Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation

[Anonymous]

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

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

Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.

I'm not the poster throwing "Karen" around, but ... so what? Nobody is arguing that property owners should be required to build duplexes, or that duplexes are the only possible choice.

[Anonymous]

Has anyone seen a study about the actual type of housing that there is a shortage of? Is it actually just family housing? If so, why don't we mandate larger units built in all of the developments going up as part of the tax deal. It seems like there is a lot of development going on without rezoning. Are they just building the type we don't need (bc it is more profitable)? If so, what makes people think they'll build family housing once the rezoning is pushed through?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen a study about the actual type of housing that there is a shortage of? Is it actually just family housing? If so, why don't we mandate larger units built in all of the developments going up as part of the tax deal. It seems like there is a lot of development going on without rezoning. Are they just building the type we don't need (bc it is more profitable)? If so, what makes people think they'll build family housing once the rezoning is pushed through?

What is "family housing"? Also if builders were building housing types nobody wanted to live in, then that wouldn't be more profitable; in fact, they'd lose a lot of money and stop doing it and/or go bankrupt.

Here are a few articles about barriers to building larger (3/4-bedroom) units:

https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/4/23/23686130/housing-apartments-family-yimby-nimby-zoning-suburbs
https://www.centerforbuilding.org/blog/we-we-cant-build-family-sized-apartments-in-north-america
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-27/why-are-there-no-apartments-for-families-in-the-city-who-builds-what-and-why

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.

I'm not the poster throwing "Karen" around, but ... so what? Nobody is arguing that property owners should be required to build duplexes, or that duplexes are the only possible choice.

I’m the PP and curious why planning and advocates put so much energy into duplexes after planning determined that the economics won’t work. Why not spend time on housing programs that have a better chance of producing more housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...isn't that what the moco council does. "I want what I want because I want it" - they are clowns. They make decisions without consulting the people it actually impacts. Poll the surrounding neighborhoods in Bethesda/CC and see what they get. I would be a lot of money the vast majority want no part of this. A great example of this was LFP. The overwhelming majority of people who live near/on Little Falls were vehemently against it. The council does what it wants to fit their bizarre ideological agenda.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Has anyone seen a study about the actual type of housing that there is a shortage of? Is it actually just family housing? If so, why don't we mandate larger units built in all of the developments going up as part of the tax deal. It seems like there is a lot of development going on without rezoning. Are they just building the type we don't need (bc it is more profitable)? If so, what makes people think they'll build family housing once the rezoning is pushed through?

What is "family housing"? Also if builders were building housing types nobody wanted to live in, then that wouldn't be more profitable; in fact, they'd lose a lot of money and stop doing it and/or go bankrupt.

Here are a few articles about barriers to building larger (3/4-bedroom) units:

https://www.vox.com/policy/2023/4/23/23686130/housing-apartments-family-yimby-nimby-zoning-suburbs
https://www.centerforbuilding.org/blog/we-we-cant-build-family-sized-apartments-in-north-america
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-27/why-are-there-no-apartments-for-families-in-the-city-who-builds-what-and-why

Another reason is that 3-br apartment rents started to compete with (or even exceed) mortgages with as little as 10 percent down for most of the last 25 years. Europe (from which the second article draws comparisons) generally doesn’t have fixed-rate 30-year mortgages, so European renters and European buyers both face price uncertainty. In the U.S., it was hard to sell someone a $5k/month apartment when PITI on a detached home with a small down payment was $4.5k.

[Anonymous]

Can Bethesda/CC just start their own county Moco has been dragging those areas down for years all in the face of "equity."

Imagine a Bethesda School District without all the bloat and redistribution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...isn't that what the moco council does. "I want what I want because I want it" - they are clowns. They make decisions without consulting the people it actually impacts. Poll the surrounding neighborhoods in Bethesda/CC and see what they get. I would be a lot of money the vast majority want no part of this. A great example of this was LFP. The overwhelming majority of people who live near/on Little Falls were vehemently against it. The council does what it wants to fit their bizarre ideological agenda.

