MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

Because you don't want to live next to a property where the owner might build an apartment building? I mean, I wouldn't move, under those circumstances, but it's up to you. I also don't understand how a duplex or small apartment building would undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class/working class neighborhoods. Would the neighborhood no longer be a neighborhood? Or no longer be a middle class/working class neighborhood? Or? What does "the integrity of middle class/working class neighborhoods" mean?

It means safe and quiet and clean. Multifamily housing by definition destroys this. Crime will go up, trash will accumulate and nuisance noises will increase exponentially.

The truth is hard to swallow. Density increases noise and it increases litter. Density increases the probability that you will encounter someone that victimizes you in a crime.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

Because you don't want to live next to a property where the owner might build an apartment building? I mean, I wouldn't move, under those circumstances, but it's up to you. I also don't understand how a duplex or small apartment building would undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class/working class neighborhoods. Would the neighborhood no longer be a neighborhood? Or no longer be a middle class/working class neighborhood? Or? What does "the integrity of middle class/working class neighborhoods" mean?

It means safe and quiet and clean. Multifamily housing by definition destroys this. Crime will go up, trash will accumulate and nuisance noises will increase exponentially.

The truth is hard to swallow. Density increases noise and it increases litter. Density increases the probability that you will encounter someone that victimizes you in a crime.

I'm sincerely sorry that you're so afraid of people.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

Because you don't want to live next to a property where the owner might build an apartment building? I mean, I wouldn't move, under those circumstances, but it's up to you. I also don't understand how a duplex or small apartment building would undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class/working class neighborhoods. Would the neighborhood no longer be a neighborhood? Or no longer be a middle class/working class neighborhood? Or? What does "the integrity of middle class/working class neighborhoods" mean?

It means safe and quiet and clean. Multifamily housing by definition destroys this. Crime will go up, trash will accumulate and nuisance noises will increase exponentially.

Poe's Law strikes again!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

[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:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

Because you don't want to live next to a property where the owner might build an apartment building? I mean, I wouldn't move, under those circumstances, but it's up to you. I also don't understand how a duplex or small apartment building would undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class/working class neighborhoods. Would the neighborhood no longer be a neighborhood? Or no longer be a middle class/working class neighborhood? Or? What does "the integrity of middle class/working class neighborhoods" mean?

Because, renters overwhelmingly don't give a sh!t about the properties they live in. Landlords of these multiplex units will spend the least amount of money possible to take care of the lawns and for building maintenance since they will be entirely motivated to have as large a profit margin as possible. Just wait until you see how many cars one of these units will bring to a single block. Now you'll have 25 cars constantly parked on the street 24/7 365. There will be people who won't move their cars for weeks/months. They will also generate huge amounts of trash, much moreso than a SFH. Wait until they attract ll sorts of pests. Also, hardly anyone ever talks to transient renters. They ruin neighborhoods because they come and go as rents rise or they lease out and want a new spot. You end up not knowing who anyone ever is in a rental unit. It completely kills the entire vibe of a community and knowing your neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

Yep.

That's why the price of SFHs continues to go up in Montgomery County while so many condos/apartments in the county stay empty.

The wealthy keep their large SFHs and the middle class erodes. That is exactly what is going to happen here.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

Because you don't want to live next to a property where the owner might build an apartment building? I mean, I wouldn't move, under those circumstances, but it's up to you. I also don't understand how a duplex or small apartment building would undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class/working class neighborhoods. Would the neighborhood no longer be a neighborhood? Or no longer be a middle class/working class neighborhood? Or? What does "the integrity of middle class/working class neighborhoods" mean?

Because, renters overwhelmingly don't give a sh!t about the properties they live in. Landlords of these multiplex units will spend the least amount of money possible to take care of the lawns and for building maintenance since they will be entirely motivated to have as large a profit margin as possible. Just wait until you see how many cars one of these units will bring to a single block. Now you'll have 25 cars constantly parked on the street 24/7 365. There will be people who won't move their cars for weeks/months. They will also generate huge amounts of trash, much moreso than a SFH. Wait until they attract ll sorts of pests. Also, hardly anyone ever talks to transient renters. They ruin neighborhoods because they come and go as rents rise or they lease out and want a new spot. You end up not knowing who anyone ever is in a rental unit. It completely kills the entire vibe of a community and knowing your neighbors.

