MoCo Housing Strategies effect on MCPS

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS can barely tend to the schools it has today. So many schools are at or over capacity, particularly in areas likely to be most affected by this atrocious hand-out to developers, and the county struggles to approve and pay for capital improvements. There’s no attention in this proposal to schools, infrastructure, and other basic aspects of living in the county. The county is selling out its residents to developers. Unacceptable.

Remember this at the polls, as they jam this housing program through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS can barely tend to the schools it has today. So many schools are at or over capacity, particularly in areas likely to be most affected by this atrocious hand-out to developers, and the county struggles to approve and pay for capital improvements. There’s no attention in this proposal to schools, infrastructure, and other basic aspects of living in the county. The county is selling out its residents to developers. Unacceptable.

Remember this at the polls, as they jam this housing program through.

There is plenty of space in MCPS elementary and middle schools and will be in high schools after the new ones are completed. MCPS can distribute students better to make better use of their existing resources so that individual schools are not overcrowded.

Attainable housing will not add a lot of units at once. We are used to big developments and apartment buildings. That is not what this is. This is developers buying an existing SFH and converting it to a duplex. It will be very slow in terms of impact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS can barely tend to the schools it has today. So many schools are at or over capacity, particularly in areas likely to be most affected by this atrocious hand-out to developers, and the county struggles to approve and pay for capital improvements. There’s no attention in this proposal to schools, infrastructure, and other basic aspects of living in the county. The county is selling out its residents to developers. Unacceptable.

Which is why the big boundary study needs to be done and completed quickly instead of this 2026 schedule that it’s on. If we are hiring an outside firm we need to push them to help get this done in this cycle so capacities can be leveled out. This study is needed or regardless of when the new HS opens.

Mcps, hun. When does move that quickly?

[Anonymous]

Assumptions of low student generation rates for new single-family housing (and apartments) have proven incorrect in many areas. Slow speed, limited numbers and existing capacity also are faulty assumptions when applied more granularly, if not across the county.

There are no caps to the plan, as with the oft-cited "Hey, look at what happened in Arlington! Not too many built there!" (without noting the cap on permits for that jurisdiction's newer zoning allowance). Developers can, and likely will, put out contingent offers on properties, getting their operations shovel-ready for the by-right duplex/triplex/quad-plex density (or more with new MD state legislation for additional densities stacking on top) development and their architecture/permitting folks sumbission-ready for the 19-(or more with that MD legislation)-unit-on-an-acre-and-a-half stacked flat apartments that would require only a pittance of affordability (1500 square foot average unit sizes, when most apartments are far less in the first place) and that then are enabled with a streamlined, no-public-hearing administrative (not Planning Board) approvals process via the proposed Attainable (used to be Affordable) Housing Optional Method (AHOM).

There also is nothing aside from bare market forces limiting concentration of development in one or more neighborhoods/school catchments. Many of the more modest-income detached single family home neighborhoods in the Down County Consortium would be particularly prone to more rapid turnover, in part due to the relatively less improved structures and the slightly more transient nature of SFH inhabitance (compared to those in/that of the western portions of the inner county subject to the proposed changes)

The inner areas subject to the proposed changes, both DCC and "W"/"honorary W," are often those with current current overcrowding and are the least likely to have remedy. There are few candidate properties for new schools, those that might be have considerably greater acquisition cost (or would take parkland then irreplaceable to the local community), and smaller existing site sizes limit expansion, even for those not yet built to maximum ES capacity.

The new, but down-scaled, Woodward HS building and the expansion of Northwood won't even cover overcrowding vs. existing projections, and while a Boundary Study is long overdue, the DCC boundaries are already on the verge of unmanageable, with high schools like Blair and Einstein located in the outermost portion of their service areas -- there is only so much shifting that reasonably might be done. In addition, neither current improvement addresses MS or ES overcrowding, which is known to be lumpy and where projects such as that for HVES address long-overdue replacement of portables more than increased capacity vs. usage.

The Attainable Housing Strategy notes that there is overall current capacity when counting seats systemwide but it neither addresses that lumpiness/local variation in the overcrowding experience, nor properly addresses local school population projections in out years for the zoning-affected areas, nor provides for moratoria in school-overcrowded neighborhoods, nor presents any mechanism for ensuring adequate capacities beyond the existing MCPS/county processes...which routinely have resulted in unaddressed overcrowding and underfunding of remedy in the first place.

Nowhere in this effort was there comparable analysis given to alternative approaches to having additional "attainable" housing in the county. Greenfield development, for instance, comes with much more economical and effective provision of school (and other) infrastructure than the retrofits that would be required in older neighborhoods. That's just one option, but the direction from the Planning Board, at the behest of the County Council, was not to develop such alternatives for consideration. Instead, they employed presumptions of limitation due to existing zoning and currently low public transportation services in the large available areas farther upcounty, not exploring the possibility for change, there, when the whole of the Attainable Housing Strategy presented relies on change to the inner portions of the county.

