Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation

[Anonymous]

Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.

This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

Cool, my SFH neighborhood is more important to me than a hybrid car or whatever environmental benefits come from building multi-family property. Many people in these targeted areas will say the same thing when push comes to shove. Close in moco doesn't need MORE density. The only people thinking so are the ones who can't afford to live there.

You are allowed to have whatever personal preference you want to have. Nobody is stopping you. "I want what I want because I want it" is not a good basis for public policy, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wouldn't adding more people naturally increase the amount of taxes collected?

Yes, taxes collected will go up, but it’s very possible that expenses for new residents will exceed tax revenue. Unfortunately, most places do not do comprehensive fiscal analysis of projected tax revenue and expenses from zoning changes before making decisions. Residential development is usually tax negative because it increases public school enrollment.

And MoCo's unfriendly policies towards business and umc taxpayers worsens the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

https://www.bea.gov/data/income-saving/personal-income-county-metro-and-other-areas

MoCo should be embarrassed. MoCo trails DC, Fairfax/Fairfax City/Falls Church, Alexandria, and Arlington in average income. And, except for DC, they have seen greater increases in the last several years. MoCo is even losing out to nearby counties in Maryland. Why relevant? Because higher income residents pay the bills through taxes. Fewer taxpaying residents, fewer taxes, fewer social services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

https://www.bea.gov/data/income-saving/personal-income-county-metro-and-other-areas

MoCo should be embarrassed. MoCo trails DC, Fairfax/Fairfax City/Falls Church, Alexandria, and Arlington in average income. And, except for DC, they have seen greater increases in the last several years. MoCo is even losing out to nearby counties in Maryland. Why relevant? Because higher income residents pay the bills through taxes. Fewer taxpaying residents, fewer taxes, fewer social services.

1. The data shows that MoCo per capita income has gone up every year for the last four years.
2. Even if the per captia income went down, that would not mean there are "fewer taxpaying residents." Nor would it mean that there is overall less tax revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

A duplex or a multiplex? How tall? Depending on what is built, it gets scarier. A duplex, I live in one, is essentially a house split in two. It has the look of a house, the feel of a house, and ample room for the people within proportional to space occupied. We live in a charming street of duplexes in DC, with sfhs across the street. All built in the same era, all aesthetically compatible. A taller multiplex would look horrible on our street, and add significant traffic etc. I realize this conversations is about MoCo. Am following as we are considering a move. The Sfh new builds/flips I've seen in MoCo are similar to AU Park--a few are nice, most are outsized on small lots. I sure wouldn't trust the Pandora's box if multiplexes were allowed.

It is your choice to move away if your cookie-cutter neighborhood of uniplexes and duplexes gets a triplex or fourplex that you consider uncharming or aesthetically incompatible or scary or having insufficient room for its residents.

It wouldn't be ONE triplex or fourplex though, would it? Once you change the zoning?

There is absolutely nothing cookie cutter about my neighborhood compared to new builds, btw.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

A duplex or a multiplex? How tall? Depending on what is built, it gets scarier. A duplex, I live in one, is essentially a house split in two. It has the look of a house, the feel of a house, and ample room for the people within proportional to space occupied. We live in a charming street of duplexes in DC, with sfhs across the street. All built in the same era, all aesthetically compatible. A taller multiplex would look horrible on our street, and add significant traffic etc. I realize this conversations is about MoCo. Am following as we are considering a move. The Sfh new builds/flips I've seen in MoCo are similar to AU Park--a few are nice, most are outsized on small lots. I sure wouldn't trust the Pandora's box if multiplexes were allowed.

It is your choice to move away if your cookie-cutter neighborhood of uniplexes and duplexes gets a triplex or fourplex that you consider uncharming or aesthetically incompatible or scary or having insufficient room for its residents.

It wouldn't be ONE triplex or fourplex though, would it? Once you change the zoning?

There is absolutely nothing cookie cutter about my neighborhood compared to new builds, btw.

It depends on the size of your neighborhood, doesn't it? But you can always decide how many triplexes or fourplexes is too many for you to be able to want to live in a neighborhood with.

"All built in the same era, all aesthetically compatible" sounds like cookie-cutter to me. Just old cookie-cutter vs. new cookie-cutter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.

This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.

Oh noooo….we've been called NIMBY Karens! It’s like kryptonite to our powers of logic and planning!

Must…build…bike lane…in…my…yard.

Ahhhhhhrgggfhh….

Good luck.

[Anonymous]

It would be sensible to at least conduct a comprehensive traffic impact study and analysis of estimated school enrollment growth before making this decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

Cool, let’s vote on it.

"Let's vote on" what? We voted in 2022. We will vote again in 2026.

The proposed change in zoning. Either stop pretending that you are daft or just recuse yourself if you actually are that daft. The YIMBYs try to dismiss opposition by implying that it’s a few NIMBY homeowners hold up “progress,” when that just not true. It’s a lot of homeowners, and they aren’t all rich.

Some people are just plain concerned about gentrification and traffic and schools. So, let’s vote on it. Even some polling would work…of course, whenever they do that the YIMBYs whine about the methodology because they inevitably lose.

Yes, we voted for these people without really knowing that their plans were. As usual with the sleazy YIMBYs pushed Thrive through based on disinformation and, unfortunately, the average voter didn’t really grasp it.

That’s why the issue is important to publicize now. I don’t think that it could happen that fast, but just to be safe we need to make sure that voters in MoCo are aware of these proposed changes now so that we can make sure that none are approved before we get a chance to vote again and before legal actions can be conceptualized. A few homeowners have, at least temporarily, put a stop to it in northern Virginia. If we get the resources together in MoCo, the impact can be much bigger.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

Cool, let’s vote on it.

"Let's vote on" what? We voted in 2022. We will vote again in 2026.

