MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

They tried nothing and are all out of ideas, so they gave up. The end.

“Durr…just let everybody build some stuff, I guess”.

Far more likely that they are shoehorning this in because that is the direction they have been given by the politicians on the Council and Planning Board.

Yes, the County Council directed the Planning Board to do this. The County Council is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. The Planning Board is appointed by the County Council, and confirmed by the County Executive (who is elected by the voters of Montgomery County). And the Planning Board is in charge of the Planning Department.

So whatever they want to do is fine as long as they are elected? Repeal of Row v Wade? Jim Crow laws?

I don’t want to hear any whining if the republicans find themselves back in charge after the next election. Pretty sure that you’ll have much bigger problems than fantasy city planning camp.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

They tried nothing and are all out of ideas, so they gave up. The end.

“Durr…just let everybody build some stuff, I guess”.

Far more likely that they are shoehorning this in because that is the direction they have been given by the politicians on the Council and Planning Board.

Yes, the County Council directed the Planning Board to do this. The County Council is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. The Planning Board is appointed by the County Council, and confirmed by the County Executive (who is elected by the voters of Montgomery County). And the Planning Board is in charge of the Planning Department.

Was it the new planning board or the old planning board? Pretty sure that most of these plans stemmed from these upstanding civil servants:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/10/12/montgomery-planning-board-resign-thrive/

The new board just rubber stamped the previous plans. Can’t wait to learn more about the current board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

They tried nothing and are all out of ideas, so they gave up. The end.

“Durr…just let everybody build some stuff, I guess”.

Far more likely that they are shoehorning this in because that is the direction they have been given by the politicians on the Council and Planning Board.

Yes, the County Council directed the Planning Board to do this. The County Council is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. The Planning Board is appointed by the County Council, and confirmed by the County Executive (who is elected by the voters of Montgomery County). And the Planning Board is in charge of the Planning Department.

So whatever they want to do is fine as long as they are elected? Repeal of Row v Wade? Jim Crow laws?

I don’t want to hear any whining if the republicans find themselves back in charge after the next election. Pretty sure that you’ll have much bigger problems than fantasy city planning camp.

I guess this sounded persuasive to you when you were thinking it up? If the Republicans managed to persuade a majority of voters in Montgomery County to vote for them for county executive and county council, I'm sure they would start doing plenty of things I disagreed with. But I wouldn't run around accusing them of ignoring their constituents, i.e., the voters who elected them.

The county council does not have the authority to repeal "Row v Wade".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

They tried nothing and are all out of ideas, so they gave up. The end.

“Durr…just let everybody build some stuff, I guess”.

Far more likely that they are shoehorning this in because that is the direction they have been given by the politicians on the Council and Planning Board.

Yes, the County Council directed the Planning Board to do this. The County Council is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. The Planning Board is appointed by the County Council, and confirmed by the County Executive (who is elected by the voters of Montgomery County). And the Planning Board is in charge of the Planning Department.

Was it the new planning board or the old planning board? Pretty sure that most of these plans stemmed from these upstanding civil servants:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/10/12/montgomery-planning-board-resign-thrive/

The new board just rubber stamped the previous plans. Can’t wait to learn more about the current board.

June 13, 2024 3:53 pm

Planning Board votes 5-0 to recommend allowing more types of homes to be built countywide; sends proposal to the County Council for review and approval

https://montgomeryplanning.org/montgomery-county-planning-board-recommends-changes-to-single-family-zoning-in-montgomery-county/

[Anonymous]

I will be voting republican for all local elections this fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will be voting republican for all local elections this fall.

But since you don't live in Montgomery County, that's not relevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

Where and when have they posited this?

It's in the Attainable Housing report from Planning to the Council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

Minimal impact on schools is an obvious consequence of Planning’s assessment that very few multiplexes will actually get built. As long as they don’t wipe out the potential tax base through impact fee exemptions and property tax abatements, the consequences of Planning being wrong will be minimal for schools because revenue will be available for school construction.

Of greater concern is the fact that Planning has focused its housing efforts on this proposal and that it continued to do so even after its initial analysis found that very few multiplexes would be built. That’s great for NIMBYs but not great for people looking to buy homes because those people need an effective housing strategy, not a set of vanity policies.

