S/O - More Rezoning and University Boulevard Corridor Plan

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

70% of my neighborhood are homeowners. Confident that many of us if not all are attracted by the suburban feel and small scale of this neighborhood. We chose to live in the suburbs not high density.

To the poster above, yes, this will effectively eradicate single family homes when developers can scoop up the relatively cheap homes, bulldoze them, build multiplexes, and then sell each for more than one home cost. That’s what we see elsewhere in the county.

It will drive up value of property at the lowest end of the price spectrum as developers seek those out and drag down property values for people that have already invested significant funds into their homes, because they aren’t attractive to developers, and by god, who wants to invest in a nice SFH next to a multiplex?

Traffic will get worse, the schools will get worse, the quality of life will be worse. As an added bonus, if you live within x feet of one of the new bus stops in the corridor, you won’t have to include off street parking anymore when building units.

Won’t that be something?

All this for what, some neo urban aesthetic? So some handful of randos can walk to a pretend independent coffee shop?

Doesn’t Georgetown in DC have multi units next door to million dollar SFH? Why is Georgetown not experiencing the hellscape that you predict?

Georgetown doesn't have either schools or SFHs

Which Georgetown are you talking about? PP was asking about the Georgetown in DC, which has both schools and SFHs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

Then why on earth would they have purchased a house there and not, you know, somewhere representative of where they wanted to live? They really aren’t very good at making decisions, are they?

It seems that YOU and the county are the ones very much generalizing about what people want. YOU and the county are suggesting changes to an existing system, so it’s up for YOU and the county to provide an argument as to why this is needed and what metrics will be applied to define success.

You are right, though, the county should perform a valid poll to gather feedback. Perhaps the ultimate poll, a vote on the issue.

When I bought I fully expected and understood that growth happens. I grew up here in the 80’s so I guess I had the experience to educate me about the real world. I bought a SFH home here and I welcome the increased density. I would rather keep our parks and forests and have development be focused on existing areas. I hate sprawl. I support the MoCo council and increased density.

Again, you are making it out to be some binary choice, and that’s completely false. The way that the county is going about this is, quite literally, the worst way they could have done it. You are allowed to support whatever you want, but you’ll find that you are in the deep minority, and it’s the silliest way to accomplish the goals that you state. It’s the least efficient and most controversial, which really can only mean that it’s not about housing at all, it’s an idealogical argument about exclusive zoning.

This is the real way:

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/design-development/mfe-awards/maryland-development-stands-as-model-for-public-private-partnerships_o

The land is there, idle commercial properties are there, outdated moderately dense commercial is there. Those are are master PLANNED communities, and as such, they PLAN for things like transportation and school capacity and affordability, unlike this bizarre libertarian fantasy dreamed up by the planning department.

I think you're the one saying there's only one way to do it.

What the county is saying, in contrast, is that there are many ways to do it.

What I am saying is, upzoning is a dumb way to accomplish the goals, and that they should not waste time and taxpayer money on tasks that do not accomplish their goals, unless the goals are not what has been stated. If that’s the case, then they should be more transparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

Then why on earth would they have purchased a house there and not, you know, somewhere representative of where they wanted to live? They really aren’t very good at making decisions, are they?

It seems that YOU and the county are the ones very much generalizing about what people want. YOU and the county are suggesting changes to an existing system, so it’s up for YOU and the county to provide an argument as to why this is needed and what metrics will be applied to define success.

You are right, though, the county should perform a valid poll to gather feedback. Perhaps the ultimate poll, a vote on the issue.

When I bought I fully expected and understood that growth happens. I grew up here in the 80’s so I guess I had the experience to educate me about the real world. I bought a SFH home here and I welcome the increased density. I would rather keep our parks and forests and have development be focused on existing areas. I hate sprawl. I support the MoCo council and increased density.

Again, you are making it out to be some binary choice, and that’s completely false. The way that the county is going about this is, quite literally, the worst way they could have done it. You are allowed to support whatever you want, but you’ll find that you are in the deep minority, and it’s the silliest way to accomplish the goals that you state. It’s the least efficient and most controversial, which really can only mean that it’s not about housing at all, it’s an idealogical argument about exclusive zoning.

This is the real way:

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/design-development/mfe-awards/maryland-development-stands-as-model-for-public-private-partnerships_o

The land is there, idle commercial properties are there, outdated moderately dense commercial is there. Those are are master PLANNED communities, and as such, they PLAN for things like transportation and school capacity and affordability, unlike this bizarre libertarian fantasy dreamed up by the planning department.

