MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Um....yes? Not sure why you would bother writing that except to try to deflect.

DP. Deflect from what? I think it's perfectly valid to point out that current residents, who by definition already have housing, might be less interested in housing for future residents.

If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents.

I don't understand. If you now live in a condo, and you move to a detached one-unit house, by definition you will have to move, even if the County Council engraves the current zoning code on stone tablets.

Or are you saying that there is (or should be) opposition to the zoning code changes, from people who currently live in multi-unit housing in Montgomery County and who would like at some point to move to detached single-unit housing in an exclusively detached-single-unit-housing area in Montgomery County? Honestly, my first reaction to this is: get over yourself. I apologize, because there's no way to say that without sounding insulting. But seriously, if you expect other people to take your issues seriously from your perspective, then you also need to take other people's issues seriously from their perspectives.

DP. You are intentionally misrepresenting PP’s perspective. PP was pointing out that there would be less of the type of housing that they want, so they would have to move out of county. Nowhere does the PP suggest that they are unwilling to live in a SFH that’s close to MFH.

Planning staff and board members, the council, and the advocates are pretty callous in brushing off the shortage of SFH or the impact that this proposal will have on people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill. The way the policymakers and advocates have tried to sell this policy lacks empathy, and that’s going to foster resentment.

The PP said "If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents." They did not say anything about the cost. They said "a SFH neighborhood". What do you think they meant by this? In my experience, when people say "SFH neighborhood," they mean "an area that only has detached single-unit housing and no other housing type".

As long as we're talking about empathy, where is the empathy for people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage? Do you think that people who are brushing off the existence of a general housing shortage are being pretty callous? I do. The subgroup of "people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill" is only a small part of the whole group of people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage. I really don't know why this specific subgroup should be the priority for housing policy, or first in line for empathy, over everybody else in the whole group.

In your first paragraph, you’d rather pick nuts than react to what’s clearly implicit. MoCo is suffering a lot of out migration because people can’t afford SFH.

In terms of empathy, you make it zero sum but there’s reason that it needs to be. The county’s entire housing policy for the past decade or more has been geared toward creating more rentals in small parts of the county. Where have Planning, the council, or advocates of upzoning brushed off the general housing shortage?

It’s time to look at how the encourage more SFH construction in addition to MFH, not instead of. Here you are arguing for a housing policy that will only reduce SFH. That’s great for me as a SFH owner but not so great for the young adults who are looking for similar ownership opportunities to what their parents had.

Do you think this group (young adults whose parents were homeowners of a detached uniplex and who now want to be homeowners of a detached uniplex) should be the top priority for housing policy in Montgomery County?

Where should Montgomery County encourage the construction of more detached uniplexes?

They shouldn’t be the top priority, but they shouldn’t be excluded from the priorities either. That’s what you’re proposing. It used to be the housing policy of this county to build more of everything. Why the shift? You can impose economic policy by brute force (and that’s the track you’re on, so congratulations, I guess) but it doesn’t lead to residents feeling very fulfilled.

Where SFH (attached or detached) can be built is covered elsewhere in this thread or you can check out the development pipeline on the Planning website. I’m not sure why you’re so committed to the myth that all of the land in the county is already built out but it seems like you lack confidence in your own proposals on their merits so you have to push lies to make them look better.

Brute force? Zoning is established by the County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. That's how the current zoning was established. That's how the new zoning would be established.

"More of everything" is all very well, if there is somewhere to put it. Where do you think the new houses should go? They have to go somewhere. The development pipeline won't answer that question, unless you're merely saying that you want the county to encourage builders to build the housing they already have in the development pipeline. However, if it's already in the development pipeline, then it wouldn't depend on new zoning.

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Um....yes? Not sure why you would bother writing that except to try to deflect.

DP. Deflect from what? I think it's perfectly valid to point out that current residents, who by definition already have housing, might be less interested in housing for future residents.

If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents.

I don't understand. If you now live in a condo, and you move to a detached one-unit house, by definition you will have to move, even if the County Council engraves the current zoning code on stone tablets.

Or are you saying that there is (or should be) opposition to the zoning code changes, from people who currently live in multi-unit housing in Montgomery County and who would like at some point to move to detached single-unit housing in an exclusively detached-single-unit-housing area in Montgomery County? Honestly, my first reaction to this is: get over yourself. I apologize, because there's no way to say that without sounding insulting. But seriously, if you expect other people to take your issues seriously from your perspective, then you also need to take other people's issues seriously from their perspectives.

DP. You are intentionally misrepresenting PP’s perspective. PP was pointing out that there would be less of the type of housing that they want, so they would have to move out of county. Nowhere does the PP suggest that they are unwilling to live in a SFH that’s close to MFH.

Planning staff and board members, the council, and the advocates are pretty callous in brushing off the shortage of SFH or the impact that this proposal will have on people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill. The way the policymakers and advocates have tried to sell this policy lacks empathy, and that’s going to foster resentment.

The PP said "If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents." They did not say anything about the cost. They said "a SFH neighborhood". What do you think they meant by this? In my experience, when people say "SFH neighborhood," they mean "an area that only has detached single-unit housing and no other housing type".

As long as we're talking about empathy, where is the empathy for people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage? Do you think that people who are brushing off the existence of a general housing shortage are being pretty callous? I do. The subgroup of "people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill" is only a small part of the whole group of people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage. I really don't know why this specific subgroup should be the priority for housing policy, or first in line for empathy, over everybody else in the whole group.

In your first paragraph, you’d rather pick nuts than react to what’s clearly implicit. MoCo is suffering a lot of out migration because people can’t afford SFH.

In terms of empathy, you make it zero sum but there’s reason that it needs to be. The county’s entire housing policy for the past decade or more has been geared toward creating more rentals in small parts of the county. Where have Planning, the council, or advocates of upzoning brushed off the general housing shortage?

It’s time to look at how the encourage more SFH construction in addition to MFH, not instead of. Here you are arguing for a housing policy that will only reduce SFH. That’s great for me as a SFH owner but not so great for the young adults who are looking for similar ownership opportunities to what their parents had.

Do you think this group (young adults whose parents were homeowners of a detached uniplex and who now want to be homeowners of a detached uniplex) should be the top priority for housing policy in Montgomery County?

Where should Montgomery County encourage the construction of more detached uniplexes?

They shouldn’t be the top priority, but they shouldn’t be excluded from the priorities either. That’s what you’re proposing. It used to be the housing policy of this county to build more of everything. Why the shift? You can impose economic policy by brute force (and that’s the track you’re on, so congratulations, I guess) but it doesn’t lead to residents feeling very fulfilled.

Where SFH (attached or detached) can be built is covered elsewhere in this thread or you can check out the development pipeline on the Planning website. I’m not sure why you’re so committed to the myth that all of the land in the county is already built out but it seems like you lack confidence in your own proposals on their merits so you have to push lies to make them look better.

Brute force? Zoning is established by the County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. That's how the current zoning was established. That's how the new zoning would be established.

"More of everything" is all very well, if there is somewhere to put it. Where do you think the new houses should go? They have to go somewhere. The development pipeline won't answer that question, unless you're merely saying that you want the county to encourage builders to build the housing they already have in the development pipeline. However, if it's already in the development pipeline, then it wouldn't depend on new zoning.

We both agree your economic policy is exclusionary. You think that’s fine because majority rules and I think the majority should use its power to support a housing market for everyone.

