Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?
I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?
Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.
At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.
That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.
Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.
Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.
The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.
The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?
I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.
Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.
You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?
NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?
And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.
My point in asking the question is that people see to not realize that NOW is the time to speak out if you don't like the proposal at all. Or, probably more likely to be effective- advocate for the changes to it that you want to see. For example, yes Friedson is an advocate of adding density/housing, but in the most recent meeting he expressed concern and asked questions about certain aspects.
I for example am very much in favor of most of this proposal. I would NOT include such dramatic property tax breaks and impact fee exceptions. I would also want setback requirements retained. I'm writing letters advocating for that.
As with ALL legislation, there will be a compromise between now and signed legislation. EX: the rent stabilization legislation. This is how local policy works. Engage it in to influence the changes you want.
Yes, I understand. Trust me, the YIMBYs are not out thinking anyone. But that’s not what you said or even clearly alluded to.
By refusing to accept it at all we stand the best chance of forcing the deepest concessions. The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game. If we fight less, they get more, and it might the finest parts of a dumb plan.
I don't know what you mean by the bolded?
I was referring to a poster that said that they felt betrayed by the council and would tell people not to vote for them. Seems to me that is a premature, and ineffective, plan. It assumes that this proposal as currently written will be passed and then just be mad about it and no reelect the people who passed it? How does that help?
Now, if you are saying that the strategy is to object to ANY change, that doesn't seem like a possibility. No changes at all to make it easier to build housing somewhere in the county is not a viable or realistic option. So advocate for something, even dramatically scaled back (ex: changes only to property directly on major roadways, or something). And even if you want to say no to anything at all, are you actually DOING that? Writing letters, attending meetings, etc? I hope so.
Complaining to other people on a message board about something that hasn't even happened does nothing. Not saying you can't/shouldn't ALSO do that, but hopefully more as well.
DP. While I expect that they were saying that because of the general content/tenor of the YIMBY posts, I agree that there wasn't anything in your post, specifically, that would jive. At the same time, the PP properly calls out the politicized posturing that corrupts the Hegelian dialectic, seeking maximal possible shift rather than a moderated synthesis across reasoned viewpoints.
In keeping with this, routinely misrepresenting opposition/criticism, such as painting any resistance as no-to-any-change, is how YIMBYs, including the Council and Planning, have operated thus far. Again, as the PP suggested, the natural reaction would be to adopt that no-change stance, not because it represents the desired state, but because the over-politicized rhetoric leaves no room for more rational discourse to hold. Taking that posture may be distasteful to those with well reasoned criticisms, but more strident resistance in large numbers appears to be the only option when treated so/when the foreseen effect of the faux synthesis would be greatly objectionable itself.
Here, we have a YIMBY responding to that stridence with the suggestion of more moderate NIMBY positioning and operation within the context of Council processes that, in all likelihood, merely will be Kabuki theater (based on the "Surprise! Now that we're presenting a plan, it's much more than we ever told you!" Planning approach that made a mockery of any community involvement and the Council Staff's/PHP Committee's clear/well-prepped support of nearly all plan aspects). Though engaging would be essential, as well, constraining activism to such pro forma processes and bringing only meek viewpoints to the table simply would be likely to result in one's interests being squelched.
Of course, this is the kind of approach that has become ever more common in America's body politic. A very sad state of affairs.
If the Council/Planning wants this to be seen as socially legitimate (and they may not care so much about that) and not just legal within their purview, they should be putting forth a position, themselves, far less likely to cause disruption in the lives of the residents they represent, and ensuring the engagement of the enormous portion of the population the plan now jumps to affect, whether via referendum or similarly broad means of providing agency.
PP here. This is difficult to follow.
I was responding to a poster who actually said "no to any change." I was not "repeatedly characterizing" anything.
"Rational discourse" is and will happen as a proposal moves to legislation. I would bet my entire savings that this proposal gets scaled back significantly prior to enactment.
I never suggested "constraining activism". If fact, I was encouraging engaging in significant activism to effect change.
The "position the Council will put forth" is the actual legislation, which is forthcoming. That is the process. And now is the time to influence it.