This has happened in our MoCo neighborhood as a result of multiple illegal boarding house type rentals. The landlord certainly doesn't care and there is trash everywhere. There is supposed to be a 5 bag limit to trash (?) in MoCo, I think? There is way more than that being put out weekly because there are at least 10 people living in some of these houses.

It's not just the cars, it's these huge work vans. Multiple ones parked all along our street because there is no way they can fit them in front of the one SFH. It makes it hard for the trash truck and the school buses to go down the street.

The landlord simply wants to rent rooms to as many people as possible. We know him and he actually lives in another part of the county and doesn't care at all what happens to our neighborhood. Just trying to maximize profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Look what has happened at Rockville Town Center. Sometimes it works out better for these companies to just keep the housing/commercial units empty and take tax write-offs. They make it work. And some of them are from overseas and certainly don't care about US neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You guys are missing what brought us to live out here in the first place.
I love our expansive, multi acre lot. I love living among other people who value this, surrounded by families and people who value space, privacy, serenity, beautiful construction, everybody in our neighborhood takes impeccable care of their homes and their lots, and there is true safety and prosperity in our corner of Potomac.

I don’t want it ruined, simply so you guys can give a kick back to developers in an effort to alleviate the overcrowding in Silver Spring. It’s a hot mess and it won’t fix anything.

They want to urbanize Montgomery County so it is just like DC and Baltimore. Just one urban corridor all the way up from one city to another, I guess?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

Many Germans don't own because they have been turned into a nation of renters. Despite all the rainbows progressives thinks Germans piss, they have a huge housing crisis because they own nothing and rent everything.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-housing-is-almost-unaffordable/a-66432276

https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/housing-crisis-german-rents-see-record-increase-first-months-2023


This is exactly what the elites in the USA want. They want to smash and grab as much property and real estate out of the hands of the middle class so they can turn us all into a nation of renters for life like Germany. Democrats think they are doing good work by upzoning, because it will bring 'affordable housing'. Ha! All of it will be owned by investors and Blackrock. Once they've turned the entire country into permanent renters for life, they will have wiped out the last remaining leg for the middle class to build any wealth. They will be able to raise rents whenever they want, and by whatever they want. You will have no say because you don't own and can't own anymore.

What progressives always overlook is how ownership of SFH enables affordable housing for millions of middle class Americans because they're able to lock in stable housing payments for thirty years. Meanwhile, all the SFH they're tearing down and turning into rental units just end up having unstable rent increases. Just look at Germany.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

Many Germans don't own because they have been turned into a nation of renters. Despite all the rainbows progressives thinks Germans piss, they have a huge housing crisis because they own nothing and rent everything.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-housing-is-almost-unaffordable/a-66432276

https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/housing-crisis-german-rents-see-record-increase-first-months-2023


This is exactly what the elites in the USA want. They want to smash and grab as much property and real estate out of the hands of the middle class so they can turn us all into a nation of renters for life like Germany. Democrats think they are doing good work by upzoning, because it will bring 'affordable housing'. Ha! All of it will be owned by investors and Blackrock. Once they've turned the entire country into permanent renters for life, they will have wiped out the last remaining leg for the middle class to build any wealth. They will be able to raise rents whenever they want, and by whatever they want. You will have no say because you don't own and can't own anymore.

What progressives always overlook is how ownership of SFH enables affordable housing for millions of middle class Americans because they're able to lock in stable housing payments for thirty years. Meanwhile, all the SFH they're tearing down and turning into rental units just end up having unstable rent increases. Just look at Germany.