What’s the problem with encouraging people to build what’s already in the pipeline? Ignoring the potential of pipeline projects to ease the housing crisis will only make the housing crisis worse. Maybe that’s part of your goal to manufacture demand for multiplexes in the absence of alternatives?

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Um....yes? Not sure why you would bother writing that except to try to deflect.

DP. Deflect from what? I think it's perfectly valid to point out that current residents, who by definition already have housing, might be less interested in housing for future residents.

Deflect from the other points of the post, silly! Importantly:

"Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents...

...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:

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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Um....yes? Not sure why you would bother writing that except to try to deflect.

DP. Deflect from what? I think it's perfectly valid to point out that current residents, who by definition already have housing, might be less interested in housing for future residents.

If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents.

I don't understand. If you now live in a condo, and you move to a detached one-unit house, by definition you will have to move, even if the County Council engraves the current zoning code on stone tablets.

Or are you saying that there is (or should be) opposition to the zoning code changes, from people who currently live in multi-unit housing in Montgomery County and who would like at some point to move to detached single-unit housing in an exclusively detached-single-unit-housing area in Montgomery County? Honestly, my first reaction to this is: get over yourself. I apologize, because there's no way to say that without sounding insulting. But seriously, if you expect other people to take your issues seriously from your perspective, then you also need to take other people's issues seriously from their perspectives.

DP. You are intentionally misrepresenting PP’s perspective. PP was pointing out that there would be less of the type of housing that they want, so they would have to move out of county. Nowhere does the PP suggest that they are unwilling to live in a SFH that’s close to MFH.

Planning staff and board members, the council, and the advocates are pretty callous in brushing off the shortage of SFH or the impact that this proposal will have on people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill. The way the policymakers and advocates have tried to sell this policy lacks empathy, and that’s going to foster resentment.

The PP said "If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents." They did not say anything about the cost. They said "a SFH neighborhood". What do you think they meant by this? In my experience, when people say "SFH neighborhood," they mean "an area that only has detached single-unit housing and no other housing type".

As long as we're talking about empathy, where is the empathy for people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage? Do you think that people who are brushing off the existence of a general housing shortage are being pretty callous? I do. The subgroup of "people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill" is only a small part of the whole group of people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage. I really don't know why this specific subgroup should be the priority for housing policy, or first in line for empathy, over everybody else in the whole group.

In your first paragraph, you’d rather pick nuts than react to what’s clearly implicit. MoCo is suffering a lot of out migration because people can’t afford SFH.

In terms of empathy, you make it zero sum but there’s reason that it needs to be. The county’s entire housing policy for the past decade or more has been geared toward creating more rentals in small parts of the county. Where have Planning, the council, or advocates of upzoning brushed off the general housing shortage?

It’s time to look at how the encourage more SFH construction in addition to MFH, not instead of. Here you are arguing for a housing policy that will only reduce SFH. That’s great for me as a SFH owner but not so great for the young adults who are looking for similar ownership opportunities to what their parents had.

Do you think this group (young adults whose parents were homeowners of a detached uniplex and who now want to be homeowners of a detached uniplex) should be the top priority for housing policy in Montgomery County?

Where should Montgomery County encourage the construction of more detached uniplexes?

They shouldn’t be the top priority, but they shouldn’t be excluded from the priorities either. That’s what you’re proposing. It used to be the housing policy of this county to build more of everything. Why the shift? You can impose economic policy by brute force (and that’s the track you’re on, so congratulations, I guess) but it doesn’t lead to residents feeling very fulfilled.

Where SFH (attached or detached) can be built is covered elsewhere in this thread or you can check out the development pipeline on the Planning website. I’m not sure why you’re so committed to the myth that all of the land in the county is already built out but it seems like you lack confidence in your own proposals on their merits so you have to push lies to make them look better.

Brute force? Zoning is established by the County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. That's how the current zoning was established. That's how the new zoning would be established.

"More of everything" is all very well, if there is somewhere to put it. Where do you think the new houses should go? They have to go somewhere. The development pipeline won't answer that question, unless you're merely saying that you want the county to encourage builders to build the housing they already have in the development pipeline. However, if it's already in the development pipeline, then it wouldn't depend on new zoning.

We both agree your economic policy is exclusionary. You think that’s fine because majority rules and I think the majority should use its power to support a housing market for everyone.

What’s the problem with encouraging people to build what’s already in the pipeline? Ignoring the potential of pipeline projects to ease the housing crisis will only make the housing crisis worse. Maybe that’s part of your goal to manufacture demand for multiplexes in the absence of alternatives?

We both agree, except for one of us... Who is being excluded, and what are they being excluded from? What do you tell people when they mock the housing shortage by responding that they'd love to live in an oceanside mansion in Hawaii but they can't afford it so oh well?

If you want to talk about the pipeline, go ahead and talk about the pipeline. For example, you could say that you support the zoning changes and you also support strategies (meaning, developer giveaways) to encourage the projects that are already in the pipeline. There were 4,915 unbuilt single family dwellings in the development pipeline as of May 2024. Most of those are probably attached, not detached, though. Land is expensive, and they're not making any more of it.

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

No, maybe, I rent in MC or own a condo in MC. But now I want to purchase a SFH in a SFH neighborhood. I guess I will move elsewhere, perhaps Howard or Fairfax, taking my growing income with me. Great business model.

If you rent in Montgomery County or own a condo in Montgomery County, you are a current resident of Montgomery County.

Or do you think that when the PP (or you, whoever the PP was) said "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."

what they really meant was "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 -- people who are currently living in detached one-unit houses that they own."?

Are you suggesting that the majority of county
residents want this particular plan? Or that it's really only residents of detached SFH neighborhoods who would like to live in existing detached SFH neighborhoods?

The PP apparently does. And it's not like the county put this particular plan out for broad public input. And it's not as if there are no negative impacts. And it's not as if there aren't alternatives offering fewer negatives. And it's not like people have no care for the position of others. And... And... And...

I am suggesting that the members of the County Council, who will vote on this plan, are elected by the voters of Montgomery County.

I am also suggesting that the voters of Montgomery County, overall, are not interested in prioritizing the desires of homeowners who live in areas where only detached uniplexes are allowed and who want those areas to continue to only allow detached uniplexes.

The county actually has put the plan out for broad public input. Will there be negative impacts? Probably, depending on your point of view. Will there be positive impacts? Yes. Are there alternatives offering fewer negatives? No, I don't think so. Do people care about the position of others? Yes, that is my whole point.

The fact that they have been voted in and can be voted out doesn't mean that what they do while in office is what the majority of people they are supposed to represent actually support. Perhaps you have forgotten the, "Elections have consequences," line that justified the holdup of Obama's nominee and led to the fairly unrepresentative SCOTUS majority we now have. Just because a goverment body can do something or has performed kabuki-theater "process" does not mean that they've cleared the bar of what it is right to do for those they represent/govern.

Planning's engagement with the community occurred well before the extent of this plan was put forth, both as to the geographies affected and as to the maximal densities in those geographies. And yet they are careful at each session to indicate that they had ticked off that box. Given the relative vastness of the change, the approach, etc., that claim amounts to rubbish.

Similarly, Planning has not put forth a robust set of alternatives and analysis of alternatives for the Council's (and public's) consideration. This is, most clearly, a railroaded effort.