As might be assumed, a largely anonymous forum may have many writing similar things. You may not have repeatedly misrepresented prior critics as being no-to-any-change, but there has been enough of such in the 106 pages of this thread. The poster to whom you had replied had adopted that stance after indetifying the Council/Planning Board approach: "The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game."
I don't suggest that trying to work towards better legislation now is the wrong thing to do. However, rational discourse at the more appropriate time to ensure resident agency -- that is, during Planning's development of the report -- was completely undercut by Planning's abject failure to make residents broadly aware of the breadth and depth of that which was being considered. Showing a high-quality brick exterior side-by-side duplex in a slide show to a neighborhood group when floating possibilities is a far cry from notifying all properties within 500 feet of a corridor (and any adjoining property those) that the County was thinking about allowing 19-unit apartment structures next door and asking for feedback on that.
Rational discourse then might have been emblematic of an open process. Instead, what we have left of the "process" is a railroad at this point. Any "scaling back" will be either window dressing (like Friedson's largely passing on commentary about the major aspects of the report, but speaking up about relatively inconsequential items, such as the overly prescriptive 10-foot driveway width) or previously conceived as the desired outcome for which the more extreme policy suggestions are now being made -- so that they can claim that outcome as some kind of compromise. So one shouldn't expect those with criticisms to constrain themselves to that process -- actions now likely, at all, to effect meaningful change would need to be a bit more outside the box.
To clear the remaining misinterpretation: a more socially legitimate Council would not be suggesting such an intensely disruptive policy and would be seeking a referendum on anything so sweeping to ensure broad acceptance.
Can you please explain how you think the Council could seek referendum on a proposal? My understanding of the code is that legislation has to be passed for a referendum to occur.
Sec. 114. Referendum.
Any legislation enacted by the Council shall be submitted to a referendum of the voters upon petition of five percent of the registered voters of the County except legislation (1) appropriating money or imposing taxes, (2) prescribing Council districts, (3) authorizing the issuance of bonds or other financial obligations for a term of less than twelve months, and (4) authorizing obligations for public school sites, construction, remodeling, or public school buildings, whenever the total amount of such obligations authorized to be issued in any one year does not exceed one-fourth of one percent of the assessable base of the County. (Election of 11-7-78; election of 11-6-90; election of 11-4-14.)
Sec. 115. Referendum Procedure.
Any petition to refer legislation to the voters of the County shall be filed with the Board of Elections within ninety days after the date when the legislation becomes law, provided that fifty percent of the required signatures accompanying the petition are filed within seventy-five days after the date when the legislation becomes law. When a referendum petition that contains the required signatures has been filed, the legislation to be referred shall not take effect until thirty days after its approval by a majority of the registered voters voting thereon. Expedited legislation shall remain in effect from the date it becomes law notwithstanding the filing of a petition for referendum, but shall be repealed thirty days after its rejection by a majority of the registered voters voting thereon.
Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?
I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?
Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.
At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.
That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.
Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.
Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.
The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.
The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?
I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.
Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.
You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?
NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?
And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.
My point in asking the question is that people see to not realize that NOW is the time to speak out if you don't like the proposal at all. Or, probably more likely to be effective- advocate for the changes to it that you want to see. For example, yes Friedson is an advocate of adding density/housing, but in the most recent meeting he expressed concern and asked questions about certain aspects.
I for example am very much in favor of most of this proposal. I would NOT include such dramatic property tax breaks and impact fee exceptions. I would also want setback requirements retained. I'm writing letters advocating for that.
As with ALL legislation, there will be a compromise between now and signed legislation. EX: the rent stabilization legislation. This is how local policy works. Engage it in to influence the changes you want.
Yes, I understand. Trust me, the YIMBYs are not out thinking anyone. But that’s not what you said or even clearly alluded to.
By refusing to accept it at all we stand the best chance of forcing the deepest concessions. The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game. If we fight less, they get more, and it might the finest parts of a dumb plan.
I don't know what you mean by the bolded?
I was referring to a poster that said that they felt betrayed by the council and would tell people not to vote for them. Seems to me that is a premature, and ineffective, plan. It assumes that this proposal as currently written will be passed and then just be mad about it and no reelect the people who passed it? How does that help?