No. The Montgomery County Council is the legislative branch of County Government. The Council members are elected by the voters of Montgomery County to serve on the Montgomery County Council.

Little Falls Parkway is operated by Montgomery Parks (which is not part of County Government, but rather part of the separate state-level agency M-NCPPC) for the benefit of everyone in Montgomery County, not just people who live near/on Little Falls Parkway. I regularly use Little Falls Parkway to get from North Bethesda to the CCT to DC by bike, and the best configuration was two-way car traffic on one side. I seriously regret the Council's decision to have one-lane, one-way traffic on both sides. It's more dangerous for trail users and drivers who don't want to hit trail users, and it results in unnecessary paved surface in a park.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can Bethesda/CC just start their own county Moco has been dragging those areas down for years all in the face of "equity."

Imagine a Bethesda School District without all the bloat and redistribution.

You should get off DCUM and start working on that!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...isn't that what the moco council does. "I want what I want because I want it" - they are clowns. They make decisions without consulting the people it actually impacts. Poll the surrounding neighborhoods in Bethesda/CC and see what they get. I would be a lot of money the vast majority want no part of this. A great example of this was LFP. The overwhelming majority of people who live near/on Little Falls were vehemently against it. The council does what it wants to fit their bizarre ideological agenda.

No. The Montgomery County Council is the legislative branch of County Government. The Council members are elected by the voters of Montgomery County to serve on the Montgomery County Council.

Little Falls Parkway is operated by Montgomery Parks (which is not part of County Government, but rather part of the separate state-level agency M-NCPPC) for the benefit of everyone in Montgomery County, not just people who live near/on Little Falls Parkway. I regularly use Little Falls Parkway to get from North Bethesda to the CCT to DC by bike, and the best configuration was two-way car traffic on one side. I seriously regret the Council's decision to have one-lane, one-way traffic on both sides. It's more dangerous for trail users and drivers who don't want to hit trail users, and it results in unnecessary paved surface in a park.

You just agreed with PP. Even someone who uses it to bike liked the old way!?

Moco is too large and too diverse at this point. Decisions are being made for the few, not the majority. Voter turnout is abysmal for county elections and the candidates never have any real world experience. Just life long leeches who want to feel important

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...isn't that what the moco council does. "I want what I want because I want it" - they are clowns. They make decisions without consulting the people it actually impacts. Poll the surrounding neighborhoods in Bethesda/CC and see what they get. I would be a lot of money the vast majority want no part of this. A great example of this was LFP. The overwhelming majority of people who live near/on Little Falls were vehemently against it. The council does what it wants to fit their bizarre ideological agenda.

No. The Montgomery County Council is the legislative branch of County Government. The Council members are elected by the voters of Montgomery County to serve on the Montgomery County Council.

Little Falls Parkway is operated by Montgomery Parks (which is not part of County Government, but rather part of the separate state-level agency M-NCPPC) for the benefit of everyone in Montgomery County, not just people who live near/on Little Falls Parkway. I regularly use Little Falls Parkway to get from North Bethesda to the CCT to DC by bike, and the best configuration was two-way car traffic on one side. I seriously regret the Council's decision to have one-lane, one-way traffic on both sides. It's more dangerous for trail users and drivers who don't want to hit trail users, and it results in unnecessary paved surface in a park.

You just agreed with PP. Even someone who uses it to bike liked the old way!?