MoCo has rent stabilization already. What you depict could not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

Many Germans don't own because they have been turned into a nation of renters. Despite all the rainbows progressives thinks Germans piss, they have a huge housing crisis because they own nothing and rent everything.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-housing-is-almost-unaffordable/a-66432276

https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/housing-crisis-german-rents-see-record-increase-first-months-2023


This is exactly what the elites in the USA want. They want to smash and grab as much property and real estate out of the hands of the middle class so they can turn us all into a nation of renters for life like Germany. Democrats think they are doing good work by upzoning, because it will bring 'affordable housing'. Ha! All of it will be owned by investors and Blackrock. Once they've turned the entire country into permanent renters for life, they will have wiped out the last remaining leg for the middle class to build any wealth. They will be able to raise rents whenever they want, and by whatever they want. You will have no say because you don't own and can't own anymore.

What progressives always overlook is how ownership of SFH enables affordable housing for millions of middle class Americans because they're able to lock in stable housing payments for thirty years. Meanwhile, all the SFH they're tearing down and turning into rental units just end up having unstable rent increases. Just look at Germany.

MoCo has rent stabilization already. What you depict could not happen.

Understanding that rent stabilization might prevent arbitrary increases regarding existing rental stock, does it apply to asking rents for new builds, as would be the case in the attainable housing plan?

[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:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

Many Germans don't own because they have been turned into a nation of renters. Despite all the rainbows progressives thinks Germans piss, they have a huge housing crisis because they own nothing and rent everything.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-housing-is-almost-unaffordable/a-66432276

https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/housing-crisis-german-rents-see-record-increase-first-months-2023


This is exactly what the elites in the USA want. They want to smash and grab as much property and real estate out of the hands of the middle class so they can turn us all into a nation of renters for life like Germany. Democrats think they are doing good work by upzoning, because it will bring 'affordable housing'. Ha! All of it will be owned by investors and Blackrock. Once they've turned the entire country into permanent renters for life, they will have wiped out the last remaining leg for the middle class to build any wealth. They will be able to raise rents whenever they want, and by whatever they want. You will have no say because you don't own and can't own anymore.

What progressives always overlook is how ownership of SFH enables affordable housing for millions of middle class Americans because they're able to lock in stable housing payments for thirty years. Meanwhile, all the SFH they're tearing down and turning into rental units just end up having unstable rent increases. Just look at Germany.

MoCo has rent stabilization already. What you depict could not happen.

Understanding that rent stabilization might prevent arbitrary increases regarding existing rental stock, does it apply to asking rents for new builds, as would be the case in the attainable housing plan?

PP here. Great question. The law is not applicable to buildings to buildings unless/until they are 21 years old. I was mistaken.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

Many Germans don't own because they have been turned into a nation of renters. Despite all the rainbows progressives thinks Germans piss, they have a huge housing crisis because they own nothing and rent everything.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-housing-is-almost-unaffordable/a-66432276

https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/housing-crisis-german-rents-see-record-increase-first-months-2023


This is exactly what the elites in the USA want. They want to smash and grab as much property and real estate out of the hands of the middle class so they can turn us all into a nation of renters for life like Germany. Democrats think they are doing good work by upzoning, because it will bring 'affordable housing'. Ha! All of it will be owned by investors and Blackrock. Once they've turned the entire country into permanent renters for life, they will have wiped out the last remaining leg for the middle class to build any wealth. They will be able to raise rents whenever they want, and by whatever they want. You will have no say because you don't own and can't own anymore.

What progressives always overlook is how ownership of SFH enables affordable housing for millions of middle class Americans because they're able to lock in stable housing payments for thirty years. Meanwhile, all the SFH they're tearing down and turning into rental units just end up having unstable rent increases. Just look at Germany.

MoCo has rent stabilization already. What you depict could not happen.

Understanding that rent stabilization might prevent arbitrary increases regarding existing rental stock, does it apply to asking rents for new builds, as would be the case in the attainable housing plan?

PP here. Great question. The law is not applicable to buildings to buildings unless/until they are 21 years old. I was mistaken.

Thanks for the research/reply, and no need to apologize. I think it's an important consideration in the overall housing picture.