Now, if you are saying that the strategy is to object to ANY change, that doesn't seem like a possibility. No changes at all to make it easier to build housing somewhere in the county is not a viable or realistic option. So advocate for something, even dramatically scaled back (ex: changes only to property directly on major roadways, or something). And even if you want to say no to anything at all, are you actually DOING that? Writing letters, attending meetings, etc? I hope so.
Complaining to other people on a message board about something that hasn't even happened does nothing. Not saying you can't/shouldn't ALSO do that, but hopefully more as well.
DP. While I expect that they were saying that because of the general content/tenor of the YIMBY posts, I agree that there wasn't anything in your post, specifically, that would jive. At the same time, the PP properly calls out the politicized posturing that corrupts the Hegelian dialectic, seeking maximal possible shift rather than a moderated synthesis across reasoned viewpoints.
In keeping with this, routinely misrepresenting opposition/criticism, such as painting any resistance as no-to-any-change, is how YIMBYs, including the Council and Planning, have operated thus far. Again, as the PP suggested, the natural reaction would be to adopt that no-change stance, not because it represents the desired state, but because the over-politicized rhetoric leaves no room for more rational discourse to hold. Taking that posture may be distasteful to those with well reasoned criticisms, but more strident resistance in large numbers appears to be the only option when treated so/when the foreseen effect of the faux synthesis would be greatly objectionable itself.
Here, we have a YIMBY responding to that stridence with the suggestion of more moderate NIMBY positioning and operation within the context of Council processes that, in all likelihood, merely will be Kabuki theater (based on the "Surprise! Now that we're presenting a plan, it's much more than we ever told you!" Planning approach that made a mockery of any community involvement and the Council Staff's/PHP Committee's clear/well-prepped support of nearly all plan aspects). Though engaging would be essential, as well, constraining activism to such pro forma processes and bringing only meek viewpoints to the table simply would be likely to result in one's interests being squelched.
Of course, this is the kind of approach that has become ever more common in America's body politic. A very sad state of affairs.
If the Council/Planning wants this to be seen as socially legitimate (and they may not care so much about that) and not just legal within their purview, they should be putting forth a position, themselves, far less likely to cause disruption in the lives of the residents they represent, and ensuring the engagement of the enormous portion of the population the plan now jumps to affect, whether via referendum or similarly broad means of providing agency.
PP here. This is difficult to follow.
I was responding to a poster who actually said "no to any change." I was not "repeatedly characterizing" anything.
"Rational discourse" is and will happen as a proposal moves to legislation. I would bet my entire savings that this proposal gets scaled back significantly prior to enactment.
I never suggested "constraining activism". If fact, I was encouraging engaging in significant activism to effect change.
The "position the Council will put forth" is the actual legislation, which is forthcoming. That is the process. And now is the time to influence it.
As might be assumed, a largely anonymous forum may have many writing similar things. You may not have repeatedly misrepresented prior critics as being no-to-any-change, but there has been enough of such in the 106 pages of this thread. The poster to whom you had replied had adopted that stance after indetifying the Council/Planning Board approach: "The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game."
I don't suggest that trying to work towards better legislation now is the wrong thing to do. However, rational discourse at the more appropriate time to ensure resident agency -- that is, during Planning's development of the report -- was completely undercut by Planning's abject failure to make residents broadly aware of the breadth and depth of that which was being considered. Showing a high-quality brick exterior side-by-side duplex in a slide show to a neighborhood group when floating possibilities is a far cry from notifying all properties within 500 feet of a corridor (and any adjoining property those) that the County was thinking about allowing 19-unit apartment structures next door and asking for feedback on that.
Rational discourse then might have been emblematic of an open process. Instead, what we have left of the "process" is a railroad at this point. Any "scaling back" will be either window dressing (like Friedson's largely passing on commentary about the major aspects of the report, but speaking up about relatively inconsequential items, such as the overly prescriptive 10-foot driveway width) or previously conceived as the desired outcome for which the more extreme policy suggestions are now being made -- so that they can claim that outcome as some kind of compromise. So one shouldn't expect those with criticisms to constrain themselves to that process -- actions now likely, at all, to effect meaningful change would need to be a bit more outside the box.