Not everyone who would oppose the plan would be a resident of the affected communities. People often vote their pocketbook, but people also vote their future/aspirational interests and their conscience (and, sometimes, their more considered judgement). It's one of the ways that minority interests are not simply trampled.

Perhaps you think the voters in MoCo are not interested in first pursuing alternatives, such as

encouraging build-out of areas already zoned for density (which might meet any need faster), or

encouraging greenfield development of denser structures further out (limiting effect on existing neighborhoods), or

each of which offers considerable advantages related to infrastructure, or

engaging deterministically and regionally (the pressures in thr housing market are regional) to ensure that the burdens of policy do not fall on MoCo residents disproportionately from those in other jurisdictions.

Perhaps you think the voters in MoCo are not interested in a more considered approach to the one "alternative" offered, with elements such as

limiting impact in any one area with neighborhood caps,

sunsetting provisions so as not to create a difficult-to-retract grant of rights if things don't go well (and options to extend/make permanent if they do go well),

ensuring measures and definitions adopted are not prone to being conpounded by recent state legislation (and the like), and

restricting the density increase to neighborhoods for which Planning demonstrates infrastructure capacity.

If that really is what you think, then such a sweeping, consequential and largely irreversible change should very much be put to those voters in a referendum prior to any action taken, and you should not have a concern about the result being unfavorable. If, instead, you think MoCo voters are interested in such, then it seems that the Council and Planning should be supporting those in lieu of their current approach.

I'll look forward to the succeeding posts that simply avoid or deflect, questioning or picking at a singular aspect without granting the remaining unaddressed points, hyperbolizing the positions and creating straw men against which to throw a specious argument. (BTW, no need at the time to have pointed out that the prior definition given was quite applicable, though presented, itself, in a specious manner; a more apropos definition for the use might have been, "apparently good or right though lacking real merit," or "tending or having power to deceive," or, "not standing up well under close examination.")

[Anonymous]

Oh good grief. No, there is not going to be a referendum about zoning.

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Um....yes? Not sure why you would bother writing that except to try to deflect.

DP. Deflect from what? I think it's perfectly valid to point out that current residents, who by definition already have housing, might be less interested in housing for future residents.

If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents.

I don't understand. If you now live in a condo, and you move to a detached one-unit house, by definition you will have to move, even if the County Council engraves the current zoning code on stone tablets.

Or are you saying that there is (or should be) opposition to the zoning code changes, from people who currently live in multi-unit housing in Montgomery County and who would like at some point to move to detached single-unit housing in an exclusively detached-single-unit-housing area in Montgomery County? Honestly, my first reaction to this is: get over yourself. I apologize, because there's no way to say that without sounding insulting. But seriously, if you expect other people to take your issues seriously from your perspective, then you also need to take other people's issues seriously from their perspectives.

DP. You are intentionally misrepresenting PP’s perspective. PP was pointing out that there would be less of the type of housing that they want, so they would have to move out of county. Nowhere does the PP suggest that they are unwilling to live in a SFH that’s close to MFH.

Planning staff and board members, the council, and the advocates are pretty callous in brushing off the shortage of SFH or the impact that this proposal will have on people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill. The way the policymakers and advocates have tried to sell this policy lacks empathy, and that’s going to foster resentment.

The PP said "If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents." They did not say anything about the cost. They said "a SFH neighborhood". What do you think they meant by this? In my experience, when people say "SFH neighborhood," they mean "an area that only has detached single-unit housing and no other housing type".

As long as we're talking about empathy, where is the empathy for people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage? Do you think that people who are brushing off the existence of a general housing shortage are being pretty callous? I do. The subgroup of "people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill" is only a small part of the whole group of people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage. I really don't know why this specific subgroup should be the priority for housing policy, or first in line for empathy, over everybody else in the whole group.

In your first paragraph, you’d rather pick nuts than react to what’s clearly implicit. MoCo is suffering a lot of out migration because people can’t afford SFH.

In terms of empathy, you make it zero sum but there’s reason that it needs to be. The county’s entire housing policy for the past decade or more has been geared toward creating more rentals in small parts of the county. Where have Planning, the council, or advocates of upzoning brushed off the general housing shortage?

It’s time to look at how the encourage more SFH construction in addition to MFH, not instead of. Here you are arguing for a housing policy that will only reduce SFH. That’s great for me as a SFH owner but not so great for the young adults who are looking for similar ownership opportunities to what their parents had.

Do you think this group (young adults whose parents were homeowners of a detached uniplex and who now want to be homeowners of a detached uniplex) should be the top priority for housing policy in Montgomery County?

Where should Montgomery County encourage the construction of more detached uniplexes?

They shouldn’t be the top priority, but they shouldn’t be excluded from the priorities either. That’s what you’re proposing. It used to be the housing policy of this county to build more of everything. Why the shift? You can impose economic policy by brute force (and that’s the track you’re on, so congratulations, I guess) but it doesn’t lead to residents feeling very fulfilled.

Where SFH (attached or detached) can be built is covered elsewhere in this thread or you can check out the development pipeline on the Planning website. I’m not sure why you’re so committed to the myth that all of the land in the county is already built out but it seems like you lack confidence in your own proposals on their merits so you have to push lies to make them look better.

Brute force? Zoning is established by the County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. That's how the current zoning was established. That's how the new zoning would be established.

"More of everything" is all very well, if there is somewhere to put it. Where do you think the new houses should go? They have to go somewhere. The development pipeline won't answer that question, unless you're merely saying that you want the county to encourage builders to build the housing they already have in the development pipeline. However, if it's already in the development pipeline, then it wouldn't depend on new zoning.

We both agree your economic policy is exclusionary. You think that’s fine because majority rules and I think the majority should use its power to support a housing market for everyone.

What’s the problem with encouraging people to build what’s already in the pipeline? Ignoring the potential of pipeline projects to ease the housing crisis will only make the housing crisis worse. Maybe that’s part of your goal to manufacture demand for multiplexes in the absence of alternatives?

We both agree, except for one of us... Who is being excluded, and what are they being excluded from? What do you tell people when they mock the housing shortage by responding that they'd love to live in an oceanside mansion in Hawaii but they can't afford it so oh well?

If you want to talk about the pipeline, go ahead and talk about the pipeline. For example, you could say that you support the zoning changes and you also support strategies (meaning, developer giveaways) to encourage the projects that are already in the pipeline. There were 4,915 unbuilt single family dwellings in the development pipeline as of May 2024. Most of those are probably attached, not detached, though. Land is expensive, and they're not making any more of it.

Nearly 5,000 SFH (most of them attached) sounds great. I don't support subsidies for market rate housing (those haven’t worked when we’ve done them for market rate apartments) but I do support ending punitive impact fees for SFH.

Your way of excluding people is telling people who can barely afford a SFH in MoCo that they need to move somewhere else for a SFH. That’s basically what they’ve been doing. They can easily afford the many MFH options on the market right now but they choose to move somewhere else for a SFH.

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Um....yes? Not sure why you would bother writing that except to try to deflect.

DP. Deflect from what? I think it's perfectly valid to point out that current residents, who by definition already have housing, might be less interested in housing for future residents.

If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents.

I don't understand. If you now live in a condo, and you move to a detached one-unit house, by definition you will have to move, even if the County Council engraves the current zoning code on stone tablets.