They suggest that not too many will get built, but their track record of such forecasts suggests that they are putting that analytic finding out there (not showing the umderlying analysis for that, either) for political support -- creating an impression of minimal impact to reduce opposition.

If they truly thought that and were at all responsible in their recommendations, they would include neighborhood cap guardrails.

Same goes for a moratorium where facilities are or would be inadequate. Saying "revenue will be available for school construction" ignores the facts that 1) the Council routinely has chosen to under-fund the MCPS CIP and 2) the areas most likely impacted if Planning is wrong are already overcrowded and, due to their being nearly built out, without good options for additional school sites.

And while school capacity is among the more important considerations for adequate public facilities, there are significant others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

They tried nothing and are all out of ideas, so they gave up. The end.

“Durr…just let everybody build some stuff, I guess”.

Far more likely that they are shoehorning this in because that is the direction they have been given by the politicians on the Council and Planning Board.

Yes, the County Council directed the Planning Board to do this. The County Council is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. The Planning Board is appointed by the County Council, and confirmed by the County Executive (who is elected by the voters of Montgomery County). And the Planning Board is in charge of the Planning Department.

So whatever they want to do is fine as long as they are elected? Repeal of Row v Wade? Jim Crow laws?

I don’t want to hear any whining if the republicans find themselves back in charge after the next election. Pretty sure that you’ll have much bigger problems than fantasy city planning camp.

I guess this sounded persuasive to you when you were thinking it up? If the Republicans managed to persuade a majority of voters in Montgomery County to vote for them for county executive and county council, I'm sure they would start doing plenty of things I disagreed with. But I wouldn't run around accusing them of ignoring their constituents, i.e., the voters who elected them.

The county council does not have the authority to repeal "Row v Wade".

Sometimes you get a DP posting without making that known, as was the case here. However, there have been plenty of posts on the subject of representative government's responsibilities. I'd bet you knew that they did not mean the Council would repeal Roe, but that they were noting for themselves the notion that an "Elections have consequences" angle is far from the moral high ground -- poor justification for pushing a relatively sweeping partisan policy without ensuring broad support from the electorate on the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

They tried nothing and are all out of ideas, so they gave up. The end.

“Durr…just let everybody build some stuff, I guess”.

Far more likely that they are shoehorning this in because that is the direction they have been given by the politicians on the Council and Planning Board.

Yes, the County Council directed the Planning Board to do this. The County Council is elected by the voters of Montgomery County. The Planning Board is appointed by the County Council, and confirmed by the County Executive (who is elected by the voters of Montgomery County). And the Planning Board is in charge of the Planning Department.

So whatever they want to do is fine as long as they are elected? Repeal of Row v Wade? Jim Crow laws?

I don’t want to hear any whining if the republicans find themselves back in charge after the next election. Pretty sure that you’ll have much bigger problems than fantasy city planning camp.

I guess this sounded persuasive to you when you were thinking it up? If the Republicans managed to persuade a majority of voters in Montgomery County to vote for them for county executive and county council, I'm sure they would start doing plenty of things I disagreed with. But I wouldn't run around accusing them of ignoring their constituents, i.e., the voters who elected them.

The county council does not have the authority to repeal "Row v Wade".

Sometimes you get a DP posting without making that known, as was the case here. However, there have been plenty of posts on the subject of representative government's responsibilities. I'd bet you knew that they did not mean the Council would repeal Roe, but that they were noting for themselves the notion that an "Elections have consequences" angle is far from the moral high ground -- poor justification for pushing a relatively sweeping partisan policy without ensuring broad support from the electorate on the issue.

The electorate elected the County Council and the County Executive in 2022 (and before that, 2018; and after that, 2026). The purpose of the County Council is to enact legislation in Montgomery County. The purpose of the County Executive is to run the Montgomery County government. There's no asterisk anywhere in there to except zoning changes.

Setting that aside, though - what exactly is partisan about the zoning changes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

Where and when have they posited this?

It's in the Attainable Housing report from Planning to the Council.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Is this what you're talking about, on p. 60?