To clear the remaining misinterpretation: a more socially legitimate Council would not be suggesting such an intensely disruptive policy and would be seeking a referendum on anything so sweeping to ensure broad acceptance.
Can you please explain how you think the Council could seek referendum on a proposal? My understanding of the code is that legislation has to be passed for a referendum to occur.
Sec. 114. Referendum.
Any legislation enacted by the Council shall be submitted to a referendum of the voters upon petition of five percent of the registered voters of the County except legislation (1) appropriating money or imposing taxes, (2) prescribing Council districts, (3) authorizing the issuance of bonds or other financial obligations for a term of less than twelve months, and (4) authorizing obligations for public school sites, construction, remodeling, or public school buildings, whenever the total amount of such obligations authorized to be issued in any one year does not exceed one-fourth of one percent of the assessable base of the County. (Election of 11-7-78; election of 11-6-90; election of 11-4-14.)
Sec. 115. Referendum Procedure.
Any petition to refer legislation to the voters of the County shall be filed with the Board of Elections within ninety days after the date when the legislation becomes law, provided that fifty percent of the required signatures accompanying the petition are filed within seventy-five days after the date when the legislation becomes law. When a referendum petition that contains the required signatures has been filed, the legislation to be referred shall not take effect until thirty days after its approval by a majority of the registered voters voting thereon. Expedited legislation shall remain in effect from the date it becomes law notwithstanding the filing of a petition for referendum, but shall be repealed thirty days after its rejection by a majority of the registered voters voting thereon.
You have cited code about citizen-initiated action to counter passed legislation (sometimes called "referral"). The thought was put forth as, "...and ensuring the engagement of the enormous portion of the population the plan now jumps to affect, whether via referendum or similarly broad means of providing agency."
The common-parlance use of "referendum" in that post and the post to which you just responded holds a broader scope, including not only the override of representative-passed legislation, but direct-vote-passing of original legislation (e.g., the current County Executive term limit question, more well-referenced California "Prop [#]" laws, etc.) or even non-binding guidance, depending on the text of the specific ballot initiative. In such, a pre-emptive or guiding measure might be placed on the ballot.
You sure were quck, there, bright and early with the legal code reference. Having your finger on that, can you share the various steps, conditions and associated deadlines for such ballot measures?
Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?
I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?
Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.
At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.
That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.
Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.
Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.
The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.
The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?
I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.
Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.
You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?
NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?
And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.
My point in asking the question is that people see to not realize that NOW is the time to speak out if you don't like the proposal at all. Or, probably more likely to be effective- advocate for the changes to it that you want to see. For example, yes Friedson is an advocate of adding density/housing, but in the most recent meeting he expressed concern and asked questions about certain aspects.
I for example am very much in favor of most of this proposal. I would NOT include such dramatic property tax breaks and impact fee exceptions. I would also want setback requirements retained. I'm writing letters advocating for that.
As with ALL legislation, there will be a compromise between now and signed legislation. EX: the rent stabilization legislation. This is how local policy works. Engage it in to influence the changes you want.
Yes, I understand. Trust me, the YIMBYs are not out thinking anyone. But that’s not what you said or even clearly alluded to.
By refusing to accept it at all we stand the best chance of forcing the deepest concessions. The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game. If we fight less, they get more, and it might the finest parts of a dumb plan.
I don't know what you mean by the bolded?
I was referring to a poster that said that they felt betrayed by the council and would tell people not to vote for them. Seems to me that is a premature, and ineffective, plan. It assumes that this proposal as currently written will be passed and then just be mad about it and no reelect the people who passed it? How does that help?
Now, if you are saying that the strategy is to object to ANY change, that doesn't seem like a possibility. No changes at all to make it easier to build housing somewhere in the county is not a viable or realistic option. So advocate for something, even dramatically scaled back (ex: changes only to property directly on major roadways, or something). And even if you want to say no to anything at all, are you actually DOING that? Writing letters, attending meetings, etc? I hope so.
Complaining to other people on a message board about something that hasn't even happened does nothing. Not saying you can't/shouldn't ALSO do that, but hopefully more as well.
