MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

That's fine. You don't have to take the bus. The only people with bus expectations are the people who are opposing the zoning proposal.

Teachers, police officers, nurses, and firefighters would all presumably appreciate a shorter drive to work, rather than a longer drive to work, especially with the crazy work hours.

Actually, it’s not the only people. I’m continually hearing that 1. the people living in the new missing middle housing areas won’t have cars because they’ll rely on public transportation 2. The housing will appear to teachers, police officers, and nurses

Where are you hearing this? Who are you hearing it from?

The poster that keeps saying that we should ignore the Questioner is right, this particular poster is only here to waste time and energy. Any time that you feel the need to respond you should instead spend your time more wisely by writing to the council, Elrich, your neighborhood association, editorials, etc.

Do your research, do not support real estate agents, contractors, or developers that support the planning board’s agenda. This is pretty easily found via Facebook searches.

[Anonymous]

I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

That's fine. You don't have to take the bus. The only people with bus expectations are the people who are opposing the zoning proposal.

Teachers, police officers, nurses, and firefighters would all presumably appreciate a shorter drive to work, rather than a longer drive to work, especially with the crazy work hours.

Actually, it’s not the only people. I’m continually hearing that 1. the people living in the new missing middle housing areas won’t have cars because they’ll rely on public transportation 2. The housing will appear to teachers, police officers, and nurses

Where are you hearing this? Who are you hearing it from?

The poster that keeps saying that we should ignore the Questioner is right, this particular poster is only here to waste time and energy. Any time that you feel the need to respond you should instead spend your time more wisely by writing to the council, Elrich, your neighborhood association, editorials, etc.

Do your research, do not support real estate agents, contractors, or developers that support the planning board’s agenda. This is pretty easily found via Facebook searches.

If you are actually continually hearing something, it should be easy to answer questions about where you are continually hearing that thing and who from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

They who? The Planning Department is constantly talking about parks, environmental issues, and climate resiliency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

They who? The Planning Department is constantly talking about parks, environmental issues, and climate resiliency.

They talk about these things a lot but never do anything effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

They who? The Planning Department is constantly talking about parks, environmental issues, and climate resiliency.

They talk about these things a lot but never do anything effective.

There is a whole Parks Department in Park and Planning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

[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:There's lots of neighborhoods in DC where the housing density has gone up dramatically in recent years. Without exception, they are far, far more expensive now than they were before. Housing prices in our neighborhood didnt take off until they started building condos everywhere.

What is your neighborhood?

Do you think that the way to make housing more affordable is to NOT build more housing?

Reading through this thread it looks like the YIMBY plan is to make housing more affordable is by eliminating housing.

I’d also like them to be more clear, are they trying to build more affordable (or attainable) housing, or are they trying to make housing more affordable?

The second implies that they are trying to decrease property values, which I think that many of them are actually trying to do. They want to saturate the market until our property values decrease.

Well, no, the point is to make housing more affordable for more people. If your property values are high because there's a housing shortage, then yes, fixing the housing shortage will lower your property values. However, I don't think it should be a goal of county housing policy to keep your (or my) property values high. The goal of county housing policy should be housing.

Why do you assume that if we build more housing, prices will fall? That's never been true in the DMV.

If you really do think building more housing will result in lower prices, you should tell us exactly how much lower they'll be (and when they'll be lower) so we can laugh in your face when none of that actually happens.

Please look at the cities that have built tons of housing (Austin), do your research, and quit the snarky (uninformed) nonsense. There is plenty of evidence (and common sense), you just refuse to understand it because you are a selfish NIMBY.

Ok well then you should be able to tell us how much all of this will reduce housing prices. So, let's here it. Be specific. What can we expect?

Insulting people is not evidence, and nor is citing apocryphal anecdotes about how, "you know, there's this one neighborhood in Helsinki that did this and it totally worked and you should Google it."

The number of housing units in many areas of DC has skyrocketed over the past 10 years (14th Street, Logan Circle, Navy Yard, etc) and prices have similarly skyrocketed.

Still waiting on an answer here.

What kind of an answer would satisfy you? As Yogi Berra famously said, it's hard to make predictions, especially about the future.

Is this a real question? Obviously, if you have no idea whether upzoning will push prices up or down (and you obviously don't), then maybe don't claim that it will result in affordable housing. That is, maybe don't lie?

Why would you expect that the price of all housing will either go up (all of it) or down (all of it)? If you happen to own land that builders are interested in building multi-unit housing on, your potential land sale price may increase. On the other hand, there will be a lot more land that multi-unit housing can potentially be built on, so it probably won't increase much, or maybe even not at all. On the third hand, builders probably won't be interested in most of that land, so if you happen to own a particularly desirable plot of land, your potential land sale price may increase a good bit. Is that specific enough for you?