Demands on infrastructure: The Planning Board heard concerns about the increased demands on
existing infrastructure, like schools, roads, and water and sewer. The Planning Board believes the
demands on infrastructure can be addressed through existing policies. The Planning Board also
believes that impacts of schools for the house-scaled products will be de minimis. However, these and
the larger scale products recommended along corridors are all subject to existing impact taxes and
any applicable Utilization Premium Payments to mitigate impacts on crowded schools. Demands on
other infrastructure can be addressed through the 2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy, where
Planning Staff is contemplating a focus on water and sewer.

And you want public review of an analysis of the effect of an additional 1-3 units, scattered here and there, on school capacity? Keeping in mind that 80% of households in Montgomery County don't have any children under age 18? Huh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

Where and when have they posited this?

It's in the Attainable Housing report from Planning to the Council.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Is this what you're talking about, on p. 60?

Demands on infrastructure: The Planning Board heard concerns about the increased demands on
existing infrastructure, like schools, roads, and water and sewer. The Planning Board believes the
demands on infrastructure can be addressed through existing policies. The Planning Board also
believes that impacts of schools for the house-scaled products will be de minimis. However, these and
the larger scale products recommended along corridors are all subject to existing impact taxes and
any applicable Utilization Premium Payments to mitigate impacts on crowded schools. Demands on
other infrastructure can be addressed through the 2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy, where
Planning Staff is contemplating a focus on water and sewer.

And you want public review of an analysis of the effect of an additional 1-3 units, scattered here and there, on school capacity? Keeping in mind that 80% of households in Montgomery County don't have any children under age 18? Huh.

Sure. Why not? And we're talking an additional 18 units for the apartment buildings along the 500-foot-on-either-side corridors (17 if 2 properties are needed, 16 if 3; a couple more, likely, with stacking of the recent state statute), too.

Wouldn't really need that if there were neighborhood caps on construction to ensure these did not get concentrated to particular neighborhoods and area moratoria associated with inadequate public facilities (including school capacity, of course). Oh, and a sunset to keep the policy from being permanently by right until we see how it plays out, given all the uncertainty Planning has/all the concerns voiced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

Where and when have they posited this?

It's in the Attainable Housing report from Planning to the Council.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Is this what you're talking about, on p. 60?

Demands on infrastructure: The Planning Board heard concerns about the increased demands on
existing infrastructure, like schools, roads, and water and sewer. The Planning Board believes the
demands on infrastructure can be addressed through existing policies. The Planning Board also
believes that impacts of schools for the house-scaled products will be de minimis. However, these and
the larger scale products recommended along corridors are all subject to existing impact taxes and
any applicable Utilization Premium Payments to mitigate impacts on crowded schools. Demands on
other infrastructure can be addressed through the 2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy, where
Planning Staff is contemplating a focus on water and sewer.

And you want public review of an analysis of the effect of an additional 1-3 units, scattered here and there, on school capacity? Keeping in mind that 80% of households in Montgomery County don't have any children under age 18? Huh.

Sure. Why not? And we're talking an additional 18 units for the apartment buildings along the 500-foot-on-either-side corridors (17 if 2 properties are needed, 16 if 3; a couple more, likely, with stacking of the recent state statute), too.

Wouldn't really need that if there were neighborhood caps on construction to ensure these did not get concentrated to particular neighborhoods and area moratoria associated with inadequate public facilities (including school capacity, of course). Oh, and a sunset to keep the policy from being permanently by right until we see how it plays out, given all the uncertainty Planning has/all the concerns voiced.

the larger scale products recommended along corridors are all subject to existing impact taxes and
any applicable Utilization Premium Payments to mitigate impacts on crowded schools. Demands on
other infrastructure can be addressed through the 2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy, where
Planning Staff is contemplating a focus on water and sewer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

Where and when have they posited this?

It's in the Attainable Housing report from Planning to the Council.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Is this what you're talking about, on p. 60?

