MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

Good for you, me too. I just don’t support building them in areas zoned for SFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Would this plan impact all areas of R60 or just the specific areas within "x" distance from a rapid bus station/purple line/metro?

The answer is that they will take as much as you give them, so give them as little as possible. I’d guess that it will
primarily focus on areas affected by the new parking requirement legislation, but I’m sure that they’d be happy to extend it far and wide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

Is that what you’re going to tell all of the lower income folks when their neighborhoods get gentrified and they can’t afford it anymore? Those will be the first to be developed.

“If you can’t afford it, you always have the option to move. People, I need somewhere to park my bike in front of the new indie coffee shop!”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

Is that what you’re going to tell all of the lower income folks when their neighborhoods get gentrified and they can’t afford it anymore? Those will be the first to be developed.

“If you can’t afford it, you always have the option to move. People, I need somewhere to park my bike in front of the new indie coffee shop!”

Are you the person who said they paid a lot of money to get away from duplexes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

And people who can't afford close in Moco can move as well...how is your argument any different than mine?

I want to live on the beach in Nantucket. I can't so I buy elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

So you're proposal is that all residential areas of MoCo be zoned the exact same way? Cool, I'm into that! Let's do it!

(Also, to my knowledge not a single councilmember lives in a property with a restrictive covenant.)

Yup. If the council wants up zoning, make sure they start with their neighborhoods first and make zero exemptions for everyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

I don't know where the county council members live, but I do know that the Montgomery County Council does not have the authority to change the zoning in the City of Takoma Park or the Town of Kensington, because both are incorporated municipalities that have their own planning and zoning authority.

TP and Kensington as well as Rockville municipalities need to be dismantled then. Council members for the county cannot live in those little protected enclaves but then get to dominate and govern everyone outside of their protected borders. It's total hypocrisy. There should only be one governing body for the entire county if pols from the county are going to run the county. You can live in DC and run for office in MoCo, so why should we allow people in TP, Rockville, Kensington etc govern the county if none of the stuff they pass affects them while they get to dictate how people in Silver Spring get to live, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

I don't know where the county council members live, but I do know that the Montgomery County Council does not have the authority to change the zoning in the City of Takoma Park or the Town of Kensington, because both are incorporated municipalities that have their own planning and zoning authority.

TP and Kensington as well as Rockville municipalities need to be dismantled then. Council members for the county cannot live in those little protected enclaves but then get to dominate and govern everyone outside of their protected borders. It's total hypocrisy. There should only be one governing body for the entire county if pols from the county are going to run the county. You can live in DC and run for office in MoCo, so why should we allow people in TP, Rockville, Kensington etc govern the county if none of the stuff they pass affects them while they get to dictate how people in Silver Spring get to live, for example.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

I don't know where the county council members live, but I do know that the Montgomery County Council does not have the authority to change the zoning in the City of Takoma Park or the Town of Kensington, because both are incorporated municipalities that have their own planning and zoning authority.

TP and Kensington as well as Rockville municipalities need to be dismantled then. Council members for the county cannot live in those little protected enclaves but then get to dominate and govern everyone outside of their protected borders. It's total hypocrisy. There should only be one governing body for the entire county if pols from the county are going to run the county. You can live in DC and run for office in MoCo, so why should we allow people in TP, Rockville, Kensington etc govern the county if none of the stuff they pass affects them while they get to dictate how people in Silver Spring get to live, for example.

Land use is only one small part of the decisions that County Councilmembers make. The rest of the decisions impact the municipalities (ie school funding)

Also, elected officials at all levels make decisions that affect areas other than the one in which they live. You know this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

And people who can't afford close in Moco can move as well...how is your argument any different than mine?

I want to live on the beach in Nantucket. I can't so I buy elsewhere.

I think everyone understands that rich people have options poor people don't have.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

I don't know where the county council members live, but I do know that the Montgomery County Council does not have the authority to change the zoning in the City of Takoma Park or the Town of Kensington, because both are incorporated municipalities that have their own planning and zoning authority.

TP and Kensington as well as Rockville municipalities need to be dismantled then. Council members for the county cannot live in those little protected enclaves but then get to dominate and govern everyone outside of their protected borders. It's total hypocrisy. There should only be one governing body for the entire county if pols from the county are going to run the county. You can live in DC and run for office in MoCo, so why should we allow people in TP, Rockville, Kensington etc govern the county if none of the stuff they pass affects them while they get to dictate how people in Silver Spring get to live, for example.

Land use is only one small part of the decisions that County Councilmembers make. The rest of the decisions impact the municipalities (ie school funding)

Also, elected officials at all levels make decisions that affect areas other than the one in which they live. You know this.

Except council members conveniently protect themselves from all of their crappy land use decisions by living in protected enclaves. It's total hypocrisy. You want upzoning in MoCo? Fine, start upzoning ALL of Takoma Park, Kensington, etc. first. You're in MoCo too. No exceptions. Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

I don't know where the county council members live, but I do know that the Montgomery County Council does not have the authority to change the zoning in the City of Takoma Park or the Town of Kensington, because both are incorporated municipalities that have their own planning and zoning authority.

TP and Kensington as well as Rockville municipalities need to be dismantled then. Council members for the county cannot live in those little protected enclaves but then get to dominate and govern everyone outside of their protected borders. It's total hypocrisy. There should only be one governing body for the entire county if pols from the county are going to run the county. You can live in DC and run for office in MoCo, so why should we allow people in TP, Rockville, Kensington etc govern the county if none of the stuff they pass affects them while they get to dictate how people in Silver Spring get to live, for example.

Land use is only one small part of the decisions that County Councilmembers make. The rest of the decisions impact the municipalities (ie school funding)

Also, elected officials at all levels make decisions that affect areas other than the one in which they live. You know this.

Except council members conveniently protect themselves from all of their crappy land use decisions by living in protected enclaves. It's total hypocrisy. You want upzoning in MoCo? Fine, start upzoning ALL of Takoma Park, Kensington, etc. first. You're in MoCo too. No exceptions. Period.

Please list the councilmembers who live in "protected enclaves" aka incorporated municipalities with authority over land use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.