Or are you saying that there is (or should be) opposition to the zoning code changes, from people who currently live in multi-unit housing in Montgomery County and who would like at some point to move to detached single-unit housing in an exclusively detached-single-unit-housing area in Montgomery County? Honestly, my first reaction to this is: get over yourself. I apologize, because there's no way to say that without sounding insulting. But seriously, if you expect other people to take your issues seriously from your perspective, then you also need to take other people's issues seriously from their perspectives.

DP. You are intentionally misrepresenting PP’s perspective. PP was pointing out that there would be less of the type of housing that they want, so they would have to move out of county. Nowhere does the PP suggest that they are unwilling to live in a SFH that’s close to MFH.

Planning staff and board members, the council, and the advocates are pretty callous in brushing off the shortage of SFH or the impact that this proposal will have on people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill. The way the policymakers and advocates have tried to sell this policy lacks empathy, and that’s going to foster resentment.

The PP said "If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents." They did not say anything about the cost. They said "a SFH neighborhood". What do you think they meant by this? In my experience, when people say "SFH neighborhood," they mean "an area that only has detached single-unit housing and no other housing type".

As long as we're talking about empathy, where is the empathy for people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage? Do you think that people who are brushing off the existence of a general housing shortage are being pretty callous? I do. The subgroup of "people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill" is only a small part of the whole group of people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage. I really don't know why this specific subgroup should be the priority for housing policy, or first in line for empathy, over everybody else in the whole group.

In your first paragraph, you’d rather pick nuts than react to what’s clearly implicit. MoCo is suffering a lot of out migration because people can’t afford SFH.

In terms of empathy, you make it zero sum but there’s reason that it needs to be. The county’s entire housing policy for the past decade or more has been geared toward creating more rentals in small parts of the county. Where have Planning, the council, or advocates of upzoning brushed off the general housing shortage?

It’s time to look at how the encourage more SFH construction in addition to MFH, not instead of. Here you are arguing for a housing policy that will only reduce SFH. That’s great for me as a SFH owner but not so great for the young adults who are looking for similar ownership opportunities to what their parents had.

Do you think this group (young adults whose parents were homeowners of a detached uniplex and who now want to be homeowners of a detached uniplex) should be the top priority for housing policy in Montgomery County?

Where should Montgomery County encourage the construction of more detached uniplexes?

They shouldn’t be the top priority, but they shouldn’t be excluded from the priorities either. That’s what you’re proposing. It used to be the housing policy of this county to build more of everything. Why the shift? You can impose economic policy by brute force (and that’s the track you’re on, so congratulations, I guess) but it doesn’t lead to residents feeling very fulfilled.

Where SFH (attached or detached) can be built is covered elsewhere in this thread or you can check out the development pipeline on the Planning website. I’m not sure why you’re so committed to the myth that all of the land in the county is already built out but it seems like you lack confidence in your own proposals on their merits so you have to push lies to make them look better.

Brute force? Zoning is established by the County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. That's how the current zoning was established. That's how the new zoning would be established.

"More of everything" is all very well, if there is somewhere to put it. Where do you think the new houses should go? They have to go somewhere. The development pipeline won't answer that question, unless you're merely saying that you want the county to encourage builders to build the housing they already have in the development pipeline. However, if it's already in the development pipeline, then it wouldn't depend on new zoning.

We both agree your economic policy is exclusionary. You think that’s fine because majority rules and I think the majority should use its power to support a housing market for everyone.

What’s the problem with encouraging people to build what’s already in the pipeline? Ignoring the potential of pipeline projects to ease the housing crisis will only make the housing crisis worse. Maybe that’s part of your goal to manufacture demand for multiplexes in the absence of alternatives?

We both agree, except for one of us... Who is being excluded, and what are they being excluded from? What do you tell people when they mock the housing shortage by responding that they'd love to live in an oceanside mansion in Hawaii but they can't afford it so oh well?

If you want to talk about the pipeline, go ahead and talk about the pipeline. For example, you could say that you support the zoning changes and you also support strategies (meaning, developer giveaways) to encourage the projects that are already in the pipeline. There were 4,915 unbuilt single family dwellings in the development pipeline as of May 2024. Most of those are probably attached, not detached, though. Land is expensive, and they're not making any more of it.

Nearly 5,000 SFH (most of them attached) sounds great. I don't support subsidies for market rate housing (those haven’t worked when we’ve done them for market rate apartments) but I do support ending punitive impact fees for SFH.

Your way of excluding people is telling people who can barely afford a SFH in MoCo that they need to move somewhere else for a SFH. That’s basically what they’ve been doing. They can easily afford the many MFH options on the market right now but they choose to move somewhere else for a SFH.

Why are you so obsessed with this one particular housing type? I honestly don't get it.

Do you also think it's excluding people when posters on DCUM tell people who want to live in Montgomery County that they should go live in Prince George's County?

I keep reading on DCUM that the impact fees are gifts to developers, and now you're saying that the impact fees are actually punishment for developers.

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Um....yes? Not sure why you would bother writing that except to try to deflect.

DP. Deflect from what? I think it's perfectly valid to point out that current residents, who by definition already have housing, might be less interested in housing for future residents.

If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents.

I don't understand. If you now live in a condo, and you move to a detached one-unit house, by definition you will have to move, even if the County Council engraves the current zoning code on stone tablets.

Or are you saying that there is (or should be) opposition to the zoning code changes, from people who currently live in multi-unit housing in Montgomery County and who would like at some point to move to detached single-unit housing in an exclusively detached-single-unit-housing area in Montgomery County? Honestly, my first reaction to this is: get over yourself. I apologize, because there's no way to say that without sounding insulting. But seriously, if you expect other people to take your issues seriously from your perspective, then you also need to take other people's issues seriously from their perspectives.

DP. You are intentionally misrepresenting PP’s perspective. PP was pointing out that there would be less of the type of housing that they want, so they would have to move out of county. Nowhere does the PP suggest that they are unwilling to live in a SFH that’s close to MFH.

Planning staff and board members, the council, and the advocates are pretty callous in brushing off the shortage of SFH or the impact that this proposal will have on people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill. The way the policymakers and advocates have tried to sell this policy lacks empathy, and that’s going to foster resentment.

The PP said "If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents." They did not say anything about the cost. They said "a SFH neighborhood". What do you think they meant by this? In my experience, when people say "SFH neighborhood," they mean "an area that only has detached single-unit housing and no other housing type".

As long as we're talking about empathy, where is the empathy for people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage? Do you think that people who are brushing off the existence of a general housing shortage are being pretty callous? I do. The subgroup of "people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill" is only a small part of the whole group of people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage. I really don't know why this specific subgroup should be the priority for housing policy, or first in line for empathy, over everybody else in the whole group.

In your first paragraph, you’d rather pick nuts than react to what’s clearly implicit. MoCo is suffering a lot of out migration because people can’t afford SFH.

In terms of empathy, you make it zero sum but there’s reason that it needs to be. The county’s entire housing policy for the past decade or more has been geared toward creating more rentals in small parts of the county. Where have Planning, the council, or advocates of upzoning brushed off the general housing shortage?

It’s time to look at how the encourage more SFH construction in addition to MFH, not instead of. Here you are arguing for a housing policy that will only reduce SFH. That’s great for me as a SFH owner but not so great for the young adults who are looking for similar ownership opportunities to what their parents had.

Do you think this group (young adults whose parents were homeowners of a detached uniplex and who now want to be homeowners of a detached uniplex) should be the top priority for housing policy in Montgomery County?

