I have a wonky question about zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gergich is right here. Upzoning ignores the plenty of space available for more housing. Bieber wants to destroy certain neighborhoods. You can destroy current neighborhoods or you can improve neighborhoods that need new investment. Moreover, Bieber will simply drive people who want SFHs out of the area. The beauty of the DMV is that attractive options exist.

Bieber wants to destroy certain neighborhoods...by allowing duplexes.

(I remember a few years ago when accessory dwelling units were going to destroy certain neighborhoods...)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because something is zoned for something doesn't mean that thing is ever going to be built there. "Exhaust the correct zoning" is not a thing that happens in real life.

If that is the logic, why the proposal to change zoning at all if the zoning doesn't mean the additional homes will be built?

Zoning allows something to happen. Will it happen if the zoning is changed to allow it? Maybe. Will it happen if the zoning is not changed to allow it? No.

So by that logic, just observe if the existing zoning capacity are being utilized before expanding it with new zoning changes. If existing capacity is plenty, what would even more capacity do?

...because land use and housing have nothing to do location?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because something is zoned for something doesn't mean that thing is ever going to be built there. "Exhaust the correct zoning" is not a thing that happens in real life.

If that is the logic, why the proposal to change zoning at all if the zoning doesn't mean the additional homes will be built?

Zoning allows something to happen. Will it happen if the zoning is changed to allow it? Maybe. Will it happen if the zoning is not changed to allow it? No.

So by that logic, just observe if the existing zoning capacity are being utilized before expanding it with new zoning changes. If existing capacity is plenty, what would even more capacity do?

...because land use and housing have nothing to do location?

Please use English.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because something is zoned for something doesn't mean that thing is ever going to be built there. "Exhaust the correct zoning" is not a thing that happens in real life.

If that is the logic, why the proposal to change zoning at all if the zoning doesn't mean the additional homes will be built?

Zoning allows something to happen. Will it happen if the zoning is changed to allow it? Maybe. Will it happen if the zoning is not changed to allow it? No.

So by that logic, just observe if the existing zoning capacity are being utilized before expanding it with new zoning changes. If existing capacity is plenty, what would even more capacity do?

Space is not fungible. More capacity would allow building in different places where there might be more factors encouraging new housing or making it financially viable than in the places that aren't currently "exhausted." Would you want to move to a new home that was mainly built where it was because it wasn't visible to existing residents, or because it was proactively chosen to be near transportation, work, etc? What if nothing is built because nothing is for sale in the hypothetically already zoned areas?

I am a person who consistently values location over space for housing, so you might answer this question differently, but the point is that location matters for both developers and consumers.

We are clearly talking about local issues, and by local, meaning in close proximity and within the same real estate market. If they are very different real estate markets, then absolutely, zoning changes will help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don’t have a housing shortage. We have a housing market that is charging too much.

You don’t fix this by rezoning. You fix it by increased regulation and tax pressure on landlords.

the landlords pass the cost onto renters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because something is zoned for something doesn't mean that thing is ever going to be built there. "Exhaust the correct zoning" is not a thing that happens in real life.

If that is the logic, why the proposal to change zoning at all if the zoning doesn't mean the additional homes will be built?

Zoning allows something to happen. Will it happen if the zoning is changed to allow it? Maybe. Will it happen if the zoning is not changed to allow it? No.

So by that logic, just observe if the existing zoning capacity are being utilized before expanding it with new zoning changes. If existing capacity is plenty, what would even more capacity do?

Space is not fungible. More capacity would allow building in different places where there might be more factors encouraging new housing or making it financially viable than in the places that aren't currently "exhausted." Would you want to move to a new home that was mainly built where it was because it wasn't visible to existing residents, or because it was proactively chosen to be near transportation, work, etc? What if nothing is built because nothing is for sale in the hypothetically already zoned areas?

I am a person who consistently values location over space for housing, so you might answer this question differently, but the point is that location matters for both developers and consumers.

We are clearly talking about local issues, and by local, meaning in close proximity and within the same real estate market. If they are very different real estate markets, then absolutely, zoning changes will help.

Yes, we are. Local issues, meaning: Montgomery County. Did location in Montgomery County matter to you, when you made your most recent housing decisions? (Assuming that you live in Montgomery County.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just because something is zoned for something doesn't mean that thing is ever going to be built there. "Exhaust the correct zoning" is not a thing that happens in real life.

If that is the logic, why the proposal to change zoning at all if the zoning doesn't mean the additional homes will be built?

Zoning allows something to happen. Will it happen if the zoning is changed to allow it? Maybe. Will it happen if the zoning is not changed to allow it? No.

So by that logic, just observe if the existing zoning capacity are being utilized before expanding it with new zoning changes. If existing capacity is plenty, what would even more capacity do?

...because land use and housing have nothing to do location?

Please use English.

Which words didn't you understand?

[Anonymous]

No comment but is “Gergich” referring to the portly and bumbling Mayor of Pawnee from Parks and Rec, because if so, that is spot on 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don’t have a housing shortage. We have a housing market that is charging too much.

You don’t fix this by rezoning. You fix it by increased regulation and tax pressure on landlords.

Or....by building more housing. If there wasn't such demand for what is already there, the prices would be lower. So more supply quells the pricing pressure on demand.