DP. While I expect that they were saying that because of the general content/tenor of the YIMBY posts, I agree that there wasn't anything in your post, specifically, that would jive. At the same time, the PP properly calls out the politicized posturing that corrupts the Hegelian dialectic, seeking maximal possible shift rather than a moderated synthesis across reasoned viewpoints.
In keeping with this, routinely misrepresenting opposition/criticism, such as painting any resistance as no-to-any-change, is how YIMBYs, including the Council and Planning, have operated thus far. Again, as the PP suggested, the natural reaction would be to adopt that no-change stance, not because it represents the desired state, but because the over-politicized rhetoric leaves no room for more rational discourse to hold. Taking that posture may be distasteful to those with well reasoned criticisms, but more strident resistance in large numbers appears to be the only option when treated so/when the foreseen effect of the faux synthesis would be greatly objectionable itself.
Here, we have a YIMBY responding to that stridence with the suggestion of more moderate NIMBY positioning and operation within the context of Council processes that, in all likelihood, merely will be Kabuki theater (based on the "Surprise! Now that we're presenting a plan, it's much more than we ever told you!" Planning approach that made a mockery of any community involvement and the Council Staff's/PHP Committee's clear/well-prepped support of nearly all plan aspects). Though engaging would be essential, as well, constraining activism to such pro forma processes and bringing only meek viewpoints to the table simply would be likely to result in one's interests being squelched.
Of course, this is the kind of approach that has become ever more common in America's body politic. A very sad state of affairs.
If the Council/Planning wants this to be seen as socially legitimate (and they may not care so much about that) and not just legal within their purview, they should be putting forth a position, themselves, far less likely to cause disruption in the lives of the residents they represent, and ensuring the engagement of the enormous portion of the population the plan now jumps to affect, whether via referendum or similarly broad means of providing agency.
PP here. This is difficult to follow.
I was responding to a poster who actually said "no to any change." I was not "repeatedly characterizing" anything.
"Rational discourse" is and will happen as a proposal moves to legislation. I would bet my entire savings that this proposal gets scaled back significantly prior to enactment.
I never suggested "constraining activism". If fact, I was encouraging engaging in significant activism to effect change.
The "position the Council will put forth" is the actual legislation, which is forthcoming. That is the process. And now is the time to influence it.
As might be assumed, a largely anonymous forum may have many writing similar things. You may not have repeatedly misrepresented prior critics as being no-to-any-change, but there has been enough of such in the 106 pages of this thread. The poster to whom you had replied had adopted that stance after indetifying the Council/Planning Board approach: "The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game."
I don't suggest that trying to work towards better legislation now is the wrong thing to do. However, rational discourse at the more appropriate time to ensure resident agency -- that is, during Planning's development of the report -- was completely undercut by Planning's abject failure to make residents broadly aware of the breadth and depth of that which was being considered. Showing a high-quality brick exterior side-by-side duplex in a slide show to a neighborhood group when floating possibilities is a far cry from notifying all properties within 500 feet of a corridor (and any adjoining property those) that the County was thinking about allowing 19-unit apartment structures next door and asking for feedback on that.
Rational discourse then might have been emblematic of an open process. Instead, what we have left of the "process" is a railroad at this point. Any "scaling back" will be either window dressing (like Friedson's largely passing on commentary about the major aspects of the report, but speaking up about relatively inconsequential items, such as the overly prescriptive 10-foot driveway width) or previously conceived as the desired outcome for which the more extreme policy suggestions are now being made -- so that they can claim that outcome as some kind of compromise. So one shouldn't expect those with criticisms to constrain themselves to that process -- actions now likely, at all, to effect meaningful change would need to be a bit more outside the box.
To clear the remaining misinterpretation: a more socially legitimate Council would not be suggesting such an intensely disruptive policy and would be seeking a referendum on anything so sweeping to ensure broad acceptance.
Can you please explain how you think the Council could seek referendum on a proposal? My understanding of the code is that legislation has to be passed for a referendum to occur.
Sec. 114. Referendum.