This not only is a bad plan as it exists, carrying those failures of consideration noted, but also it is one whose proponents, based on officials' discourse at working sessions & other public meetings thus far, if not discourse on this site and elsewhere, do not even invite consideration of that which might be needed to make it better for our communities and the county as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assumptions of low student generation rates for new single-family housing (and apartments) have proven incorrect in many areas. Slow speed, limited numbers and existing capacity also are faulty assumptions when applied more granularly, if not across the county.

There are no caps to the plan, as with the oft-cited "Hey, look at what happened in Arlington! Not too many built there!" (without noting the cap on permits for that jurisdiction's newer zoning allowance). Developers can, and likely will, put out contingent offers on properties, getting their operations shovel-ready for the by-right duplex/triplex/quad-plex density (or more with new MD state legislation for additional densities stacking on top) development and their architecture/permitting folks sumbission-ready for the 19-(or more with that MD legislation)-unit-on-an-acre-and-a-half stacked flat apartments that would require only a pittance of affordability (1500 square foot average unit sizes, when most apartments are far less in the first place) and that then are enabled with a streamlined, no-public-hearing administrative (not Planning Board) approvals process via the proposed Attainable (used to be Affordable) Housing Optional Method (AHOM).

There also is nothing aside from bare market forces limiting concentration of development in one or more neighborhoods/school catchments. Many of the more modest-income detached single family home neighborhoods in the Down County Consortium would be particularly prone to more rapid turnover, in part due to the relatively less improved structures and the slightly more transient nature of SFH inhabitance (compared to those in/that of the western portions of the inner county subject to the proposed changes)

The inner areas subject to the proposed changes, both DCC and "W"/"honorary W," are often those with current current overcrowding and are the least likely to have remedy. There are few candidate properties for new schools, those that might be have considerably greater acquisition cost (or would take parkland then irreplaceable to the local community), and smaller existing site sizes limit expansion, even for those not yet built to maximum ES capacity.

The new, but down-scaled, Woodward HS building and the expansion of Northwood won't even cover overcrowding vs. existing projections, and while a Boundary Study is long overdue, the DCC boundaries are already on the verge of unmanageable, with high schools like Blair and Einstein located in the outermost portion of their service areas -- there is only so much shifting that reasonably might be done. In addition, neither current improvement addresses MS or ES overcrowding, which is known to be lumpy and where projects such as that for HVES address long-overdue replacement of portables more than increased capacity vs. usage.

The Attainable Housing Strategy notes that there is overall current capacity when counting seats systemwide but it neither addresses that lumpiness/local variation in the overcrowding experience, nor properly addresses local school population projections in out years for the zoning-affected areas, nor provides for moratoria in school-overcrowded neighborhoods, nor presents any mechanism for ensuring adequate capacities beyond the existing MCPS/county processes...which routinely have resulted in unaddressed overcrowding and underfunding of remedy in the first place.

Nowhere in this effort was there comparable analysis given to alternative approaches to having additional "attainable" housing in the county. Greenfield development, for instance, comes with much more economical and effective provision of school (and other) infrastructure than the retrofits that would be required in older neighborhoods. That's just one option, but the direction from the Planning Board, at the behest of the County Council, was not to develop such alternatives for consideration. Instead, they employed presumptions of limitation due to existing zoning and currently low public transportation services in the large available areas farther upcounty, not exploring the possibility for change, there, when the whole of the Attainable Housing Strategy presented relies on change to the inner portions of the county.

This not only is a bad plan as it exists, carrying those failures of consideration noted, but also it is one whose proponents, based on officials' discourse at working sessions & other public meetings thus far, if not discourse on this site and elsewhere, do not even invite consideration of that which might be needed to make it better for our communities and the county as a whole.

Tldr but it sounds like you want sprawl. No thanks.

[Anonymous]

Relatively few of the DCC ES and MS are overcapacity, and those that are could be helped by some boundary changes to nearby under-capacity schools, or in the cases of Argyle and Loiederman, rethinking the MSMC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Assumptions of low student generation rates for new single-family housing (and apartments) have proven incorrect in many areas. Slow speed, limited numbers and existing capacity also are faulty assumptions when applied more granularly, if not across the county.