Rockville used to be the boonies and only farms and SFH. Things change. Increased density means that the city is thriving. Go visit Cumberland some time and see what a declining town looks like. Is that what you want for Rockville?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

Then why on earth would they have purchased a house there and not, you know, somewhere representative of where they wanted to live? They really aren’t very good at making decisions, are they?

It seems that YOU and the county are the ones very much generalizing about what people want. YOU and the county are suggesting changes to an existing system, so it’s up for YOU and the county to provide an argument as to why this is needed and what metrics will be applied to define success.

You are right, though, the county should perform a valid poll to gather feedback. Perhaps the ultimate poll, a vote on the issue.

When I bought I fully expected and understood that growth happens. I grew up here in the 80’s so I guess I had the experience to educate me about the real world. I bought a SFH home here and I welcome the increased density. I would rather keep our parks and forests and have development be focused on existing areas. I hate sprawl. I support the MoCo council and increased density.

Again, you are making it out to be some binary choice, and that’s completely false. The way that the county is going about this is, quite literally, the worst way they could have done it. You are allowed to support whatever you want, but you’ll find that you are in the deep minority, and it’s the silliest way to accomplish the goals that you state. It’s the least efficient and most controversial, which really can only mean that it’s not about housing at all, it’s an idealogical argument about exclusive zoning.

This is the real way:

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/design-development/mfe-awards/maryland-development-stands-as-model-for-public-private-partnerships_o

The land is there, idle commercial properties are there, outdated moderately dense commercial is there. Those are are master PLANNED communities, and as such, they PLAN for things like transportation and school capacity and affordability, unlike this bizarre libertarian fantasy dreamed up by the planning department.

I think you're the one saying there's only one way to do it.

What the county is saying, in contrast, is that there are many ways to do it.

What I am saying is, upzoning is a dumb way to accomplish the goals, and that they should not waste time and taxpayer money on tasks that do not accomplish their goals, unless the goals are not what has been stated. If that’s the case, then they should be more transparent.

Oh because this while time I thought you just had some sort of irrational fear of middle class people or multifamily. In reality you are just sooo concerned about the best way to “accomplish the goals” without wasting time. For some reason I doubt that you have ever advocated for those “better ideas” with as much fervor as we see here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

Then why on earth would they have purchased a house there and not, you know, somewhere representative of where they wanted to live? They really aren’t very good at making decisions, are they?

It seems that YOU and the county are the ones very much generalizing about what people want. YOU and the county are suggesting changes to an existing system, so it’s up for YOU and the county to provide an argument as to why this is needed and what metrics will be applied to define success.

You are right, though, the county should perform a valid poll to gather feedback. Perhaps the ultimate poll, a vote on the issue.

When I bought I fully expected and understood that growth happens. I grew up here in the 80’s so I guess I had the experience to educate me about the real world. I bought a SFH home here and I welcome the increased density. I would rather keep our parks and forests and have development be focused on existing areas. I hate sprawl. I support the MoCo council and increased density.

Again, you are making it out to be some binary choice, and that’s completely false. The way that the county is going about this is, quite literally, the worst way they could have done it. You are allowed to support whatever you want, but you’ll find that you are in the deep minority, and it’s the silliest way to accomplish the goals that you state. It’s the least efficient and most controversial, which really can only mean that it’s not about housing at all, it’s an idealogical argument about exclusive zoning.

This is the real way:

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/design-development/mfe-awards/maryland-development-stands-as-model-for-public-private-partnerships_o

The land is there, idle commercial properties are there, outdated moderately dense commercial is there. Those are are master PLANNED communities, and as such, they PLAN for things like transportation and school capacity and affordability, unlike this bizarre libertarian fantasy dreamed up by the planning department.

Rockville used to be the boonies and only farms and SFH. Things change. Increased density means that the city is thriving. Go visit Cumberland some time and see what a declining town looks like. Is that what you want for Rockville?

Are you even reading what’s been written? I’m saying that upzoning is a stupid way to accomplish the goals, but there are many efficient ways to accomplish the goals. Does that public private project scream of Cumberland?

You can always do research on the subject so that you don’t come off looking so bad, you know?