Demands on infrastructure: The Planning Board heard concerns about the increased demands on
existing infrastructure, like schools, roads, and water and sewer. The Planning Board believes the
demands on infrastructure can be addressed through existing policies. The Planning Board also
believes that impacts of schools for the house-scaled products will be de minimis. However, these and
the larger scale products recommended along corridors are all subject to existing impact taxes and
any applicable Utilization Premium Payments to mitigate impacts on crowded schools. Demands on
other infrastructure can be addressed through the 2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy, where
Planning Staff is contemplating a focus on water and sewer.

And you want public review of an analysis of the effect of an additional 1-3 units, scattered here and there, on school capacity? Keeping in mind that 80% of households in Montgomery County don't have any children under age 18? Huh.

Sure. Why not? And we're talking an additional 18 units for the apartment buildings along the 500-foot-on-either-side corridors (17 if 2 properties are needed, 16 if 3; a couple more, likely, with stacking of the recent state statute), too.

Wouldn't really need that if there were neighborhood caps on construction to ensure these did not get concentrated to particular neighborhoods and area moratoria associated with inadequate public facilities (including school capacity, of course). Oh, and a sunset to keep the policy from being permanently by right until we see how it plays out, given all the uncertainty Planning has/all the concerns voiced.

the larger scale products recommended along corridors are all subject to existing impact taxes and
any applicable Utilization Premium Payments to mitigate impacts on crowded schools. Demands on
other infrastructure can be addressed through the 2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy, where
Planning Staff is contemplating a focus on water and sewer.

Yeah...um...those existing impact taxes and prior infrastructure policy have really ensured adequacy, especially in the older, pretty-much-built-out-to zoning areas, haven't they?

No thanks. Make the neighborhood caps, infrastructure-related moratoria and sunset an explicit part of this. No reason not to, except better to ensure developer enrichment. Should not interfere with the publicly espoused goals, especially if the Planning assessments of de minimis and limited numbers prove correct, and affords important community protections if they do not (or if negative effects unforeseen/unstated by Planning come to pass). No-brainer adjustments, there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic).

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal. They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...

Where and when have they posited this?

It's in the Attainable Housing report from Planning to the Council.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Is this what you're talking about, on p. 60?

Demands on infrastructure: The Planning Board heard concerns about the increased demands on
existing infrastructure, like schools, roads, and water and sewer. The Planning Board believes the
demands on infrastructure can be addressed through existing policies. The Planning Board also
believes that impacts of schools for the house-scaled products will be de minimis. However, these and
the larger scale products recommended along corridors are all subject to existing impact taxes and
any applicable Utilization Premium Payments to mitigate impacts on crowded schools. Demands on
other infrastructure can be addressed through the 2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy, where
Planning Staff is contemplating a focus on water and sewer.

And you want public review of an analysis of the effect of an additional 1-3 units, scattered here and there, on school capacity? Keeping in mind that 80% of households in Montgomery County don't have any children under age 18? Huh.

Sure. Why not? And we're talking an additional 18 units for the apartment buildings along the 500-foot-on-either-side corridors (17 if 2 properties are needed, 16 if 3; a couple more, likely, with stacking of the recent state statute), too.

Wouldn't really need that if there were neighborhood caps on construction to ensure these did not get concentrated to particular neighborhoods and area moratoria associated with inadequate public facilities (including school capacity, of course). Oh, and a sunset to keep the policy from being permanently by right until we see how it plays out, given all the uncertainty Planning has/all the concerns voiced.

the larger scale products recommended along corridors are all subject to existing impact taxes and
any applicable Utilization Premium Payments to mitigate impacts on crowded schools. Demands on
other infrastructure can be addressed through the 2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy, where
Planning Staff is contemplating a focus on water and sewer.

Yeah...um...those existing impact taxes and prior infrastructure policy have really ensured adequacy, especially in the older, pretty-much-built-out-to zoning areas, haven't they?

Make the neighborhood caps, infrastructure-related moratoria and sunset an explicit part of this. No reason not to, except better to ensure developer enrichment. Should not interfere with the publicly espoused goals, especially if the Planning assessments of de minimis and limited numbers prove correct, and affords important community protections if they do not (or if negative effects unforeseen/unstated by Planning come to pass). No-brainer adjustments, there.

shift the goalposts
shift the goalposts
shift the goalposts
shift the goalposts
shift the goalposts