20%281%29.pdf
YIMBYs are being very dishonest here, it's very possible that these first floor retail spaces end up being 24 hour bars, hookah clubs, and marijuana dispensaries.

[Anonymous]

Litigation won't work like it did in Arlington. MoCo did the pro forma to dot "i"s and cross "t"s, having seen that which was transpiring across the river. That doesn't mean they handled this responsibly with respect to those in the affected communities, of course -- the method, timing and order of things was calibrated to minimize effective opposition, and that includes legal challenge.

Now, there were elements of procedure where a case might be made, especially at Planning, but since the product, there, was the AHS report accepted as information, rather than adopted as policy/direct legislation, that doesn't really serve as a basis for challenge. Friedson's hand-waving about More Housing N.O.W. being responsive to the kangaroo-court listening sessions was pretty much guided by Fani-González's familiarity of interaction between Planning and Council, having been on both.

Those hoping for an injunction or the like will need to find some novel approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The next bill in this package is an SRA that Andrew Friedson introduced Tuesday. As proposed, the SRA would allow developers to combine three lots and still build under the ZTA. In effect, the SRA moves the ZTA from duplexes and small apartment buildings to apartment buildings that can stretch half a block or more, with ground floor retail in some locations and effectively no affordable housing requirements.

This is a selling point for some. Many delusional neighbors seem to think we will get artisanal cheese shops and local coffee roasters, rather than Jersey's Mike's and mattress stores. Ah, nothing like a nice Sunday morning walk to test out a new Tempur-Pedic.

Retail is a selling point for me in some locations. For the lots that are on service roads, I don’t think it makes sense. They should have excluded the lots on service roads from the ZTA because they’re not actually on the corridor itself but they decided not to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Litigation won't work like it did in Arlington. MoCo did the pro forma to dot "i"s and cross "t"s, having seen that which was transpiring across the river. That doesn't mean they handled this responsibly with respect to those in the affected communities, of course -- the method, timing and order of things was calibrated to minimize effective opposition, and that includes legal challenge.

Now, there were elements of procedure where a case might be made, especially at Planning, but since the product, there, was the AHS report accepted as information, rather than adopted as policy/direct legislation, that doesn't really serve as a basis for challenge. Friedson's hand-waving about More Housing N.O.W. being responsive to the kangaroo-court listening sessions was pretty much guided by Fani-González's familiarity of interaction between Planning and Council, having been on both.

Those hoping for an injunction or the like will need to find some novel approach.

Litigation is a waste of time. The place to focus is the SRA. If it’s not amended to prohibit consolidation, we’ll get large apartment buildings with no affordable housing.