I’ll get you started with a search that took me a minute or two:

Upzoning doesn’t work, they know that it doesn’t work.

https://www.livablecalifornia.org/vancouver-smartest-planner-prof-patrick-condon-calls-california-upzoning-a-costly-mistake-2-6-21/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/petesaunders1/2019/02/22/maybe-upzoning-doesnt-always-lead-to-lower-home-prices/

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway

It also does the opposites of what you think that you want.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837721000703

https://www.archdaily.com/961234/new-york-city-promises-affordability-through-rezoning-but-delivers-gentrification

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

Then why on earth would they have purchased a house there and not, you know, somewhere representative of where they wanted to live? They really aren’t very good at making decisions, are they?

It seems that YOU and the county are the ones very much generalizing about what people want. YOU and the county are suggesting changes to an existing system, so it’s up for YOU and the county to provide an argument as to why this is needed and what metrics will be applied to define success.

You are right, though, the county should perform a valid poll to gather feedback. Perhaps the ultimate poll, a vote on the issue.

When I bought I fully expected and understood that growth happens. I grew up here in the 80’s so I guess I had the experience to educate me about the real world. I bought a SFH home here and I welcome the increased density. I would rather keep our parks and forests and have development be focused on existing areas. I hate sprawl. I support the MoCo council and increased density.

Again, you are making it out to be some binary choice, and that’s completely false. The way that the county is going about this is, quite literally, the worst way they could have done it. You are allowed to support whatever you want, but you’ll find that you are in the deep minority, and it’s the silliest way to accomplish the goals that you state. It’s the least efficient and most controversial, which really can only mean that it’s not about housing at all, it’s an idealogical argument about exclusive zoning.

This is the real way:

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/design-development/mfe-awards/maryland-development-stands-as-model-for-public-private-partnerships_o

The land is there, idle commercial properties are there, outdated moderately dense commercial is there. Those are are master PLANNED communities, and as such, they PLAN for things like transportation and school capacity and affordability, unlike this bizarre libertarian fantasy dreamed up by the planning department.

Rockville used to be the boonies and only farms and SFH. Things change. Increased density means that the city is thriving. Go visit Cumberland some time and see what a declining town looks like. Is that what you want for Rockville?

Rockville has its own planning department and planned that development instead of just giving up on doing its job.

That also means that it’s exempt from this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

Then why on earth would they have purchased a house there and not, you know, somewhere representative of where they wanted to live? They really aren’t very good at making decisions, are they?

It seems that YOU and the county are the ones very much generalizing about what people want. YOU and the county are suggesting changes to an existing system, so it’s up for YOU and the county to provide an argument as to why this is needed and what metrics will be applied to define success.

You are right, though, the county should perform a valid poll to gather feedback. Perhaps the ultimate poll, a vote on the issue.

When I bought I fully expected and understood that growth happens. I grew up here in the 80’s so I guess I had the experience to educate me about the real world. I bought a SFH home here and I welcome the increased density. I would rather keep our parks and forests and have development be focused on existing areas. I hate sprawl. I support the MoCo council and increased density.

Again, you are making it out to be some binary choice, and that’s completely false. The way that the county is going about this is, quite literally, the worst way they could have done it. You are allowed to support whatever you want, but you’ll find that you are in the deep minority, and it’s the silliest way to accomplish the goals that you state. It’s the least efficient and most controversial, which really can only mean that it’s not about housing at all, it’s an idealogical argument about exclusive zoning.

This is the real way:

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/design-development/mfe-awards/maryland-development-stands-as-model-for-public-private-partnerships_o

The land is there, idle commercial properties are there, outdated moderately dense commercial is there. Those are are master PLANNED communities, and as such, they PLAN for things like transportation and school capacity and affordability, unlike this bizarre libertarian fantasy dreamed up by the planning department.

I think you're the one saying there's only one way to do it.

What the county is saying, in contrast, is that there are many ways to do it.

What I am saying is, upzoning is a dumb way to accomplish the goals, and that they should not waste time and taxpayer money on tasks that do not accomplish their goals, unless the goals are not what has been stated. If that’s the case, then they should be more transparent.

Oh because this while time I thought you just had some sort of irrational fear of middle class people or multifamily. In reality you are just sooo concerned about the best way to “accomplish the goals” without wasting time. For some reason I doubt that you have ever advocated for those “better ideas” with as much fervor as we see here.

So you’ve given up on presenting any ideas? That was quick, though I’m not surprised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

70% of my neighborhood are homeowners. Confident that many of us if not all are attracted by the suburban feel and small scale of this neighborhood. We chose to live in the suburbs not high density.

To the poster above, yes, this will effectively eradicate single family homes when developers can scoop up the relatively cheap homes, bulldoze them, build multiplexes, and then sell each for more than one home cost. That’s what we see elsewhere in the county.