This is the least sophisticated economic analysis ever. As I suspected, all of this is just based on wishful thinking and nothing real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not related to the transit corridor plan discussed on the other thread, so it seems that it deserves its own.

"County leaders are now proposing big changes to a third of the land area in Montgomery County. Roughly 33% of the county is zoned as 'residential'. The proposed plans would allow for a duplex, triplex or even a fourplex to be built in areas zoned as 'residential' that right now only allow a single-family structure.”

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/housing/missing-middle-montgomery-county-maryland-zoning-affordable-housing/65-93cefa3c-c40c-4dc4-87ee-f6484047d9eb?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2P3BnRVnlBolejyz0A3sqMLaZi_eWyfLuj85ZZbju90xYP7mN9Dg_01V8_aem_AfbsI1tcRqPPtS-dsOSgr5pipQ_IFHTQOOZm4apLV6ObY6Bs8hAndoQYB59jUaadDfNNQDH5oRXZa3IRMgRPCKAq

https://ggwash.org/view/93944/montgomery-countys-planning-board-will-recommend-relaxing-single-family-zoning?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0qDsA8w9ulYrb9Fgo12QdAD8pv-hs8SWKg8jpAfC3PaQY7alnQY3y_fVU_aem_AfapxC0nYC0N_v7kFbK4CSAP9Mg1z87L8nXsqIl63IpAnKM-l8O63kaDcK5z62oa_W21l6yIkR4jAI_FGcJP8NKI

It is entirely inappropriate for the current MOCO county planning director to post opinion articles for a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that conducts political advocacy related to zoning and land use! He is employed by MOCO (not GGW) to make important zoning and development decisions about the county. This is very unprofessional, and it raises legitimate questions about the credibility of his recommendations and whether he is acting with the interests of county residents in mind.

Weird take.

How is better to write letters to for-profit media organzations? Or just keeping your mouth shut and doing everything secretly?

They should be having public meetings an interviews with the media. Most people think it’s inappropriate for local government employees to have this type of relationship with lobbyists. They are supposed to protect the health and welfare of county residents not to advance political policy goals of private equity funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not related to the transit corridor plan discussed on the other thread, so it seems that it deserves its own.

"County leaders are now proposing big changes to a third of the land area in Montgomery County. Roughly 33% of the county is zoned as 'residential'. The proposed plans would allow for a duplex, triplex or even a fourplex to be built in areas zoned as 'residential' that right now only allow a single-family structure.”

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/housing/missing-middle-montgomery-county-maryland-zoning-affordable-housing/65-93cefa3c-c40c-4dc4-87ee-f6484047d9eb?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2P3BnRVnlBolejyz0A3sqMLaZi_eWyfLuj85ZZbju90xYP7mN9Dg_01V8_aem_AfbsI1tcRqPPtS-dsOSgr5pipQ_IFHTQOOZm4apLV6ObY6Bs8hAndoQYB59jUaadDfNNQDH5oRXZa3IRMgRPCKAq

https://ggwash.org/view/93944/montgomery-countys-planning-board-will-recommend-relaxing-single-family-zoning?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0qDsA8w9ulYrb9Fgo12QdAD8pv-hs8SWKg8jpAfC3PaQY7alnQY3y_fVU_aem_AfapxC0nYC0N_v7kFbK4CSAP9Mg1z87L8nXsqIl63IpAnKM-l8O63kaDcK5z62oa_W21l6yIkR4jAI_FGcJP8NKI

It is entirely inappropriate for the current MOCO county planning director to post opinion articles for a 501(c)(4) nonprofit that conducts political advocacy related to zoning and land use! He is employed by MOCO (not GGW) to make important zoning and development decisions about the county. This is very unprofessional, and it raises legitimate questions about the credibility of his recommendations and whether he is acting with the interests of county residents in mind.

Weird take.

How is better to write letters to for-profit media organzations? Or just keeping your mouth shut and doing everything secretly?

They should be having public meetings an interviews with the media. Most people think it’s inappropriate for local government employees to have this type of relationship with lobbyists. They are supposed to protect the health and welfare of county residents not to advance political policy goals of private equity funds.

They are doing that too.

I'm hoping you'll explain how you got from "posted an opinion piece on a non-profit organization's blog" to "advanced political policy goals of private equity funds."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

They who? The Planning Department is constantly talking about parks, environmental issues, and climate resiliency.

And do they enact any of it? Dense Moco areas are pretty hot and concretey. How will further density be done better, according to they? And how will they remediate and cool current dense areas, according to they?