Where should Montgomery County encourage the construction of more detached uniplexes?

They shouldn’t be the top priority, but they shouldn’t be excluded from the priorities either. That’s what you’re proposing. It used to be the housing policy of this county to build more of everything. Why the shift? You can impose economic policy by brute force (and that’s the track you’re on, so congratulations, I guess) but it doesn’t lead to residents feeling very fulfilled.

Where SFH (attached or detached) can be built is covered elsewhere in this thread or you can check out the development pipeline on the Planning website. I’m not sure why you’re so committed to the myth that all of the land in the county is already built out but it seems like you lack confidence in your own proposals on their merits so you have to push lies to make them look better.

Brute force? Zoning is established by the County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. That's how the current zoning was established. That's how the new zoning would be established.

"More of everything" is all very well, if there is somewhere to put it. Where do you think the new houses should go? They have to go somewhere. The development pipeline won't answer that question, unless you're merely saying that you want the county to encourage builders to build the housing they already have in the development pipeline. However, if it's already in the development pipeline, then it wouldn't depend on new zoning.

We both agree your economic policy is exclusionary. You think that’s fine because majority rules and I think the majority should use its power to support a housing market for everyone.

What’s the problem with encouraging people to build what’s already in the pipeline? Ignoring the potential of pipeline projects to ease the housing crisis will only make the housing crisis worse. Maybe that’s part of your goal to manufacture demand for multiplexes in the absence of alternatives?

We both agree, except for one of us... Who is being excluded, and what are they being excluded from? What do you tell people when they mock the housing shortage by responding that they'd love to live in an oceanside mansion in Hawaii but they can't afford it so oh well?

If you want to talk about the pipeline, go ahead and talk about the pipeline. For example, you could say that you support the zoning changes and you also support strategies (meaning, developer giveaways) to encourage the projects that are already in the pipeline. There were 4,915 unbuilt single family dwellings in the development pipeline as of May 2024. Most of those are probably attached, not detached, though. Land is expensive, and they're not making any more of it.

Nearly 5,000 SFH (most of them attached) sounds great. I don't support subsidies for market rate housing (those haven’t worked when we’ve done them for market rate apartments) but I do support ending punitive impact fees for SFH.

Your way of excluding people is telling people who can barely afford a SFH in MoCo that they need to move somewhere else for a SFH. That’s basically what they’ve been doing. They can easily afford the many MFH options on the market right now but they choose to move somewhere else for a SFH.

Why are you so obsessed with this one particular housing type? I honestly don't get it.

Do you also think it's excluding people when posters on DCUM tell people who want to live in Montgomery County that they should go live in Prince George's County?

I keep reading on DCUM that the impact fees are gifts to developers, and now you're saying that the impact fees are actually punishment for developers.

They’re gifts for developers of high-rise apartments in Bethesda but if you’re trying to build a SFH in Clarksburg they’re punishments because they’re different depending on where you want to build (if you’re particularly connected and want to build in one of the favored areas you won’t have to pay them as all.)

Why are you so rabidly opposed to SFH? You’re telling people who want to live in Montgomery County that they should live in Frederick or Loudoun. That’s bad political economy and simply bad economics. But you do you. I don’t think you’re in this for the affordability and you’re probably keenly aware that your multiplexes don’t pencil unless SFH become much more expensive. What better way to do that than reducing the supply of SFH in some neighborhoods and making them hard to build in others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh good grief. No, there is not going to be a referendum about zoning.

Not with that attitude.

However, I do like the idea. How do we get this ball rolling?

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

No, maybe, I rent in MC or own a condo in MC. But now I want to purchase a SFH in a SFH neighborhood. I guess I will move elsewhere, perhaps Howard or Fairfax, taking my growing income with me. Great business model.

If you rent in Montgomery County or own a condo in Montgomery County, you are a current resident of Montgomery County.

Or do you think that when the PP (or you, whoever the PP was) said "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."

what they really meant was "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 -- people who are currently living in detached one-unit houses that they own."?

Are you suggesting that the majority of county
residents want this particular plan? Or that it's really only residents of detached SFH neighborhoods who would like to live in existing detached SFH neighborhoods?

The PP apparently does. And it's not like the county put this particular plan out for broad public input. And it's not as if there are no negative impacts. And it's not as if there aren't alternatives offering fewer negatives. And it's not like people have no care for the position of others. And... And... And...

I am suggesting that the members of the County Council, who will vote on this plan, are elected by the voters of Montgomery County.

I am also suggesting that the voters of Montgomery County, overall, are not interested in prioritizing the desires of homeowners who live in areas where only detached uniplexes are allowed and who want those areas to continue to only allow detached uniplexes.

The county actually has put the plan out for broad public input. Will there be negative impacts? Probably, depending on your point of view. Will there be positive impacts? Yes. Are there alternatives offering fewer negatives? No, I don't think so. Do people care about the position of others? Yes, that is my whole point.

The fact that they have been voted in and can be voted out doesn't mean that what they do while in office is what the majority of people they are supposed to represent actually support. Perhaps you have forgotten the, "Elections have consequences," line that justified the holdup of Obama's nominee and led to the fairly unrepresentative SCOTUS majority we now have. Just because a goverment body can do something or has performed kabuki-theater "process" does not mean that they've cleared the bar of what it is right to do for those they represent/govern.

Planning's engagement with the community occurred well before the extent of this plan was put forth, both as to the geographies affected and as to the maximal densities in those geographies. And yet they are careful at each session to indicate that they had ticked off that box. Given the relative vastness of the change, the approach, etc., that claim amounts to rubbish.

Similarly, Planning has not put forth a robust set of alternatives and analysis of alternatives for the Council's (and public's) consideration. This is, most clearly, a railroaded effort.

Not everyone who would oppose the plan would be a resident of the affected communities. People often vote their pocketbook, but people also vote their future/aspirational interests and their conscience (and, sometimes, their more considered judgement). It's one of the ways that minority interests are not simply trampled.

Perhaps you think the voters in MoCo are not interested in first pursuing alternatives, such as

encouraging build-out of areas already zoned for density (which might meet any need faster), or

encouraging greenfield development of denser structures further out (limiting effect on existing neighborhoods), or

each of which offers considerable advantages related to infrastructure, or

engaging deterministically and regionally (the pressures in thr housing market are regional) to ensure that the burdens of policy do not fall on MoCo residents disproportionately from those in other jurisdictions.

Perhaps you think the voters in MoCo are not interested in a more considered approach to the one "alternative" offered, with elements such as

limiting impact in any one area with neighborhood caps,

sunsetting provisions so as not to create a difficult-to-retract grant of rights if things don't go well (and options to extend/make permanent if they do go well),

ensuring measures and definitions adopted are not prone to being conpounded by recent state legislation (and the like), and

restricting the density increase to neighborhoods for which Planning demonstrates infrastructure capacity.

If that really is what you think, then such a sweeping, consequential and largely irreversible change should very much be put to those voters in a referendum prior to any action taken, and you should not have a concern about the result being unfavorable. If, instead, you think MoCo voters are interested in such, then it seems that the Council and Planning should be supporting those in lieu of their current approach.

I'll look forward to the succeeding posts that simply avoid or deflect, questioning or picking at a singular aspect without granting the remaining unaddressed points, hyperbolizing the positions and creating straw men against which to throw a specious argument. (BTW, no need at the time to have pointed out that the prior definition given was quite applicable, though presented, itself, in a specious manner; a more apropos definition for the use might have been, "apparently good or right though lacking real merit," or "tending or having power to deceive," or, "not standing up well under close examination.")