There are no caps to the plan, as with the oft-cited "Hey, look at what happened in Arlington! Not too many built there!" (without noting the cap on permits for that jurisdiction's newer zoning allowance). Developers can, and likely will, put out contingent offers on properties, getting their operations shovel-ready for the by-right duplex/triplex/quad-plex density (or more with new MD state legislation for additional densities stacking on top) development and their architecture/permitting folks sumbission-ready for the 19-(or more with that MD legislation)-unit-on-an-acre-and-a-half stacked flat apartments that would require only a pittance of affordability (1500 square foot average unit sizes, when most apartments are far less in the first place) and that then are enabled with a streamlined, no-public-hearing administrative (not Planning Board) approvals process via the proposed Attainable (used to be Affordable) Housing Optional Method (AHOM).

There also is nothing aside from bare market forces limiting concentration of development in one or more neighborhoods/school catchments. Many of the more modest-income detached single family home neighborhoods in the Down County Consortium would be particularly prone to more rapid turnover, in part due to the relatively less improved structures and the slightly more transient nature of SFH inhabitance (compared to those in/that of the western portions of the inner county subject to the proposed changes)

The inner areas subject to the proposed changes, both DCC and "W"/"honorary W," are often those with current current overcrowding and are the least likely to have remedy. There are few candidate properties for new schools, those that might be have considerably greater acquisition cost (or would take parkland then irreplaceable to the local community), and smaller existing site sizes limit expansion, even for those not yet built to maximum ES capacity.

The new, but down-scaled, Woodward HS building and the expansion of Northwood won't even cover overcrowding vs. existing projections, and while a Boundary Study is long overdue, the DCC boundaries are already on the verge of unmanageable, with high schools like Blair and Einstein located in the outermost portion of their service areas -- there is only so much shifting that reasonably might be done. In addition, neither current improvement addresses MS or ES overcrowding, which is known to be lumpy and where projects such as that for HVES address long-overdue replacement of portables more than increased capacity vs. usage.

The Attainable Housing Strategy notes that there is overall current capacity when counting seats systemwide but it neither addresses that lumpiness/local variation in the overcrowding experience, nor properly addresses local school population projections in out years for the zoning-affected areas, nor provides for moratoria in school-overcrowded neighborhoods, nor presents any mechanism for ensuring adequate capacities beyond the existing MCPS/county processes...which routinely have resulted in unaddressed overcrowding and underfunding of remedy in the first place.

Nowhere in this effort was there comparable analysis given to alternative approaches to having additional "attainable" housing in the county. Greenfield development, for instance, comes with much more economical and effective provision of school (and other) infrastructure than the retrofits that would be required in older neighborhoods. That's just one option, but the direction from the Planning Board, at the behest of the County Council, was not to develop such alternatives for consideration. Instead, they employed presumptions of limitation due to existing zoning and currently low public transportation services in the large available areas farther upcounty, not exploring the possibility for change, there, when the whole of the Attainable Housing Strategy presented relies on change to the inner portions of the county.

This not only is a bad plan as it exists, carrying those failures of consideration noted, but also it is one whose proponents, based on officials' discourse at working sessions & other public meetings thus far, if not discourse on this site and elsewhere, do not even invite consideration of that which might be needed to make it better for our communities and the county as a whole.

Redrawing boundaries falls under the purview of the Board of Education, not the Planning Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Redrawing boundaries falls under the purview of the Board of Education, not the Planning Board.

THIS BOE?
Oh boy.

[Anonymous]

MCPS has an RFP out for a consultant to do a boundary study for 19 of the 25 clusters. It would be nice to see them work hand in hand with the planning board on data and projections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has an RFP out for a consultant to do a boundary study for 19 of the 25 clusters. It would be nice to see them work hand in hand with the planning board on data and projections.

Do they not typically do that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS has an RFP out for a consultant to do a boundary study for 19 of the 25 clusters. It would be nice to see them work hand in hand with the planning board on data and projections.

Do they not typically do that?

No they don’t typically put out an RFP, but they did because of the size and scope of this boundary study.

I haven’t seen them work with planning board beyond getting numbers from them and transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS can barely tend to the schools it has today. So many schools are at or over capacity, particularly in areas likely to be most affected by this atrocious hand-out to developers, and the county struggles to approve and pay for capital improvements. There’s no attention in this proposal to schools, infrastructure, and other basic aspects of living in the county. The county is selling out its residents to developers. Unacceptable.

People need places to live. The population is growing and will continue to grow. That means we need more homes somewhere.

Drive around the county. There are tons of empty apartments available for rent. I have a job in sales so I’m all over MoCo. There are TONS of available rentals.

We don’t need to build more right now. We do need more schools/parks/better infrastructure.

BINGO. But parks don’t donate to campaigns or fund nice dinners and conferences!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From the link in OP's post:

4. My schools already feel crowded. Wouldn’t adding more homes to my neighborhood add even more kids?
We closely analyze and anticipate how many students are generated by new housing of all types and we expect them to have minimal impact on schools.

This kind of development is expected to occur slowly and piecemeal. This means individual communities — and groups of neighborhood schools — would see relatively few new multi-unit structures built each year.

