Wes Moore Wants to Destroy Your Neighborhood

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

-Eliminate single family zoning: All this means is that they will allow townhomes where there is single family zoning.

-Enforce a minimum zoned density of 8units/acre - this is only for townhomes with public water and this is a common industry standard.

-Eliminate lot coverage limits: This just means houses will be closer together like in the Kentlands in Maryland, essentially no yard. It makes houses more affordable.

-Make lot setbacks 5ft side/10ft front - IDK if I care about this or not, why do you?

-Eliminate height restrictions: This at 1st glance might make you think they can build bigger structure but it is so they can build smaller more affordable homes.

My response:
Eliminate SF zoning: A wall of 50 foot tall townhomes would block the sunlight to my yard and home
8 unit/acre density: my neighborhood was designed planned for 1 unit/acre density, roads cannot handle 6-8x traffic and there is no ROW to make roads with 8x density.
Lot coverage limits: This will increase run-off/impervious surfacwes. It will create a higher risk of flooding and water damage for homes in my neighborhood. I have already experienced an increase in flooding from my neighbors home addition, eliminating lot coverage requirements will make this much worse.
Reducing setbacks: Increases the risk of fires spreading from home to home and it will raise home insurance rates. Home insurance companies use the distance from neighboring buildings in their risk models because it increased the risk of wind damage, fire damage, etc.
Setbacks of 5-10ft can also create significant noise pollution issues, when homes have AC units right next to your property line.
Eliminating height limits: people are going to build whatever they are allowed to build a that is economically feasible to build. Yes people will absolutely build 45-50 foot homes on postage stamps lots. This will turn my house into a basement, kill my garden and make it feel like I live in a fishbowl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I live in a dense neighborhood already with more huge apartment buildings going up, Wes Moore isn't going to have a chance of destroying my neighborhood, and I couldn't care less about protecting the suburban way of life. If he could help out with properly funding the schools and transit for this influx of kids, that would be cool.

Md has a billion dollar budget shortfall so not happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

-Eliminate single family zoning: All this means is that they will allow townhomes where there is single family zoning.

-Enforce a minimum zoned density of 8units/acre - this is only for townhomes with public water and this is a common industry standard.

-Eliminate lot coverage limits: This just means houses will be closer together like in the Kentlands in Maryland, essentially no yard. It makes houses more affordable.

-Make lot setbacks 5ft side/10ft front - IDK if I care about this or not, why do you?

-Eliminate height restrictions: This at 1st glance might make you think they can build bigger structure but it is so they can build smaller more affordable homes.

I live in Silver Spring in the area that MoCo wants to urbanize. That isn’t all that means. It means someone can put a 4 unit apartment building right beside your house and build other such monstrosities

[Anonymous]

let me guess, no where in this ridiculous bill is the talk of lower property taxes for anyone

[Anonymous]

Sighhhhhhh

America so desperately thinks they can plan urban design like Japan, but it will be a disaster because America never plans anything right. For starters, the US doesn't have the infrastructure to be designed like Japan. Our public transport sucks ass. Everyone drives everywhere.

All we are going to get are a bunch of neighborhoods that were designed for SFHs now flooded with townhouses, multiplexes and apartments. You are ging to get a million cars parking on the streets, trash problems, and water problems. People are still going to drive everywhere.

[Anonymous]

This is amazing news. Property owners should be free to build as much housing on their property as they want.

If you want to ensure that you only ever live next door to single family homes then you're free to buy that property and keep them as single family homes.

I can't wait for all the NIMBY whiners who gleefully tell hard working middle class people who can't afford a SFH in a decent school district that "nobody's entitled to live in a good neighborhood" to gnash their teeth and rend their garments to realize that they're no longer entitled to prevent progress for their own benefit.

[Anonymous]

Wes Moore is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

I don't think it is a bad idea. Let market forces dictate what gets built where.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it is a bad idea. Let market forces dictate what gets built where.

Because leaving things to market forces has worked out so great everywhere else.

Now the ensh!tification is coming for our neighborhoods as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

-Eliminate single family zoning: All this means is that they will allow townhomes where there is single family zoning.

-Enforce a minimum zoned density of 8units/acre - this is only for townhomes with public water and this is a common industry standard.

-Eliminate lot coverage limits: This just means houses will be closer together like in the Kentlands in Maryland, essentially no yard. It makes houses more affordable.

-Make lot setbacks 5ft side/10ft front - IDK if I care about this or not, why do you?

-Eliminate height restrictions: This at 1st glance might make you think they can build bigger structure but it is so they can build smaller more affordable homes.

My response:
Eliminate SF zoning: A wall of 50 foot tall townhomes would block the sunlight to my yard and home
8 unit/acre density: my neighborhood was designed planned for 1 unit/acre density, roads cannot handle 6-8x traffic and there is no ROW to make roads with 8x density.
Lot coverage limits: This will increase run-off/impervious surfacwes. It will create a higher risk of flooding and water damage for homes in my neighborhood. I have already experienced an increase in flooding from my neighbors home addition, eliminating lot coverage requirements will make this much worse.
Reducing setbacks: Increases the risk of fires spreading from home to home and it will raise home insurance rates. Home insurance companies use the distance from neighboring buildings in their risk models because it increased the risk of wind damage, fire damage, etc.
Setbacks of 5-10ft can also create significant noise pollution issues, when homes have AC units right next to your property line.
Eliminating height limits: people are going to build whatever they are allowed to build a that is economically feasible to build. Yes people will absolutely build 45-50 foot homes on postage stamps lots. This will turn my house into a basement, kill my garden and make it feel like I live in a fishbowl.

The limit is 35 ft high.

It protects people trying to build smaller houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As I live in a dense neighborhood already with more huge apartment buildings going up, Wes Moore isn't going to have a chance of destroying my neighborhood, and I couldn't care less about protecting the suburban way of life. If he could help out with properly funding the schools and transit for this influx of kids, that would be cool.

And send some more damn equipment to scrape off all the freezing rain from people's driveways and get the local jurisdiction to clean and maintain the sidewalks in front of people's homes!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is amazing news. Property owners should be free to build as much housing on their property as they want.

If you want to ensure that you only ever live next door to single family homes then you're free to buy that property and keep them as single family homes.

I can't wait for all the NIMBY whiners who gleefully tell hard working middle class people who can't afford a SFH in a decent school district that "nobody's entitled to live in a good neighborhood" to gnash their teeth and rend their garments to realize that they're no longer entitled to prevent progress for their own benefit.

Which school districts don’t have townhomes?

[Anonymous]

8 unit/acre density: my neighborhood was designed planned for 1 unit/acre density, roads cannot handle 6-8x traffic and there is no ROW to make roads with 8x density.

You realize for traffic to go 6 to 8 times every single unit would have to change to eight times.

With bombastic responses it’s hard to take you seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

8 unit/acre density: my neighborhood was designed planned for 1 unit/acre density, roads cannot handle 6-8x traffic and there is no ROW to make roads with 8x density.

You realize for traffic to go 6 to 8 times every single unit would have to change to eight times.

With bombastic responses it’s hard to take you seriously.

I don't think the initial argument here is wrong. But I would consider the public sewer first. An immediate doubling would overwhelm the current capacity. It's not like bussing where you can more busses and run them more often. Sewage treatment plants take years to build, even if the existing pipes can carry the additional flow. While you could get people to conserve water and electricity, you can't conserve sewage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it is a bad idea. Let market forces dictate what gets built where.

I think it's funny that Republicans don't believe in the free market anymore.