Maryland’s governor wants to tackle the state’s housing shortage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://ggwash.org/view/92158/marylands-governor-wants-to-tackle-the-states-housing-shortage


[i]The Housing Expansion and Affordability Act ...

So the housing secretary is touting the 8100 new units approved quickly in Salisbury MD. That is over the bridge, almost 90 miles from Annapolis and near Ocean City-Delmarva beaches. What were the permits for? Building new apartments etc on unoccupied land? A MD drain to PA and DE for more favorable taxes?

Sounds like a missing middle for Moco, PG.

I can speak to the new units in Salisbury, Md. Sadly these are very, very low quality new builds. One of my employees bought one. Had a leak after 8 months of ownership. Builder would not troubleshoot. HVAC guy said it was plumbing. Plumber said it was HVAC. Between the HVAC guy and the plumber there were now 15 holes in the drywall to troubleshoot the leak.

My employee was crying at work. She thought she had done right buying "new." My licensed general contractor was doing some work on site. I sent him over to troubleshoot. He reviewed the prior 15 drywall troubleshooting holes and had to have two more holes made in drywall to troubleshoot. He was at her house for about 4 hours. He concluded HVAC not installed correctly. Ultimately the builder made things right.

My contractor said the new Salisbury developments are very, very low quality. He said he was very surprised the house even passed inspection for occupancy it was that low in quality.

My employee is a CNA and earns CNA pay. Her Mom is a chicken factory worker. They qualified for the house on this income.
These developments are built on cheap farm land. The exterior of the houses are nice but they are extremely shoddy construction and the builders are taking advantage of uneducated low income people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Hate to break it to you but America has had property controls and restrictions on what you can and can't do with your land ever since the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower in 1620. Historians on planning and building controls have documented it.

But that said, the problem IS people paying more than asking price. They are creating artificial bubbles in real estate costs.

Wrong

This is the govt trying to control your ability to sell it to whomever you wish. This is even closer to communism. The govt can tell you what you can and can't do with your land. They have never tried before to control who you can and cannot sell your private property to. Eminent domain is not an apt comparison before you try to point to that.

Just wait til you hear about zoning!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Hate to break it to you but America has had property controls and restrictions on what you can and can't do with your land ever since the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower in 1620. Historians on planning and building controls have documented it.

But that said, the problem IS people paying more than asking price. They are creating artificial bubbles in real estate costs.

Wrong

This is the govt trying to control your ability to sell it to whomever you wish. This is even closer to communism. The govt can tell you what you can and can't do with your land. They have never tried before to control who you can and cannot sell your private property to. Eminent domain is not an apt comparison before you try to point to that.

Renters right if first refusal is not a new thing. Already exists in a bunch of places. It doesn't impact what a landowner can do with their land, as it only applies if you decide to sell it. If this upsets you, ordinary zoning laws must absolutely enrage you. After all, how dare the government tell you that you can't put a factory in a lot in a residential neighborhood. It's your land, right?

[Anonymous]

There is no housing shortage in Maryland.

There is a road shortage in Maryland, caused by .gov having allowed many thousands of new homes and (frequently vacant) commercial properties to be built, without adding a millimeter of new road.

This eyewash is a dodge to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods, take over what remains of anything resembling a conservative area in Maryland, and generate more tax revenue to fund the endless fraud, waste and abuse in the State.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing shortage in Maryland.

There is a road shortage in Maryland, caused by .gov having allowed many thousands of new homes and (frequently vacant) commercial properties to be built, without adding a millimeter of new road.

This eyewash is a dodge to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods, take over what remains of anything resembling a conservative area in Maryland, and generate more tax revenue to fund the endless fraud, waste and abuse in the State.

Also, up is down, and the moon is made of green cheese.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Hate to break it to you but America has had property controls and restrictions on what you can and can't do with your land ever since the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower in 1620. Historians on planning and building controls have documented it.

But that said, the problem IS people paying more than asking price. They are creating artificial bubbles in real estate costs.

Wrong

This is the govt trying to control your ability to sell it to whomever you wish. This is even closer to communism. The govt can tell you what you can and can't do with your land. They have never tried before to control who you can and cannot sell your private property to. Eminent domain is not an apt comparison before you try to point to that.

Renters right if first refusal is not a new thing. Already exists in a bunch of places. It doesn't impact what a landowner can do with their land, as it only applies if you decide to sell it. If this upsets you, ordinary zoning laws must absolutely enrage you. After all, how dare the government tell you that you can't put a factory in a lot in a residential neighborhood. It's your land, right?

The "This is the govt trying to control your ability to sell it to whomever you wish. This is even closer to communism." PP must also be very upset about the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Huh? Just study comps and set a price that you want. Either the renter pays it or you put it on the market. Seems like a dumb proposal but ultimately it's harmless. Actually, if the renter chooses to buy, you save yourself realtor commissions and staging costs, so you'll be ahead by at least 5%.

It slows down and adds cost to the process. TOPA makes selling in DC a nightmare, but at least it largely excludes single family homes. This specifically includes single family homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Huh? Just study comps and set a price that you want. Either the renter pays it or you put it on the market. Seems like a dumb proposal but ultimately it's harmless. Actually, if the renter chooses to buy, you save yourself realtor commissions and staging costs, so you'll be ahead by at least 5%.

It slows down and adds cost to the process. TOPA makes selling in DC a nightmare, but at least it largely excludes single family homes. This specifically includes single family homes.

Why should this only apply to some types of housing but not to other types of housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Hate to break it to you but America has had property controls and restrictions on what you can and can't do with your land ever since the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower in 1620. Historians on planning and building controls have documented it.

But that said, the problem IS people paying more than asking price. They are creating artificial bubbles in real estate costs.