Any legislation enacted by the Council shall be submitted to a referendum of the voters upon petition of five percent of the registered voters of the County except legislation (1) appropriating money or imposing taxes, (2) prescribing Council districts, (3) authorizing the issuance of bonds or other financial obligations for a term of less than twelve months, and (4) authorizing obligations for public school sites, construction, remodeling, or public school buildings, whenever the total amount of such obligations authorized to be issued in any one year does not exceed one-fourth of one percent of the assessable base of the County. (Election of 11-7-78; election of 11-6-90; election of 11-4-14.)
Sec. 115. Referendum Procedure.
Any petition to refer legislation to the voters of the County shall be filed with the Board of Elections within ninety days after the date when the legislation becomes law, provided that fifty percent of the required signatures accompanying the petition are filed within seventy-five days after the date when the legislation becomes law. When a referendum petition that contains the required signatures has been filed, the legislation to be referred shall not take effect until thirty days after its approval by a majority of the registered voters voting thereon. Expedited legislation shall remain in effect from the date it becomes law notwithstanding the filing of a petition for referendum, but shall be repealed thirty days after its rejection by a majority of the registered voters voting thereon.
You have cited code about citizen-initiated action to counter passed legislation (sometimes called "referral"). The thought was put forth as, "...and ensuring the engagement of the enormous portion of the population the plan now jumps to affect, whether via referendum or similarly broad means of providing agency."
The common-parlance use of "referendum" in that post and the post to which you just responded holds a broader scope, including not only the override of representative-passed legislation, but direct-vote-passing of original legislation (e.g., the current County Executive term limit question, more well-referenced California "Prop [#]" laws, etc.) or even non-binding guidance, depending on the text of the specific ballot initiative. In such, a pre-emptive or guiding measure might be placed on the ballot.
You sure were quck, there, bright and early with the legal code reference. Having your finger on that, can you share the various steps, conditions and associated deadlines for such ballot measures?
No I can't because I couldn't find them.
Crazy to me how people always assume negative intention and take such a combative tone.
I don't know what type of ballot measure this would look like, or how it would occur. Seems to me that this proposal is not as simple and binary as the examples you reference. How would something that includes so many potential changes to so many different provisions even fit on a ballot in a way that a voter could understand and respond to?
Anonymous wrote:In this thread: angry old NIMBYs arguing for 106 pages. Gotta love to see it. Please, spend more energy fighting this! It's hilarious. (and won't work )
Awww…show us on the doll where the mean ol’ NIMBYs touched you.
The YIMBY tears are delicious.
So much success. SO MANY HOUSES. Aren’t you so proud of all of your big boy successes?
lol.
The top PP is bad at trolling but you are worse.
Top PP: ha ha NIMBYs are losing ha ha
You: "the YIMBY tears are delicious"
Anonymous wrote:In this thread: angry old NIMBYs arguing for 106 pages. Gotta love to see it. Please, spend more energy fighting this! It's hilarious. (and won't work )
Awww…show us on the doll where the mean ol’ NIMBYs touched you.
The YIMBY tears are delicious.
So much success. SO MANY HOUSES. Aren’t you so proud of all of your big boy successes?
lol.
The top PP is bad at trolling but you are worse.
Top PP: ha ha NIMBYs are losing ha ha
You: "the YIMBY tears are delicious"
That doesn't even make any sense.
Which part is confusing? We’d like to make sure that we point you to the correct remedial reading classes.
Anonymous wrote:In this thread: angry old NIMBYs arguing for 106 pages. Gotta love to see it. Please, spend more energy fighting this! It's hilarious. (and won't work )
Awww…show us on the doll where the mean ol’ NIMBYs touched you.
The YIMBY tears are delicious.
So much success. SO MANY HOUSES. Aren’t you so proud of all of your big boy successes?
lol.
The top PP is bad at trolling but you are worse.
Top PP: ha ha NIMBYs are losing ha ha
You: "the YIMBY tears are delicious"
That doesn't even make any sense.
Which part is confusing? We’d like to make sure that we point you to the correct remedial reading classes.
Anonymous wrote:In this thread: angry old NIMBYs arguing for 106 pages. Gotta love to see it. Please, spend more energy fighting this! It's hilarious. (and won't work )
Awww…show us on the doll where the mean ol’ NIMBYs touched you.