Second, while some individual schools are overcrowded, the system countywide is not, especially at the elementary- and middle-school levels. The high school level will also have surplus capacity after planned new high schools open in the next few years. Montgomery County Public Schools can adjust enrollment boundaries and pursue other tactics to make the best use of systemwide capacity.

As they do today, developers would be required to help pay for any new schools or expansion projects needed to accommodate additional students from their residential projects. They do this through paying impact taxes required of all such projects, as well as additional fees if any of the affected schools are overcapacity.

This is hysterical. Look at their recent development messes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some coverage of the meeting at BCC

https://moco360.media/2024/09/26/zoning-changes-major-opposition-at-bethesda-listening-session/

Not good coverage, poorly representing the concerns shared at the session.

They are spouting the same nonsense they did when they were working on the Bethesda Downtown Plan and the Woodmont Triangle. All we are seeing is the few affordable apartments (the oft derided Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing) and small or mid-sized houses being torn down to make way for low income housing and McMansions. Bethesda is becoming more split between government subsidized low income MPDUs and huge homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assumptions of low student generation rates for new single-family housing (and apartments) have proven incorrect in many areas. Slow speed, limited numbers and existing capacity also are faulty assumptions when applied more granularly, if not across the county.

There are no caps to the plan, as with the oft-cited "Hey, look at what happened in Arlington! Not too many built there!" (without noting the cap on permits for that jurisdiction's newer zoning allowance). Developers can, and likely will, put out contingent offers on properties, getting their operations shovel-ready for the by-right duplex/triplex/quad-plex density (or more with new MD state legislation for additional densities stacking on top) development and their architecture/permitting folks sumbission-ready for the 19-(or more with that MD legislation)-unit-on-an-acre-and-a-half stacked flat apartments that would require only a pittance of affordability (1500 square foot average unit sizes, when most apartments are far less in the first place) and that then are enabled with a streamlined, no-public-hearing administrative (not Planning Board) approvals process via the proposed Attainable (used to be Affordable) Housing Optional Method (AHOM).

There also is nothing aside from bare market forces limiting concentration of development in one or more neighborhoods/school catchments. Many of the more modest-income detached single family home neighborhoods in the Down County Consortium would be particularly prone to more rapid turnover, in part due to the relatively less improved structures and the slightly more transient nature of SFH inhabitance (compared to those in/that of the western portions of the inner county subject to the proposed changes)

The inner areas subject to the proposed changes, both DCC and "W"/"honorary W," are often those with current current overcrowding and are the least likely to have remedy. There are few candidate properties for new schools, those that might be have considerably greater acquisition cost (or would take parkland then irreplaceable to the local community), and smaller existing site sizes limit expansion, even for those not yet built to maximum ES capacity.

The new, but down-scaled, Woodward HS building and the expansion of Northwood won't even cover overcrowding vs. existing projections, and while a Boundary Study is long overdue, the DCC boundaries are already on the verge of unmanageable, with high schools like Blair and Einstein located in the outermost portion of their service areas -- there is only so much shifting that reasonably might be done. In addition, neither current improvement addresses MS or ES overcrowding, which is known to be lumpy and where projects such as that for HVES address long-overdue replacement of portables more than increased capacity vs. usage.

The Attainable Housing Strategy notes that there is overall current capacity when counting seats systemwide but it neither addresses that lumpiness/local variation in the overcrowding experience, nor properly addresses local school population projections in out years for the zoning-affected areas, nor provides for moratoria in school-overcrowded neighborhoods, nor presents any mechanism for ensuring adequate capacities beyond the existing MCPS/county processes...which routinely have resulted in unaddressed overcrowding and underfunding of remedy in the first place.

Nowhere in this effort was there comparable analysis given to alternative approaches to having additional "attainable" housing in the county. Greenfield development, for instance, comes with much more economical and effective provision of school (and other) infrastructure than the retrofits that would be required in older neighborhoods. That's just one option, but the direction from the Planning Board, at the behest of the County Council, was not to develop such alternatives for consideration. Instead, they employed presumptions of limitation due to existing zoning and currently low public transportation services in the large available areas farther upcounty, not exploring the possibility for change, there, when the whole of the Attainable Housing Strategy presented relies on change to the inner portions of the county.

This not only is a bad plan as it exists, carrying those failures of consideration noted, but also it is one whose proponents, based on officials' discourse at working sessions & other public meetings thus far, if not discourse on this site and elsewhere, do not even invite consideration of that which might be needed to make it better for our communities and the county as a whole.

Redrawing boundaries falls under the purview of the Board of Education, not the Planning Board.

Read the rest of the sentence. Government agencies failing to plan with each other or to recognize the likely actions/inactions of each other is governmental failure.