Wrong

This is the govt trying to control your ability to sell it to whomever you wish. This is even closer to communism. The govt can tell you what you can and can't do with your land. They have never tried before to control who you can and cannot sell your private property to. Eminent domain is not an apt comparison before you try to point to that.

Renters right if first refusal is not a new thing. Already exists in a bunch of places. It doesn't impact what a landowner can do with their land, as it only applies if you decide to sell it. If this upsets you, ordinary zoning laws must absolutely enrage you. After all, how dare the government tell you that you can't put a factory in a lot in a residential neighborhood. It's your land, right?

The "This is the govt trying to control your ability to sell it to whomever you wish. This is even closer to communism." PP must also be very upset about the Fair Housing Act of 1968.

Yeah and in communism no one actually owns or sells land anyways. It seems that people that use labels like socialism and communism don’t actually know what they mean. They just hate any govt rule period. Oh, but do support Russia for some reason. Trump?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing shortage in Maryland.

There is a road shortage in Maryland, caused by .gov having allowed many thousands of new homes and (frequently vacant) commercial properties to be built, without adding a millimeter of new road.

This eyewash is a dodge to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods, take over what remains of anything resembling a conservative area in Maryland, and generate more tax revenue to fund the endless fraud, waste and abuse in the State.

I do think that many of the missing middle measures are nothing but punitive nonsense designed to rid everyone of the idea that some places are just not affordable for everyone, OR they are part of some strange “place making” craziness that no one in the current neighborhoods actually want (because they would have moved elsewhere if that were the case).

However, this seems like it only involves public or non-profit land within a certain distance of rail. Not sure if the Purple Line would count…if so, it’s something to consider, I guess.

It’s actually probably less than what the MoCo will try to do in the future. They are setting it all up with the relaxing of parking requirements and the conceptualizing of these “town centers” designated within 1/4 of “mass transit,” which they are defining as the the new bus stations as part of the BRT.

In the end, be less afraid of the state level work and more wary of what happens locally. The state will do the minimum.

[Anonymous]

I was excited for Wes with his background but he's seems like another big govt left wing idea guy ughh

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing shortage in Maryland.

There is a road shortage in Maryland, caused by .gov having allowed many thousands of new homes and (frequently vacant) commercial properties to be built, without adding a millimeter of new road.

This eyewash is a dodge to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods, take over what remains of anything resembling a conservative area in Maryland, and generate more tax revenue to fund the endless fraud, waste and abuse in the State.

I do think that many of the missing middle measures are nothing but punitive nonsense designed to rid everyone of the idea that some places are just not affordable for everyone, OR they are part of some strange “place making” craziness that no one in the current neighborhoods actually want (because they would have moved elsewhere if that were the case).

However, this seems like it only involves public or non-profit land within a certain distance of rail. Not sure if the Purple Line would count…if so, it’s something to consider, I guess.

It’s actually probably less than what the MoCo will try to do in the future. They are setting it all up with the relaxing of parking requirements and the conceptualizing of these “town centers” designated within 1/4 of “mass transit,” which they are defining as the the new bus stations as part of the BRT.

In the end, be less afraid of the state level work and more wary of what happens locally. The state will do the minimum.

The Purple Line is rail. Buses are mass transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing shortage in Maryland.

There is a road shortage in Maryland, caused by .gov having allowed many thousands of new homes and (frequently vacant) commercial properties to be built, without adding a millimeter of new road.

This eyewash is a dodge to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods, take over what remains of anything resembling a conservative area in Maryland, and generate more tax revenue to fund the endless fraud, waste and abuse in the State.

I do think that many of the missing middle measures are nothing but punitive nonsense designed to rid everyone of the idea that some places are just not affordable for everyone, OR they are part of some strange “place making” craziness that no one in the current neighborhoods actually want (because they would have moved elsewhere if that were the case).

However, this seems like it only involves public or non-profit land within a certain distance of rail. Not sure if the Purple Line would count…if so, it’s something to consider, I guess.

It’s actually probably less than what the MoCo will try to do in the future. They are setting it all up with the relaxing of parking requirements and the conceptualizing of these “town centers” designated within 1/4 of “mass transit,” which they are defining as the the new bus stations as part of the BRT.

In the end, be less afraid of the state level work and more wary of what happens locally. The state will do the minimum.

Of course it would. This is why the Washington-area development community jokingly referred to the very expensive Purple Line as the new "green line." Green, as creating very profitable opportunities for investors and developers anywhere near the line.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing shortage in Maryland.

There is a road shortage in Maryland, caused by .gov having allowed many thousands of new homes and (frequently vacant) commercial properties to be built, without adding a millimeter of new road.

This eyewash is a dodge to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods, take over what remains of anything resembling a conservative area in Maryland, and generate more tax revenue to fund the endless fraud, waste and abuse in the State.

I do think that many of the missing middle measures are nothing but punitive nonsense designed to rid everyone of the idea that some places are just not affordable for everyone, OR they are part of some strange “place making” craziness that no one in the current neighborhoods actually want (because they would have moved elsewhere if that were the case).

However, this seems like it only involves public or non-profit land within a certain distance of rail. Not sure if the Purple Line would count…if so, it’s something to consider, I guess.

It’s actually probably less than what the MoCo will try to do in the future. They are setting it all up with the relaxing of parking requirements and the conceptualizing of these “town centers” designated within 1/4 of “mass transit,” which they are defining as the the new bus stations as part of the BRT.

In the end, be less afraid of the state level work and more wary of what happens locally. The state will do the minimum.

Of course it would. This is why the Washington-area development community jokingly referred to the very expensive Purple Line as the new "green line." Green, as creating very profitable opportunities for investors and developers anywhere near the line.

How nefarious of for-profit housing builders to plan to make a profit by building housing near transit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Rs want to control the ultimate -- a person's body.