Correct. If there is so much support for the effort then what are they afraid of? Any vote or referendum should be a slam dunk, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh good grief. No, there is not going to be a referendum about zoning.

Not with that attitude.

However, I do like the idea. How do we get this ball rolling?

This would make it dramatically more acceptable to opponents. It would also force clarifications on important elements that have gone unanswered. This should be the way the council proceeds.

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Um....yes? Not sure why you would bother writing that except to try to deflect.

DP. Deflect from what? I think it's perfectly valid to point out that current residents, who by definition already have housing, might be less interested in housing for future residents.

If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents.

I don't understand. If you now live in a condo, and you move to a detached one-unit house, by definition you will have to move, even if the County Council engraves the current zoning code on stone tablets.

Or are you saying that there is (or should be) opposition to the zoning code changes, from people who currently live in multi-unit housing in Montgomery County and who would like at some point to move to detached single-unit housing in an exclusively detached-single-unit-housing area in Montgomery County? Honestly, my first reaction to this is: get over yourself. I apologize, because there's no way to say that without sounding insulting. But seriously, if you expect other people to take your issues seriously from your perspective, then you also need to take other people's issues seriously from their perspectives.

DP. You are intentionally misrepresenting PP’s perspective. PP was pointing out that there would be less of the type of housing that they want, so they would have to move out of county. Nowhere does the PP suggest that they are unwilling to live in a SFH that’s close to MFH.

Planning staff and board members, the council, and the advocates are pretty callous in brushing off the shortage of SFH or the impact that this proposal will have on people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill. The way the policymakers and advocates have tried to sell this policy lacks empathy, and that’s going to foster resentment.

The PP said "If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents." They did not say anything about the cost. They said "a SFH neighborhood". What do you think they meant by this? In my experience, when people say "SFH neighborhood," they mean "an area that only has detached single-unit housing and no other housing type".

As long as we're talking about empathy, where is the empathy for people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage? Do you think that people who are brushing off the existence of a general housing shortage are being pretty callous? I do. The subgroup of "people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill" is only a small part of the whole group of people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage. I really don't know why this specific subgroup should be the priority for housing policy, or first in line for empathy, over everybody else in the whole group.

In your first paragraph, you’d rather pick nuts than react to what’s clearly implicit. MoCo is suffering a lot of out migration because people can’t afford SFH.

In terms of empathy, you make it zero sum but there’s reason that it needs to be. The county’s entire housing policy for the past decade or more has been geared toward creating more rentals in small parts of the county. Where have Planning, the council, or advocates of upzoning brushed off the general housing shortage?

It’s time to look at how the encourage more SFH construction in addition to MFH, not instead of. Here you are arguing for a housing policy that will only reduce SFH. That’s great for me as a SFH owner but not so great for the young adults who are looking for similar ownership opportunities to what their parents had.

Do you think this group (young adults whose parents were homeowners of a detached uniplex and who now want to be homeowners of a detached uniplex) should be the top priority for housing policy in Montgomery County?

Where should Montgomery County encourage the construction of more detached uniplexes?

They shouldn’t be the top priority, but they shouldn’t be excluded from the priorities either. That’s what you’re proposing. It used to be the housing policy of this county to build more of everything. Why the shift? You can impose economic policy by brute force (and that’s the track you’re on, so congratulations, I guess) but it doesn’t lead to residents feeling very fulfilled.

Where SFH (attached or detached) can be built is covered elsewhere in this thread or you can check out the development pipeline on the Planning website. I’m not sure why you’re so committed to the myth that all of the land in the county is already built out but it seems like you lack confidence in your own proposals on their merits so you have to push lies to make them look better.

Brute force? Zoning is established by the County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. That's how the current zoning was established. That's how the new zoning would be established.

"More of everything" is all very well, if there is somewhere to put it. Where do you think the new houses should go? They have to go somewhere. The development pipeline won't answer that question, unless you're merely saying that you want the county to encourage builders to build the housing they already have in the development pipeline. However, if it's already in the development pipeline, then it wouldn't depend on new zoning.

We both agree your economic policy is exclusionary. You think that’s fine because majority rules and I think the majority should use its power to support a housing market for everyone.

What’s the problem with encouraging people to build what’s already in the pipeline? Ignoring the potential of pipeline projects to ease the housing crisis will only make the housing crisis worse. Maybe that’s part of your goal to manufacture demand for multiplexes in the absence of alternatives?

We both agree, except for one of us... Who is being excluded, and what are they being excluded from? What do you tell people when they mock the housing shortage by responding that they'd love to live in an oceanside mansion in Hawaii but they can't afford it so oh well?

If you want to talk about the pipeline, go ahead and talk about the pipeline. For example, you could say that you support the zoning changes and you also support strategies (meaning, developer giveaways) to encourage the projects that are already in the pipeline. There were 4,915 unbuilt single family dwellings in the development pipeline as of May 2024. Most of those are probably attached, not detached, though. Land is expensive, and they're not making any more of it.

Nearly 5,000 SFH (most of them attached) sounds great. I don't support subsidies for market rate housing (those haven’t worked when we’ve done them for market rate apartments) but I do support ending punitive impact fees for SFH.

Your way of excluding people is telling people who can barely afford a SFH in MoCo that they need to move somewhere else for a SFH. That’s basically what they’ve been doing. They can easily afford the many MFH options on the market right now but they choose to move somewhere else for a SFH.

Why are you so obsessed with this one particular housing type? I honestly don't get it.

Do you also think it's excluding people when posters on DCUM tell people who want to live in Montgomery County that they should go live in Prince George's County?

I keep reading on DCUM that the impact fees are gifts to developers, and now you're saying that the impact fees are actually punishment for developers.

They’re gifts for developers of high-rise apartments in Bethesda but if you’re trying to build a SFH in Clarksburg they’re punishments because they’re different depending on where you want to build (if you’re particularly connected and want to build in one of the favored areas you won’t have to pay them as all.)

Why are you so rabidly opposed to SFH? You’re telling people who want to live in Montgomery County that they should live in Frederick or Loudoun. That’s bad political economy and simply bad economics. But you do you. I don’t think you’re in this for the affordability and you’re probably keenly aware that your multiplexes don’t pencil unless SFH become much more expensive. What better way to do that than reducing the supply of SFH in some neighborhoods and making them hard to build in others.

I am not rabidly opposed to detached or attached one-unit residential buildings. In fact, I'm not opposed to them at all. I even currently live in one, myself! I simply don't value them over all other housing types, which I think you do. It seems to me that your basic housing beliefs are:

1. everyone wants to live in a one-unit residential building
2. the goal of county housing policy should be to make this possible

I don't agree with either of those things.

The goal of the zoning changes is to increase the number of housing units without building on agricultural land or park land. That's the goal. The goal is not to reduce the number of one-unit residential buildings. Nobody real is actually sitting around saying "Let's enact changes that get rid of one-unit residential buildings because we hate them and the people who live in them, *evil laugh*." Will the zoning changes result in a reduction of the number of one-unit residential buildings? Yes, to the extent that property owners replace one-unit residential buildings with multi-unit residential buildings. If that happens, then there will be more housing units, which is the goal of the zoning changes.

