MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread feels like a bunch of 80 year olds shaking their fist at the clouds.

Get over it NIMBYs!

Wonderful mischaracterization.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread feels like a bunch of 80 year olds shaking their fist at the clouds.

Get over it NIMBYs!

Ok, Zoomer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You are complaining that the Montgomery County Council is following their well-established processes for considering and enacting laws, after the Montgomery Planning Board followed their well-established processes for considering and making recommendations.

It reminds me of people standing up at public meetings to complain that they do not have any opportunity to make their voice heard.

People wanting their voice heard want the opportunity for well-informed agency/impact that is inherent to well functioning societies. The council & board must follow their processes in that spirit, not just in name, as they have here with recommendations far beyond anything they had vetted widely with the impacted communities.

Or they can simply decide to get one over on their constituents. It looks like that's the approach they decided to take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

This certainly seems like a first step, or at least one that should be taken well before upzoning suburban neighborhoods or goods. As has been pointed out, though, this move into suburbia is idealogical and not practical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are complaining that the Montgomery County Council is following their well-established processes for considering and enacting laws, after the Montgomery Planning Board followed their well-established processes for considering and making recommendations.

It reminds me of people standing up at public meetings to complain that they do not have any opportunity to make their voice heard.

People wanting their voice heard want the opportunity for well-informed agency/impact that is inherent to well functioning societies. The council & board must follow their processes in that spirit, not just in name, as they have here with recommendations far beyond anything they had vetted widely with the impacted communities.

Or they can simply decide to get one over on their constituents. It looks like that's the approach they decided to take.

People who don't like the outcome (or the likely outcome) complain about the process.

If the constituents don't like the outcome, or the actions of their elected representatives, they can express their disapproval at the polls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

This certainly seems like a first step, or at least one that should be taken well before upzoning suburban neighborhoods or goods. As has been pointed out, though, this move into suburbia is idealogical and not practical.

If you're looking for ideological and not practical, then look no further than people's belief that areas with detached one-unit housing must be preserved and protected from the potential for multi-unit housing.

[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:

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.

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.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are complaining that the Montgomery County Council is following their well-established processes for considering and enacting laws, after the Montgomery Planning Board followed their well-established processes for considering and making recommendations.

It reminds me of people standing up at public meetings to complain that they do not have any opportunity to make their voice heard.

People wanting their voice heard want the opportunity for well-informed agency/impact that is inherent to well functioning societies. The council & board must follow their processes in that spirit, not just in name, as they have here with recommendations far beyond anything they had vetted widely with the impacted communities.

Or they can simply decide to get one over on their constituents. It looks like that's the approach they decided to take.

People who don't like the outcome (or the likely outcome) complain about the process.

If the constituents don't like the outcome, or the actions of their elected representatives, they can express their disapproval at the polls.

This has been discussed many times in this thread. That is a specious dismissal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are complaining that the Montgomery County Council is following their well-established processes for considering and enacting laws, after the Montgomery Planning Board followed their well-established processes for considering and making recommendations.

It reminds me of people standing up at public meetings to complain that they do not have any opportunity to make their voice heard.

People wanting their voice heard want the opportunity for well-informed agency/impact that is inherent to well functioning societies. The council & board must follow their processes in that spirit, not just in name, as they have here with recommendations far beyond anything they had vetted widely with the impacted communities.

Or they can simply decide to get one over on their constituents. It looks like that's the approach they decided to take.

People who don't like the outcome (or the likely outcome) complain about the process.

If the constituents don't like the outcome, or the actions of their elected representatives, they can express their disapproval at the polls.

This has been discussed many times in this thread. That is a specious dismissal.

Which part do you think is a fallacy? The part about complaining about the process when you don't like the outcome? The part about voters deciding? Or both?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread feels like a bunch of 80 year olds shaking their fist at the clouds.

Get over it NIMBYs!

It's more like debating religion with a bunch of zealots.

The YIMBYs are extremely certain that upzoning will make housing affordable except they can't explain how or why or when or by how much.

There's literally nothing to it except empty slogans and wishful thinking.

[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:

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.

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.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

That's certainly AN opinion. It's not the only possible opinion, though. My opinion is that it's incumbent on them to pursue policies that are the best for the future of Montgomery County. But, again, this is ultimately a question for the voters to decide.

I would like to see some links to where either the County Council or the Planning Department justify the proposed zoning changes based on New Residents Won't Have Cars or New Residents Will Take The Bus. So far, I've only seen it claimed, by opponents of the proposed zoning changes, that the County Council or Planning Department are doing this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are complaining that the Montgomery County Council is following their well-established processes for considering and enacting laws, after the Montgomery Planning Board followed their well-established processes for considering and making recommendations.

It reminds me of people standing up at public meetings to complain that they do not have any opportunity to make their voice heard.

People wanting their voice heard want the opportunity for well-informed agency/impact that is inherent to well functioning societies. The council & board must follow their processes in that spirit, not just in name, as they have here with recommendations far beyond anything they had vetted widely with the impacted communities.

Or they can simply decide to get one over on their constituents. It looks like that's the approach they decided to take.

People who don't like the outcome (or the likely outcome) complain about the process.

If the constituents don't like the outcome, or the actions of their elected representatives, they can express their disapproval at the polls.

This has been discussed many times in this thread. That is a specious dismissal.

Which part do you think is a fallacy? The part about complaining about the process when you don't like the outcome? The part about voters deciding? Or both?

The part where it's a specious dismissal. Go back and find the relevant posts, Questioner.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

That's certainly AN opinion. It's not the only possible opinion, though. My opinion is that it's incumbent on them to pursue policies that are the best for the future of Montgomery County. But, again, this is ultimately a question for the voters to decide.

I would like to see some links to where either the County Council or the Planning Department justify the proposed zoning changes based on New Residents Won't Have Cars or New Residents Will Take The Bus. So far, I've only seen it claimed, by opponents of the proposed zoning changes, that the County Council or Planning Department are doing this.

Your hyperbolic strawman aside, if you haven't seen those justifications (e.g., low expected car ownership rates with bus given as a reason) claiming limited impact on the affected communities it is because you have not read the Attainable Housing report amd have not listened to/viewed the public meetings. Go find them.