MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

What? This doesn’t even make sense. The poster proposed specific measures as a compromise and you’ve replied with this nonsense. It’s a wonder that the YImBYs get anything done at all.

[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.

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/

…and?

I’m hoping that there is a point somewhere in there. Maybe you are literally answering the question. Yes, we know, the current board voted on it, voted on the same policies that were conceptualized by the former board, the one that resigned in disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What? This doesn’t even make sense. The poster proposed specific measures as a compromise and you’ve replied with this nonsense. It’s a wonder that the YImBYs get anything done at all.

On the one hand, I would like to know why you keep spelling it like that.

On the other hand, I have low expectations about the reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

This from the density advocate, when pretty much all of the shifting happened on that side. There was the layering of initiatives over several years, obscuring the overall/combined effects to minimize opposition to any one initiative. There were the significant changes to scope and impact as plans developed and after public input in the process was minimized/eliminated. Etc.

And there continues to be the rhetorically bankrupt argumentation, attempting to stave off criticisms, avoid addressing concerns or suggestion, hyperbolize opposing positions, etc. Accusations of "shift the goalposts" might as well be those of "attack the process" before. Pointing out inadequacies of a process is perfectly valid. Suggestions born of constructive criticism, too. The intense resistance to those thoughts points to unreasoned inflexibility, at best, and ulterior motive, if more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This from the density advocate, when pretty much all of the shifting happened on that side. There was the layering of initiatives over several years, obscuring the overall/combined effects to minimize opposition to any one initiative. There were the significant changes to scope and impact as plans developed and after public input in the process was minimized/eliminated. Etc.

And there continues to be the rhetorically bankrupt argumentation, attempting to stave off criticisms, avoid addressing concerns or suggestion, hyperbolize opposing positions, etc. Accusations of "shift the goalposts" might as well be those of "attack the process" before. Pointing out inadequacies of a process is perfectly valid. Suggestions born of constructive criticism, too. The intense resistance to those thoughts points to unreasoned inflexibility, at best, and ulterior motive, if more.

Are you one of the posters who's been attacking the process?

[Anonymous]

Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

What? This doesn’t even make sense. The poster proposed specific measures as a compromise and you’ve replied with this nonsense. It’s a wonder that the YImBYs get anything done at all.

On the one hand, I would like to know why you keep spelling it like that.

On the other hand, I have low expectations about the reason.

No one cares about your expectations, but I am curious, is something misspelled?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

What do you find problematic in this "exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin" that you are stalking for some reason? Are there any assertions in it that are incorrect?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

This from the density advocate, when pretty much all of the shifting happened on that side. There was the layering of initiatives over several years, obscuring the overall/combined effects to minimize opposition to any one initiative. There were the significant changes to scope and impact as plans developed and after public input in the process was minimized/eliminated. Etc.

And there continues to be the rhetorically bankrupt argumentation, attempting to stave off criticisms, avoid addressing concerns or suggestion, hyperbolize opposing positions, etc. Accusations of "shift the goalposts" might as well be those of "attack the process" before. Pointing out inadequacies of a process is perfectly valid. Suggestions born of constructive criticism, too. The intense resistance to those thoughts points to unreasoned inflexibility, at best, and ulterior motive, if more.

This is 100 percent true. “Smart Growth,” “compact growth,” “urbanism,” “market urbanism,” and “YIMBYism” all have made a lot of soaring promises but they haven’t delivered on any of them. The groupthink is very strong, and there’s been little consideration of the down side risks by the professional staff or the politicals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I do live in MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I do live in MoCo.

Even if you do live in MoCo, you're still not voting Republican for all (or any) local elections this fall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.