The YIMBY tears are delicious.
So much success. SO MANY HOUSES. Aren’t you so proud of all of your big boy successes?
lol.
The top PP is bad at trolling but you are worse.
Top PP: ha ha NIMBYs are losing ha ha
You: "the YIMBY tears are delicious"
That doesn't even make any sense.
Which part is confusing? We’d like to make sure that we point you to the correct remedial reading classes.
And the pattern continues.....a string of interesting and substantive exchanges gets killed by a few people who would rather just throw juvenile insults.
Anonymous wrote:And the pattern continues.....a string of interesting and substantive exchanges gets killed by a few people who would rather just throw juvenile insults.
Is there anything to discuss until the council receives and starts assessing the plan?
Anonymous wrote:And the pattern continues.....a string of interesting and substantive exchanges gets killed by a few people who would rather just throw juvenile insults.
Is there anything to discuss until the council receives and starts assessing the plan?
This is not how the public engagement process works. If people wait until the day they are voting on something to voice their opposition it is often too late to impact the process. People need to be sending emails and requesting meetings with their representatives now to stop this madness. There needs to be major backlash and a sustained campaign to prevent developers from steamrolling county with this disastrous zoning proposal.
Anonymous wrote:And the pattern continues.....a string of interesting and substantive exchanges gets killed by a few people who would rather just throw juvenile insults.
Is there anything to discuss until the council receives and starts assessing the plan?
This is not how the public engagement process works. If people wait until the day they are voting on something to voice their opposition it is often too late to impact the process. People need to be sending emails and requesting meetings with their representatives now to stop this madness. There needs to be major backlash and a sustained campaign to prevent developers from steamrolling county with this disastrous zoning proposal.
People need to be sending emails and requesting meetings with their representatives to express their support for the proposed changes. There should be a sustained campaign to support the County Council's effort to remove some of the county's restrictions on housing with this zoning proposal.
Anonymous wrote:And the pattern continues.....a string of interesting and substantive exchanges gets killed by a few people who would rather just throw juvenile insults.
Is there anything to discuss until the council receives and starts assessing the plan?
PP here. I have read the entire plan. The Council HAS received and started assessing the plan.
And yes, there is a ton to assess. And now is the time to do it. The plan is complicated and multifaceted, and there is legitimate debate to be had over whether it will achieve its goals, and even if so, if it will create other issues. Are there ways to mitigate those issues. Now is exactly the time to dig in understand it, and advocate for what you think the best outcome is.
Buried in these 100+ pages is some great discussion that has helped me understand it better and refine my position. I am using that to advocate directly to council and to my neighbors.
Anonymous wrote:And the pattern continues.....a string of interesting and substantive exchanges gets killed by a few people who would rather just throw juvenile insults.
Is there anything to discuss until the council receives and starts assessing the plan?
PP here. I have read the entire plan. The Council HAS received and started assessing the plan.
And yes, there is a ton to assess. And now is the time to do it. The plan is complicated and multifaceted, and there is legitimate debate to be had over whether it will achieve its goals, and even if so, if it will create other issues. Are there ways to mitigate those issues. Now is exactly the time to dig in understand it, and advocate for what you think the best outcome is.
Buried in these 100+ pages is some great discussion that has helped me understand it better and refine my position. I am using that to advocate directly to council and to my neighbors.
I could do without the middle school sniping.
I was just operating from the planning board post from 7/24:
The Planning Board voted unanimously on July 18 to approve our recommended updates to the county's update to the Growth and Infrastructure Policy and send it to the County Council for review.
Updated every four years, the GIP administers one of the most important functions our department and the Planning Board provide to the community – ensuring that public facilities, particularly schools and transportation infrastructure, are adequate to support new development, and that existing growth tools are equitable, fair, and effective.
A key focus of the 2024-2028 GIP is ensuring it helps reach the goals established in Thrive Montgomery 2050 to increase housing options for all, improve transit, and strengthen the economy in equitable, sustainable ways.
Visit the policy’s website (montgomeryplanning.org/gip) for more details on the update – the approved Planning Board Draft will be posted when it is transmitted to County Council by the end of July.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
)