It will drive up value of property at the lowest end of the price spectrum as developers seek those out and drag down property values for people that have already invested significant funds into their homes, because they aren’t attractive to developers, and by god, who wants to invest in a nice SFH next to a multiplex?

Traffic will get worse, the schools will get worse, the quality of life will be worse. As an added bonus, if you live within x feet of one of the new bus stops in the corridor, you won’t have to include off street parking anymore when building units.

Won’t that be something?

All this for what, some neo urban aesthetic? So some handful of randos can walk to a pretend independent coffee shop?

Doesn’t Georgetown in DC have multi units next door to million dollar SFH? Why is Georgetown not experiencing the hellscape that you predict?

Georgetown doesn't have either schools or SFHs

Which Georgetown are you talking about? PP was asking about the Georgetown in DC, which has both schools and SFHs.

Name those schools. They are all one neighborhood over.

As for SFH. Usually that refers to houses that are detached. The homes in Georgetown are row houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

Then why on earth would they have purchased a house there and not, you know, somewhere representative of where they wanted to live? They really aren’t very good at making decisions, are they?

It seems that YOU and the county are the ones very much generalizing about what people want. YOU and the county are suggesting changes to an existing system, so it’s up for YOU and the county to provide an argument as to why this is needed and what metrics will be applied to define success.

You are right, though, the county should perform a valid poll to gather feedback. Perhaps the ultimate poll, a vote on the issue.

When I bought I fully expected and understood that growth happens. I grew up here in the 80’s so I guess I had the experience to educate me about the real world. I bought a SFH home here and I welcome the increased density. I would rather keep our parks and forests and have development be focused on existing areas. I hate sprawl. I support the MoCo council and increased density.

Again, you are making it out to be some binary choice, and that’s completely false. The way that the county is going about this is, quite literally, the worst way they could have done it. You are allowed to support whatever you want, but you’ll find that you are in the deep minority, and it’s the silliest way to accomplish the goals that you state. It’s the least efficient and most controversial, which really can only mean that it’s not about housing at all, it’s an idealogical argument about exclusive zoning.

This is the real way:

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/design-development/mfe-awards/maryland-development-stands-as-model-for-public-private-partnerships_o

The land is there, idle commercial properties are there, outdated moderately dense commercial is there. Those are are master PLANNED communities, and as such, they PLAN for things like transportation and school capacity and affordability, unlike this bizarre libertarian fantasy dreamed up by the planning department.

I think you're the one saying there's only one way to do it.

What the county is saying, in contrast, is that there are many ways to do it.

What I am saying is, upzoning is a dumb way to accomplish the goals, and that they should not waste time and taxpayer money on tasks that do not accomplish their goals, unless the goals are not what has been stated. If that’s the case, then they should be more transparent.

Oh because this while time I thought you just had some sort of irrational fear of middle class people or multifamily. In reality you are just sooo concerned about the best way to “accomplish the goals” without wasting time. For some reason I doubt that you have ever advocated for those “better ideas” with as much fervor as we see here.

Does it somehow offend you that I’ve bothered to educate myself?

Is this offensive to you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

Then why on earth would they have purchased a house there and not, you know, somewhere representative of where they wanted to live? They really aren’t very good at making decisions, are they?

It seems that YOU and the county are the ones very much generalizing about what people want. YOU and the county are suggesting changes to an existing system, so it’s up for YOU and the county to provide an argument as to why this is needed and what metrics will be applied to define success.

You are right, though, the county should perform a valid poll to gather feedback. Perhaps the ultimate poll, a vote on the issue.

When I bought I fully expected and understood that growth happens. I grew up here in the 80’s so I guess I had the experience to educate me about the real world. I bought a SFH home here and I welcome the increased density. I would rather keep our parks and forests and have development be focused on existing areas. I hate sprawl. I support the MoCo council and increased density.

Again, you are making it out to be some binary choice, and that’s completely false. The way that the county is going about this is, quite literally, the worst way they could have done it. You are allowed to support whatever you want, but you’ll find that you are in the deep minority, and it’s the silliest way to accomplish the goals that you state. It’s the least efficient and most controversial, which really can only mean that it’s not about housing at all, it’s an idealogical argument about exclusive zoning.

This is the real way:

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/design-development/mfe-awards/maryland-development-stands-as-model-for-public-private-partnerships_o

The land is there, idle commercial properties are there, outdated moderately dense commercial is there. Those are are master PLANNED communities, and as such, they PLAN for things like transportation and school capacity and affordability, unlike this bizarre libertarian fantasy dreamed up by the planning department.

