MoCo Giving School Money to Developers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCo has always given developers everything they want. Will never change. Lots of people voted for Elrich over Blair in the hopes that the pro-development tendencies would be kept somewhat in check, but I'm not sure that it's made any difference.

No, MoCo has always given land use lawyers what they want: Lengthy planning approvals and slow permitting processes. You never hear the MoCo YIMBYs lobbying to change these things because the land use lawyers are major funders of the local YIMBY groups. You don’t see the council pushing to change it because the land use lawyers donate to their campaigns. We could have had so much more housing in the past 20 years if the planning process had fewer steps and permitting happened faster.

It’s astounding how many YIMBY real estate agents there are out there.

[Anonymous]

Folks, the primary reason it is Friedson who is sponsoring the bill is because of his role as Council President. When the Executive or Planning Board want a bill, they can't just introduce something. They need a sponsor, and that sponsor is the Council President. This act, alone, does not necessarily mean he supports it. He may. I don't know that. But this is a procedural issue.

[Anonymous]

Montgomery County literally has the highest school impact fees IN THE COUNTRY. Impact fees make housing more expensive. It's not a progressive way to raise money for schools. It is, in fact, very regressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County literally has the highest school impact fees IN THE COUNTRY. Impact fees make housing more expensive. It's not a progressive way to raise money for schools. It is, in fact, very regressive.

Actually California generally has higher fees but it doesn’t really matter what the comparison is. It matters whether the fees are adequate to pay for the new seats that new housing requires. The MoCo council has cut impact fees several times during the past few years (especially for apartments) and housing has gotten more expensive, not cheaper. There also has been no measurable impact on how many houses get built.

It’s not progressive to give out corporate welfare. Corporate tax breaks are the Republican economic plan. Developers don’t reduce prices by the amount of subsidies or tax breaks that they get. They use nearly all of the money to boost their profits. It’s a very inefficient way to create more housing, particularly when it is applied across the board because when it’s applied across the board the government ends up subsidizing very expensive housing alongside the subsidies for more attainable housing; which are more defensible.

Make no mistake this tax cut for developers will be paid for with another property tax hike that applies to every property owner in the county. Why should a retiree in Aspen Hill be subsidizing JBG’s billions in profit? How progressive is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Folks, the primary reason it is Friedson who is sponsoring the bill is because of his role as Council President. When the Executive or Planning Board want a bill, they can't just introduce something. They need a sponsor, and that sponsor is the Council President. This act, alone, does not necessarily mean he supports it. He may. I don't know that. But this is a procedural issue.

This is wrong.

He’s come out in support, and he can own it. He doesn’t get to play innocent now.

Here here is as a very special guest of the Coalition for Smarter Growth Montgomery for All: Attainable Housing Briefing February 2024 (34:00), and he is just SO DARNED EXCITED about it:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zKknuErS0rE

[Anonymous]

Who is running against the current council members? It’s clear from this and their “listening sessions” that they don’t care about what we, their constituents, want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County literally has the highest school impact fees IN THE COUNTRY. Impact fees make housing more expensive. It's not a progressive way to raise money for schools. It is, in fact, very regressive.

Only if you don't know the definitions of progressive and regressive. The housing stock getting built is less affordable than the stock it replaces, and the kids of MCPS have 34+ to a classroom so basically Andrew Friedson and co are screwing the next generation while real estate developers benefit. MoCo priorities!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County literally has the highest school impact fees IN THE COUNTRY. Impact fees make housing more expensive. It's not a progressive way to raise money for schools. It is, in fact, very regressive.

Only if you don't know the definitions of progressive and regressive. The housing stock getting built is less affordable than the stock it replaces, and the kids of MCPS have 34+ to a classroom so basically Andrew Friedson and co are screwing the next generation while real estate developers benefit. MoCo priorities!

yup. once you realize YIMBYs are mostly 25 year old white dudes with no kids, you realize how someone can type that kind of drivel with a straight face

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County literally has the highest school impact fees IN THE COUNTRY. Impact fees make housing more expensive. It's not a progressive way to raise money for schools. It is, in fact, very regressive.

Actually California generally has higher fees but it doesn’t really matter what the comparison is. It matters whether the fees are adequate to pay for the new seats that new housing requires. The MoCo council has cut impact fees several times during the past few years (especially for apartments) and housing has gotten more expensive, not cheaper. There also has been no measurable impact on how many houses get built.

It’s not progressive to give out corporate welfare. Corporate tax breaks are the Republican economic plan. Developers don’t reduce prices by the amount of subsidies or tax breaks that they get. They use nearly all of the money to boost their profits. It’s a very inefficient way to create more housing, particularly when it is applied across the board because when it’s applied across the board the government ends up subsidizing very expensive housing alongside the subsidies for more attainable housing; which are more defensible.

Make no mistake this tax cut for developers will be paid for with another property tax hike that applies to every property owner in the county. Why should a retiree in Aspen Hill be subsidizing JBG’s billions in profit? How progressive is that?

+1 Amen. Why are our kids susbsidizing the profits of developers. It's they who are stuck in kindergarten classes with 27 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is running against the current council members? It’s clear from this and their “listening sessions” that they don’t care about what we, their constituents, want.

Why would they?

Rockville? Exempt from the nonsense.

Takoma Park? Mostly exempt from the nonsense by virtue of its historical status.

Friedson’s neighborhood? Do you think that you’ll see a lot of MM being built in Chevy Chase, Bethesda, Potomac? Lmao.

Mink? She would shoot herself in the foot for a little progressive cred and just a little more attention.

Yes, they all have representative votes.

This is the most regressive policy they could possibly try to implement.

[Anonymous]

The YIMBYs are fools and liars.

https://truthout.org/articles/yimby-movement-is-not-the-answer-to-housing-crisis-grassroots-activists-say/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCo has always given developers everything they want. Will never change. Lots of people voted for Elrich over Blair in the hopes that the pro-development tendencies would be kept somewhat in check, but I'm not sure that it's made any difference.

No, MoCo has always given land use lawyers what they want: Lengthy planning approvals and slow permitting processes. You never hear the MoCo YIMBYs lobbying to change these things because the land use lawyers are major funders of the local YIMBY groups. You don’t see the council pushing to change it because the land use lawyers donate to their campaigns. We could have had so much more housing in the past 20 years if the planning process had fewer steps and permitting happened faster.

It’s astounding how many YIMBY real estate agents there are out there.

More housing build options means more turnover means more transactions means more commissions available.