No matter what happens, there will still be lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of detached and attached one-unit residential buildings in Montgomery County.

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Um....yes? Not sure why you would bother writing that except to try to deflect.

DP. Deflect from what? I think it's perfectly valid to point out that current residents, who by definition already have housing, might be less interested in housing for future residents.

If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents.

I don't understand. If you now live in a condo, and you move to a detached one-unit house, by definition you will have to move, even if the County Council engraves the current zoning code on stone tablets.

Or are you saying that there is (or should be) opposition to the zoning code changes, from people who currently live in multi-unit housing in Montgomery County and who would like at some point to move to detached single-unit housing in an exclusively detached-single-unit-housing area in Montgomery County? Honestly, my first reaction to this is: get over yourself. I apologize, because there's no way to say that without sounding insulting. But seriously, if you expect other people to take your issues seriously from your perspective, then you also need to take other people's issues seriously from their perspectives.

DP. You are intentionally misrepresenting PP’s perspective. PP was pointing out that there would be less of the type of housing that they want, so they would have to move out of county. Nowhere does the PP suggest that they are unwilling to live in a SFH that’s close to MFH.

Planning staff and board members, the council, and the advocates are pretty callous in brushing off the shortage of SFH or the impact that this proposal will have on people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill. The way the policymakers and advocates have tried to sell this policy lacks empathy, and that’s going to foster resentment.

The PP said "If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents." They did not say anything about the cost. They said "a SFH neighborhood". What do you think they meant by this? In my experience, when people say "SFH neighborhood," they mean "an area that only has detached single-unit housing and no other housing type".

As long as we're talking about empathy, where is the empathy for people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage? Do you think that people who are brushing off the existence of a general housing shortage are being pretty callous? I do. The subgroup of "people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill" is only a small part of the whole group of people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage. I really don't know why this specific subgroup should be the priority for housing policy, or first in line for empathy, over everybody else in the whole group.

In your first paragraph, you’d rather pick nuts than react to what’s clearly implicit. MoCo is suffering a lot of out migration because people can’t afford SFH.

In terms of empathy, you make it zero sum but there’s reason that it needs to be. The county’s entire housing policy for the past decade or more has been geared toward creating more rentals in small parts of the county. Where have Planning, the council, or advocates of upzoning brushed off the general housing shortage?

It’s time to look at how the encourage more SFH construction in addition to MFH, not instead of. Here you are arguing for a housing policy that will only reduce SFH. That’s great for me as a SFH owner but not so great for the young adults who are looking for similar ownership opportunities to what their parents had.

Do you think this group (young adults whose parents were homeowners of a detached uniplex and who now want to be homeowners of a detached uniplex) should be the top priority for housing policy in Montgomery County?

Where should Montgomery County encourage the construction of more detached uniplexes?

They shouldn’t be the top priority, but they shouldn’t be excluded from the priorities either. That’s what you’re proposing. It used to be the housing policy of this county to build more of everything. Why the shift? You can impose economic policy by brute force (and that’s the track you’re on, so congratulations, I guess) but it doesn’t lead to residents feeling very fulfilled.

Where SFH (attached or detached) can be built is covered elsewhere in this thread or you can check out the development pipeline on the Planning website. I’m not sure why you’re so committed to the myth that all of the land in the county is already built out but it seems like you lack confidence in your own proposals on their merits so you have to push lies to make them look better.

Brute force? Zoning is established by the County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. That's how the current zoning was established. That's how the new zoning would be established.

"More of everything" is all very well, if there is somewhere to put it. Where do you think the new houses should go? They have to go somewhere. The development pipeline won't answer that question, unless you're merely saying that you want the county to encourage builders to build the housing they already have in the development pipeline. However, if it's already in the development pipeline, then it wouldn't depend on new zoning.

We both agree your economic policy is exclusionary. You think that’s fine because majority rules and I think the majority should use its power to support a housing market for everyone.

What’s the problem with encouraging people to build what’s already in the pipeline? Ignoring the potential of pipeline projects to ease the housing crisis will only make the housing crisis worse. Maybe that’s part of your goal to manufacture demand for multiplexes in the absence of alternatives?

We both agree, except for one of us... Who is being excluded, and what are they being excluded from? What do you tell people when they mock the housing shortage by responding that they'd love to live in an oceanside mansion in Hawaii but they can't afford it so oh well?

If you want to talk about the pipeline, go ahead and talk about the pipeline. For example, you could say that you support the zoning changes and you also support strategies (meaning, developer giveaways) to encourage the projects that are already in the pipeline. There were 4,915 unbuilt single family dwellings in the development pipeline as of May 2024. Most of those are probably attached, not detached, though. Land is expensive, and they're not making any more of it.

Nearly 5,000 SFH (most of them attached) sounds great. I don't support subsidies for market rate housing (those haven’t worked when we’ve done them for market rate apartments) but I do support ending punitive impact fees for SFH.

Your way of excluding people is telling people who can barely afford a SFH in MoCo that they need to move somewhere else for a SFH. That’s basically what they’ve been doing. They can easily afford the many MFH options on the market right now but they choose to move somewhere else for a SFH.

Why are you so obsessed with this one particular housing type? I honestly don't get it.

Do you also think it's excluding people when posters on DCUM tell people who want to live in Montgomery County that they should go live in Prince George's County?

I keep reading on DCUM that the impact fees are gifts to developers, and now you're saying that the impact fees are actually punishment for developers.

They’re gifts for developers of high-rise apartments in Bethesda but if you’re trying to build a SFH in Clarksburg they’re punishments because they’re different depending on where you want to build (if you’re particularly connected and want to build in one of the favored areas you won’t have to pay them as all.)

Why are you so rabidly opposed to SFH? You’re telling people who want to live in Montgomery County that they should live in Frederick or Loudoun. That’s bad political economy and simply bad economics. But you do you. I don’t think you’re in this for the affordability and you’re probably keenly aware that your multiplexes don’t pencil unless SFH become much more expensive. What better way to do that than reducing the supply of SFH in some neighborhoods and making them hard to build in others.

I am not rabidly opposed to detached or attached one-unit residential buildings. In fact, I'm not opposed to them at all. I even currently live in one, myself! I simply don't value them over all other housing types, which I think you do. It seems to me that your basic housing beliefs are:

1. everyone wants to live in a one-unit residential building
2. the goal of county housing policy should be to make this possible

I don't agree with either of those things.

The goal of the zoning changes is to increase the number of housing units without building on agricultural land or park land. That's the goal. The goal is not to reduce the number of one-unit residential buildings. Nobody real is actually sitting around saying "Let's enact changes that get rid of one-unit residential buildings because we hate them and the people who live in them, *evil laugh*." Will the zoning changes result in a reduction of the number of one-unit residential buildings? Yes, to the extent that property owners replace one-unit residential buildings with multi-unit residential buildings. If that happens, then there will be more housing units, which is the goal of the zoning changes.

No matter what happens, there will still be lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of detached and attached one-unit residential buildings in Montgomery County.

Are you happy or alarmed that developers delicered just a few dozen new SFH in the county during the first quarter of this year?

I don’t think everyone wants to live in a SFH but I’m pretty sure that more than few dozen do. If that part of the housing market is sick, the whole market is sick because escalating prices in that segment give prices a lot of headroom to increase in other segments.

[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:

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.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Um....yes? Not sure why you would bother writing that except to try to deflect.