Rockville used to be the boonies and only farms and SFH. Things change. Increased density means that the city is thriving. Go visit Cumberland some time and see what a declining town looks like. Is that what you want for Rockville?

Rockville has its own planning department and planned that development instead of just giving up on doing its job.

That also means that it’s exempt from this.

Rockville upzoned. If Rockville hadn't upzoned, it would all still be farms, plus some stores. All those houses in Rockville were built by developers after Rockville upzoned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

70% of my neighborhood are homeowners. Confident that many of us if not all are attracted by the suburban feel and small scale of this neighborhood. We chose to live in the suburbs not high density.

To the poster above, yes, this will effectively eradicate single family homes when developers can scoop up the relatively cheap homes, bulldoze them, build multiplexes, and then sell each for more than one home cost. That’s what we see elsewhere in the county.

It will drive up value of property at the lowest end of the price spectrum as developers seek those out and drag down property values for people that have already invested significant funds into their homes, because they aren’t attractive to developers, and by god, who wants to invest in a nice SFH next to a multiplex?

Traffic will get worse, the schools will get worse, the quality of life will be worse. As an added bonus, if you live within x feet of one of the new bus stops in the corridor, you won’t have to include off street parking anymore when building units.

Won’t that be something?

All this for what, some neo urban aesthetic? So some handful of randos can walk to a pretend independent coffee shop?

Doesn’t Georgetown in DC have multi units next door to million dollar SFH? Why is Georgetown not experiencing the hellscape that you predict?

Georgetown doesn't have either schools or SFHs

Which Georgetown are you talking about? PP was asking about the Georgetown in DC, which has both schools and SFHs.

Name those schools. They are all one neighborhood over.

As for SFH. Usually that refers to houses that are detached. The homes in Georgetown are row houses.

Does it? Maybe we should stop using the term "sfh" since there is no agreement about what it means.

Also there are detached houses in Georgetown, though not many.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

Then why on earth would they have purchased a house there and not, you know, somewhere representative of where they wanted to live? They really aren’t very good at making decisions, are they?

It seems that YOU and the county are the ones very much generalizing about what people want. YOU and the county are suggesting changes to an existing system, so it’s up for YOU and the county to provide an argument as to why this is needed and what metrics will be applied to define success.

You are right, though, the county should perform a valid poll to gather feedback. Perhaps the ultimate poll, a vote on the issue.

When I bought I fully expected and understood that growth happens. I grew up here in the 80’s so I guess I had the experience to educate me about the real world. I bought a SFH home here and I welcome the increased density. I would rather keep our parks and forests and have development be focused on existing areas. I hate sprawl. I support the MoCo council and increased density.

Again, you are making it out to be some binary choice, and that’s completely false. The way that the county is going about this is, quite literally, the worst way they could have done it. You are allowed to support whatever you want, but you’ll find that you are in the deep minority, and it’s the silliest way to accomplish the goals that you state. It’s the least efficient and most controversial, which really can only mean that it’s not about housing at all, it’s an idealogical argument about exclusive zoning.

This is the real way:

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/design-development/mfe-awards/maryland-development-stands-as-model-for-public-private-partnerships_o

The land is there, idle commercial properties are there, outdated moderately dense commercial is there. Those are are master PLANNED communities, and as such, they PLAN for things like transportation and school capacity and affordability, unlike this bizarre libertarian fantasy dreamed up by the planning department.

Rockville used to be the boonies and only farms and SFH. Things change. Increased density means that the city is thriving. Go visit Cumberland some time and see what a declining town looks like. Is that what you want for Rockville?

Rockville has its own planning department and planned that development instead of just giving up on doing its job.

That also means that it’s exempt from this.

Rockville upzoned. If Rockville hadn't upzoned, it would all still be farms, plus some stores. All those houses in Rockville were built by developers after Rockville upzoned.

Just a couple of pages and we are down to semantic nitpicking?

They changed zoning. They are not going to allow multifamily in areas that are currently SFH zoned. If they do, it won’t be under cover of this AHS/transit corridor debacle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

70% of my neighborhood are homeowners. Confident that many of us if not all are attracted by the suburban feel and small scale of this neighborhood. We chose to live in the suburbs not high density.

To the poster above, yes, this will effectively eradicate single family homes when developers can scoop up the relatively cheap homes, bulldoze them, build multiplexes, and then sell each for more than one home cost. That’s what we see elsewhere in the county.