The proposed change in zoning. Either stop pretending that you are daft or just recuse yourself if you actually are that daft. The YIMBYs try to dismiss opposition by implying that it’s a few NIMBY homeowners hold up “progress,” when that just not true. It’s a lot of homeowners, and they aren’t all rich.

Some people are just plain concerned about gentrification and traffic and schools. So, let’s vote on it. Even some polling would work…of course, whenever they do that the YIMBYs whine about the methodology because they inevitably lose.

Yes, we voted for these people without really knowing that their plans were. As usual with the sleazy YIMBYs pushed Thrive through based on disinformation and, unfortunately, the average voter didn’t really grasp it.

That’s why the issue is important to publicize now. I don’t think that it could happen that fast, but just to be safe we need to make sure that voters in MoCo are aware of these proposed changes now so that we can make sure that none are approved before we get a chance to vote again and before legal actions can be conceptualized. A few homeowners have, at least temporarily, put a stop to it in northern Virginia. If we get the resources together in MoCo, the impact can be much bigger.

Montgomery County should do zoning changes BY REFERENDUM?

If that's what you want, shouldn't you get off DCUM and start finding out about the process for getting this on the ballot?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.

This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.

Oh noooo….we've been called NIMBY Karens! It’s like kryptonite to our powers of logic and planning!

Must…build…bike lane…in…my…yard.

Ahhhhhhrgggfhh….

Good luck.

If you want to. I don't know how useful it would be. Bike lanes are useful when they connect. Your bike lane would only connect one side of your yard to the other side of your yard. But it's your property, so you can decide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

A duplex or a multiplex? How tall? Depending on what is built, it gets scarier. A duplex, I live in one, is essentially a house split in two. It has the look of a house, the feel of a house, and ample room for the people within proportional to space occupied. We live in a charming street of duplexes in DC, with sfhs across the street. All built in the same era, all aesthetically compatible. A taller multiplex would look horrible on our street, and add significant traffic etc. I realize this conversations is about MoCo. Am following as we are considering a move. The Sfh new builds/flips I've seen in MoCo are similar to AU Park--a few are nice, most are outsized on small lots. I sure wouldn't trust the Pandora's box if multiplexes were allowed.

It is your choice to move away if your cookie-cutter neighborhood of uniplexes and duplexes gets a triplex or fourplex that you consider uncharming or aesthetically incompatible or scary or having insufficient room for its residents.

It wouldn't be ONE triplex or fourplex though, would it? Once you change the zoning?

There is absolutely nothing cookie cutter about my neighborhood compared to new builds, btw.

It depends on the size of your neighborhood, doesn't it? But you can always decide how many triplexes or fourplexes is too many for you to be able to want to live in a neighborhood with.

"All built in the same era, all aesthetically compatible" sounds like cookie-cutter to me. Just old cookie-cutter vs. new cookie-cutter.

Or one could decide to not allow them at all, and then one would not have to cross the how many is too many bridge... New cookie cutter fourplexes don't play well with old cookie cutter SFHs. Decision made!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

A duplex or a multiplex? How tall? Depending on what is built, it gets scarier. A duplex, I live in one, is essentially a house split in two. It has the look of a house, the feel of a house, and ample room for the people within proportional to space occupied. We live in a charming street of duplexes in DC, with sfhs across the street. All built in the same era, all aesthetically compatible. A taller multiplex would look horrible on our street, and add significant traffic etc. I realize this conversations is about MoCo. Am following as we are considering a move. The Sfh new builds/flips I've seen in MoCo are similar to AU Park--a few are nice, most are outsized on small lots. I sure wouldn't trust the Pandora's box if multiplexes were allowed.

It is your choice to move away if your cookie-cutter neighborhood of uniplexes and duplexes gets a triplex or fourplex that you consider uncharming or aesthetically incompatible or scary or having insufficient room for its residents.

DP. Love these one-sided swipes. Flip the coin:

It's another person's choice if no housing more dense than duplexes exists in a particular area to either pay for that housing or choose an area with denser existing development. No need to change zoning, just choose a different location that has the density desired.

There are a lot of denser communities in the region. Are they all scary to those interested in the zoning change?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station.

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings. Condos and apartments can be build there.

Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?

No, it has not. There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail. And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike. SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed. The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings. Incentivize builders to build along the Pike. Second, as for the county's fiscal future, reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them. At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%. Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%. MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer. CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states. Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.

A duplex or a multiplex? How tall? Depending on what is built, it gets scarier. A duplex, I live in one, is essentially a house split in two. It has the look of a house, the feel of a house, and ample room for the people within proportional to space occupied. We live in a charming street of duplexes in DC, with sfhs across the street. All built in the same era, all aesthetically compatible. A taller multiplex would look horrible on our street, and add significant traffic etc. I realize this conversations is about MoCo. Am following as we are considering a move. The Sfh new builds/flips I've seen in MoCo are similar to AU Park--a few are nice, most are outsized on small lots. I sure wouldn't trust the Pandora's box if multiplexes were allowed.

It is your choice to move away if your cookie-cutter neighborhood of uniplexes and duplexes gets a triplex or fourplex that you consider uncharming or aesthetically incompatible or scary or having insufficient room for its residents.

DP. Love these one-sided swipes. Flip the coin:

It's another person's choice if no housing more dense than duplexes exists in a particular area to either pay for that housing or choose an area with denser existing development. No need to change zoning, just choose a different location that has the density desired.

There are a lot of denser communities in the region. Are they all scary to those interested in the zoning change?

On one side of that coin: a person deciding that certain types of housing should be forbidden in a neighborhood they live in
On the other side of that coin: people deciding that "I don't want that type of housing in the neighborhood I live in" is not a sound basis for good housing policy