DP. Deflect from what? I think it's perfectly valid to point out that current residents, who by definition already have housing, might be less interested in housing for future residents.

If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents.

I don't understand. If you now live in a condo, and you move to a detached one-unit house, by definition you will have to move, even if the County Council engraves the current zoning code on stone tablets.

Or are you saying that there is (or should be) opposition to the zoning code changes, from people who currently live in multi-unit housing in Montgomery County and who would like at some point to move to detached single-unit housing in an exclusively detached-single-unit-housing area in Montgomery County? Honestly, my first reaction to this is: get over yourself. I apologize, because there's no way to say that without sounding insulting. But seriously, if you expect other people to take your issues seriously from your perspective, then you also need to take other people's issues seriously from their perspectives.

DP. You are intentionally misrepresenting PP’s perspective. PP was pointing out that there would be less of the type of housing that they want, so they would have to move out of county. Nowhere does the PP suggest that they are unwilling to live in a SFH that’s close to MFH.

Planning staff and board members, the council, and the advocates are pretty callous in brushing off the shortage of SFH or the impact that this proposal will have on people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill. The way the policymakers and advocates have tried to sell this policy lacks empathy, and that’s going to foster resentment.

The PP said "If I now own a condo, I now will need to move elsewhere to live in a SFH neighborhood, as the County is reducing the choices available to current County residents." They did not say anything about the cost. They said "a SFH neighborhood". What do you think they meant by this? In my experience, when people say "SFH neighborhood," they mean "an area that only has detached single-unit housing and no other housing type".

As long as we're talking about empathy, where is the empathy for people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage? Do you think that people who are brushing off the existence of a general housing shortage are being pretty callous? I do. The subgroup of "people who are right on the cusp of being able to buy SFH in places like Viers Mill Village and Kemp Mill" is only a small part of the whole group of people who are experiencing impacts from the general housing shortage. I really don't know why this specific subgroup should be the priority for housing policy, or first in line for empathy, over everybody else in the whole group.

In your first paragraph, you’d rather pick nuts than react to what’s clearly implicit. MoCo is suffering a lot of out migration because people can’t afford SFH.

In terms of empathy, you make it zero sum but there’s reason that it needs to be. The county’s entire housing policy for the past decade or more has been geared toward creating more rentals in small parts of the county. Where have Planning, the council, or advocates of upzoning brushed off the general housing shortage?

It’s time to look at how the encourage more SFH construction in addition to MFH, not instead of. Here you are arguing for a housing policy that will only reduce SFH. That’s great for me as a SFH owner but not so great for the young adults who are looking for similar ownership opportunities to what their parents had.

Do you think this group (young adults whose parents were homeowners of a detached uniplex and who now want to be homeowners of a detached uniplex) should be the top priority for housing policy in Montgomery County?

Where should Montgomery County encourage the construction of more detached uniplexes?

They shouldn’t be the top priority, but they shouldn’t be excluded from the priorities either. That’s what you’re proposing. It used to be the housing policy of this county to build more of everything. Why the shift? You can impose economic policy by brute force (and that’s the track you’re on, so congratulations, I guess) but it doesn’t lead to residents feeling very fulfilled.

Where SFH (attached or detached) can be built is covered elsewhere in this thread or you can check out the development pipeline on the Planning website. I’m not sure why you’re so committed to the myth that all of the land in the county is already built out but it seems like you lack confidence in your own proposals on their merits so you have to push lies to make them look better.

Brute force? Zoning is established by the County Council, which is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. That's how the current zoning was established. That's how the new zoning would be established.

"More of everything" is all very well, if there is somewhere to put it. Where do you think the new houses should go? They have to go somewhere. The development pipeline won't answer that question, unless you're merely saying that you want the county to encourage builders to build the housing they already have in the development pipeline. However, if it's already in the development pipeline, then it wouldn't depend on new zoning.

We both agree your economic policy is exclusionary. You think that’s fine because majority rules and I think the majority should use its power to support a housing market for everyone.

What’s the problem with encouraging people to build what’s already in the pipeline? Ignoring the potential of pipeline projects to ease the housing crisis will only make the housing crisis worse. Maybe that’s part of your goal to manufacture demand for multiplexes in the absence of alternatives?

We both agree, except for one of us... Who is being excluded, and what are they being excluded from? What do you tell people when they mock the housing shortage by responding that they'd love to live in an oceanside mansion in Hawaii but they can't afford it so oh well?

If you want to talk about the pipeline, go ahead and talk about the pipeline. For example, you could say that you support the zoning changes and you also support strategies (meaning, developer giveaways) to encourage the projects that are already in the pipeline. There were 4,915 unbuilt single family dwellings in the development pipeline as of May 2024. Most of those are probably attached, not detached, though. Land is expensive, and they're not making any more of it.

Nearly 5,000 SFH (most of them attached) sounds great. I don't support subsidies for market rate housing (those haven’t worked when we’ve done them for market rate apartments) but I do support ending punitive impact fees for SFH.

Your way of excluding people is telling people who can barely afford a SFH in MoCo that they need to move somewhere else for a SFH. That’s basically what they’ve been doing. They can easily afford the many MFH options on the market right now but they choose to move somewhere else for a SFH.

Why are you so obsessed with this one particular housing type? I honestly don't get it.

Do you also think it's excluding people when posters on DCUM tell people who want to live in Montgomery County that they should go live in Prince George's County?

I keep reading on DCUM that the impact fees are gifts to developers, and now you're saying that the impact fees are actually punishment for developers.

They’re gifts for developers of high-rise apartments in Bethesda but if you’re trying to build a SFH in Clarksburg they’re punishments because they’re different depending on where you want to build (if you’re particularly connected and want to build in one of the favored areas you won’t have to pay them as all.)

Why are you so rabidly opposed to SFH? You’re telling people who want to live in Montgomery County that they should live in Frederick or Loudoun. That’s bad political economy and simply bad economics. But you do you. I don’t think you’re in this for the affordability and you’re probably keenly aware that your multiplexes don’t pencil unless SFH become much more expensive. What better way to do that than reducing the supply of SFH in some neighborhoods and making them hard to build in others.

I am not rabidly opposed to detached or attached one-unit residential buildings. In fact, I'm not opposed to them at all. I even currently live in one, myself! I simply don't value them over all other housing types, which I think you do. It seems to me that your basic housing beliefs are:

1. everyone wants to live in a one-unit residential building
2. the goal of county housing policy should be to make this possible

I don't agree with either of those things.

The goal of the zoning changes is to increase the number of housing units without building on agricultural land or park land. That's the goal. The goal is not to reduce the number of one-unit residential buildings. Nobody real is actually sitting around saying "Let's enact changes that get rid of one-unit residential buildings because we hate them and the people who live in them, *evil laugh*." Will the zoning changes result in a reduction of the number of one-unit residential buildings? Yes, to the extent that property owners replace one-unit residential buildings with multi-unit residential buildings. If that happens, then there will be more housing units, which is the goal of the zoning changes.

No matter what happens, there will still be lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of detached and attached one-unit residential buildings in Montgomery County.

Are you happy or alarmed that developers delicered just a few dozen new SFH in the county during the first quarter of this year?

I don’t think everyone wants to live in a SFH but I’m pretty sure that more than few dozen do. If that part of the housing market is sick, the whole market is sick because escalating prices in that segment give prices a lot of headroom to increase in other segments.

Neither. I'm indifferent.