Moco is too large and too diverse at this point. Decisions are being made for the few, not the majority. Voter turnout is abysmal for county elections and the candidates never have any real world experience. Just life long leeches who want to feel important

No. It used to be two lanes for cars each way, divided by a median. Then it was one lane for cars each way, divided by a median. Then it was one lane for cars each way, undivided, and both lanes on the other side of the median for people. That's what is there currently, and it's the best. Unfortunately the County Council has now decided it has to go back to one lane for cars each way, divided by a median. That will still be less bad than the original (two lanes for cars each way), but it's worse than what is there now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...isn't that what the moco council does. "I want what I want because I want it" - they are clowns. They make decisions without consulting the people it actually impacts. Poll the surrounding neighborhoods in Bethesda/CC and see what they get. I would be a lot of money the vast majority want no part of this. A great example of this was LFP. The overwhelming majority of people who live near/on Little Falls were vehemently against it. The council does what it wants to fit their bizarre ideological agenda.

No. The Montgomery County Council is the legislative branch of County Government. The Council members are elected by the voters of Montgomery County to serve on the Montgomery County Council.

Little Falls Parkway is operated by Montgomery Parks (which is not part of County Government, but rather part of the separate state-level agency M-NCPPC) for the benefit of everyone in Montgomery County, not just people who live near/on Little Falls Parkway. I regularly use Little Falls Parkway to get from North Bethesda to the CCT to DC by bike, and the best configuration was two-way car traffic on one side. I seriously regret the Council's decision to have one-lane, one-way traffic on both sides. It's more dangerous for trail users and drivers who don't want to hit trail users, and it results in unnecessary paved surface in a park.

You just agreed with PP. Even someone who uses it to bike liked the old way!?

Moco is too large and too diverse at this point. Decisions are being made for the few, not the majority. Voter turnout is abysmal for county elections and the candidates never have any real world experience. Just life long leeches who want to feel important

No. It used to be two lanes for cars each way, divided by a median. Then it was one lane for cars each way, divided by a median. Then it was one lane for cars each way, undivided, and both lanes on the other side of the median for people. That's what is there currently, and it's the best. Unfortunately the County Council has now decided it has to go back to one lane for cars each way, divided by a median. That will still be less bad than the original (two lanes for cars each way), but it's worse than what is there now.

What’s there now — two lanes, undivided, with no shoulders, seems to be intentionally dangerous. It’s puzzling why they did it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...isn't that what the moco council does. "I want what I want because I want it" - they are clowns. They make decisions without consulting the people it actually impacts. Poll the surrounding neighborhoods in Bethesda/CC and see what they get. I would be a lot of money the vast majority want no part of this. A great example of this was LFP. The overwhelming majority of people who live near/on Little Falls were vehemently against it. The council does what it wants to fit their bizarre ideological agenda.

No. The Montgomery County Council is the legislative branch of County Government. The Council members are elected by the voters of Montgomery County to serve on the Montgomery County Council.

Little Falls Parkway is operated by Montgomery Parks (which is not part of County Government, but rather part of the separate state-level agency M-NCPPC) for the benefit of everyone in Montgomery County, not just people who live near/on Little Falls Parkway. I regularly use Little Falls Parkway to get from North Bethesda to the CCT to DC by bike, and the best configuration was two-way car traffic on one side. I seriously regret the Council's decision to have one-lane, one-way traffic on both sides. It's more dangerous for trail users and drivers who don't want to hit trail users, and it results in unnecessary paved surface in a park.

You just agreed with PP. Even someone who uses it to bike liked the old way!?

Moco is too large and too diverse at this point. Decisions are being made for the few, not the majority. Voter turnout is abysmal for county elections and the candidates never have any real world experience. Just life long leeches who want to feel important

No. It used to be two lanes for cars each way, divided by a median. Then it was one lane for cars each way, divided by a median. Then it was one lane for cars each way, undivided, and both lanes on the other side of the median for people. That's what is there currently, and it's the best. Unfortunately the County Council has now decided it has to go back to one lane for cars each way, divided by a median. That will still be less bad than the original (two lanes for cars each way), but it's worse than what is there now.

What’s there now — two lanes, undivided, with no shoulders, seems to be intentionally dangerous. It’s puzzling why they did it.

It may seem dangerous to you, but it is actually safer, and also leaves more space for people away from the cars. That is why they did it.