It will drive up value of property at the lowest end of the price spectrum as developers seek those out and drag down property values for people that have already invested significant funds into their homes, because they aren’t attractive to developers, and by god, who wants to invest in a nice SFH next to a multiplex?

Traffic will get worse, the schools will get worse, the quality of life will be worse. As an added bonus, if you live within x feet of one of the new bus stops in the corridor, you won’t have to include off street parking anymore when building units.

Won’t that be something?

All this for what, some neo urban aesthetic? So some handful of randos can walk to a pretend independent coffee shop?

Doesn’t Georgetown in DC have multi units next door to million dollar SFH? Why is Georgetown not experiencing the hellscape that you predict?

Georgetown doesn't have either schools or SFHs

Which Georgetown are you talking about? PP was asking about the Georgetown in DC, which has both schools and SFHs.

Name those schools. They are all one neighborhood over.

As for SFH. Usually that refers to houses that are detached. The homes in Georgetown are row houses.

Does it? Maybe we should stop using the term "sfh" since there is no agreement about what it means.

Also there are detached houses in Georgetown, though not many.

Great, they are all single family homes. No changes needed in zoning.

[Anonymous]

GOOD planning:

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/10/new-affordable-housing-development-in-north-bethesda-stands-on-site-of-former-metro-parking-lot/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2zStWPzT48GNCXmJ5YI-Z5Wku5bagqSBv4HotCFnSjgwAQSXcbHc8MfSI_aem_ReEvwQhvryoCD-bXjoFBXA

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody is going to eradicate your house, while you own it.

Also, I don't think you should generalize about the reasons why homeowners of detached houses in the University Boulevard corridor bought there. Maybe YOU bought there because you want a suburban neighborhood, but that doesn't mean everyone did. In addition, small multi-unit buildings exist in suburbs and are fully compatible with suburbs.

Then why on earth would they have purchased a house there and not, you know, somewhere representative of where they wanted to live? They really aren’t very good at making decisions, are they?

It seems that YOU and the county are the ones very much generalizing about what people want. YOU and the county are suggesting changes to an existing system, so it’s up for YOU and the county to provide an argument as to why this is needed and what metrics will be applied to define success.

You are right, though, the county should perform a valid poll to gather feedback. Perhaps the ultimate poll, a vote on the issue.

When I bought I fully expected and understood that growth happens. I grew up here in the 80’s so I guess I had the experience to educate me about the real world. I bought a SFH home here and I welcome the increased density. I would rather keep our parks and forests and have development be focused on existing areas. I hate sprawl. I support the MoCo council and increased density.

Again, you are making it out to be some binary choice, and that’s completely false. The way that the county is going about this is, quite literally, the worst way they could have done it. You are allowed to support whatever you want, but you’ll find that you are in the deep minority, and it’s the silliest way to accomplish the goals that you state. It’s the least efficient and most controversial, which really can only mean that it’s not about housing at all, it’s an idealogical argument about exclusive zoning.

This is the real way:

https://www.multifamilyexecutive.com/design-development/mfe-awards/maryland-development-stands-as-model-for-public-private-partnerships_o

The land is there, idle commercial properties are there, outdated moderately dense commercial is there. Those are are master PLANNED communities, and as such, they PLAN for things like transportation and school capacity and affordability, unlike this bizarre libertarian fantasy dreamed up by the planning department.

I think you're the one saying there's only one way to do it.

What the county is saying, in contrast, is that there are many ways to do it.

What I am saying is, upzoning is a dumb way to accomplish the goals, and that they should not waste time and taxpayer money on tasks that do not accomplish their goals, unless the goals are not what has been stated. If that’s the case, then they should be more transparent.

Oh because this while time I thought you just had some sort of irrational fear of middle class people or multifamily. In reality you are just sooo concerned about the best way to “accomplish the goals” without wasting time. For some reason I doubt that you have ever advocated for those “better ideas” with as much fervor as we see here.

I’m the OP. I am middle class. Most of us in this area of University are. In fact the median income here is below the county median and yet the area is comprised of 70% homeowners. I’m so tired of concerns about rezoning being dismissed as people who are afraid of diversity and middle class / working class people. Have you been to Sligo Woods? We are all of that.

Change is one thing. Building ad hoc multiplexes next to our tiny homes and along our small streets is another. As a homeowner you buy into a community with the expectations that the county won’t undercut your quality of life to benefit developers. Because this is all about developers. Homeowners in my area that I speak to are horrified.