Listening Sessions - Montgomery County Attainable Housing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

Literally the design used by almost every county in the country. It is completely the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

Literally the design used by almost every county in the country. It is completely the norm.

Do the YIMBYs EVER stop lying?

There are but a handful of jurisdictions that have done this at this scale. Stop making it seem like that are simply changing fence height requirements or something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

Literally the design used by almost every county in the country. It is completely the norm.

Do the YIMBYs EVER stop lying?

There are but a handful of jurisdictions that have done this at this scale. Stop making it seem like that are simply changing fence height requirements or something.

Can you point to a jurisdiction where a zoning change like this has been put to a popular vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

Literally the design used by almost every county in the country. It is completely the norm.

Do the YIMBYs EVER stop lying?

There are but a handful of jurisdictions that have done this at this scale. Stop making it seem like that are simply changing fence height requirements or something.

Setting aside whether what is currently being proposed, and still subject to change and community input, is a good idea...

The question was to "explain the governance design." The governance design is the one being used by nearly all municipalities. I have never seen one that would require a popular vote in instances like this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

Literally the design used by almost every county in the country. It is completely the norm.

Do the YIMBYs EVER stop lying?

There are but a handful of jurisdictions that have done this at this scale. Stop making it seem like that are simply changing fence height requirements or something.

Setting aside whether what is currently being proposed, and still subject to change and community input, is a good idea...

The question was to "explain the governance design." The governance design is the one being used by nearly all municipalities. I have never seen one that would require a popular vote in instances like this.

Actually the governance design is used by just one other county in Maryland and was the brainchild of a segregationist developer who was also the first chair of the planning board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh no, not housing! I hate housing. The poors* can go live elsewhere. Not In My BackYard!

*anyone with a <300K HHI

How about shut your mafioso pie hole? Developers are all over this board posing as regular homeowners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

Literally the design used by almost every county in the country. It is completely the norm.

Do the YIMBYs EVER stop lying?

There are but a handful of jurisdictions that have done this at this scale. Stop making it seem like that are simply changing fence height requirements or something.

Can you point to a jurisdiction where a zoning change like this has been put to a popular vote?

Kansas does this for many zoning decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

Literally the design used by almost every county in the country. It is completely the norm.

Do the YIMBYs EVER stop lying?

There are but a handful of jurisdictions that have done this at this scale. Stop making it seem like that are simply changing fence height requirements or something.

Can you point to a jurisdiction where a zoning change like this has been put to a popular vote?

Wasn't it in Arlington?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

Literally the design used by almost every county in the country. It is completely the norm.

Do the YIMBYs EVER stop lying?

There are but a handful of jurisdictions that have done this at this scale. Stop making it seem like that are simply changing fence height requirements or something.

Can you point to a jurisdiction where a zoning change like this has been put to a popular vote?

Wasn't it in Arlington?

I don’t think that there was a vote and that’s part of why there is an ongoing lawsuit. Seems like MoCo residents would be even better prepared to file an endless series of lawsuits that could keep this at bay for a long while. The government over in Arlington is already down $300k in outside attorney fees against a handful of plaintiffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

There are plenty of examples from back in the USSR! You will live in a pyatietazhka and you will like it.

Yes, allowing private property owners to choose what to do with their land, that is exactly what the USSR was about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

And yet houses in walkable neighborhoods sell for more than houses in non-walkable neighborhoods and usually have multiple offers. Go figure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

There are plenty of examples from back in the USSR! You will live in a pyatietazhka and you will like it.

Yes, allowing private property owners to choose what to do with their land, that is exactly what the USSR was about.

Great! I always wanted to develop a lucrative industrial incinerator on land I own next to a preschool.

Clearly, from what you are saying, I should be able to do so. Because, you know, it wouldn't be the preschool's land or anything -- they wouldn't be forced to put an incinerator on their property, and, you know, they could always move if they didn't like it, and, you know, we need waste disposal of this type...