MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

Do you live in a detached single family home neighborhood currently zoned R200, R90, R60 or R40 (most of the inner third of the county)? There.

Are you within a mile of Metro, MARC or the Purple Line (maybe half of the above)? More there.

Are you within 500 feet of a noted growth corridor that would have Bus Rapid Transit, like River, Wisconsin, Connecticut, Georgia, Colesville, New Hampshire, University, Viers Mill or Montrose/Randolph? Much, much more there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will ruin neighborhoods and reduce properties values in some neighborhoods without protections from excessive density. Neighborhoods with protective covenants and HOA's that prevent multifamily housing will become more valuable. Some properties close in that have higher redevelopment potential will increase in value due to higher land prices. Many of the others will lose value and resident quality of life will go down hill. Single family communities close to high quality private schools with strong HOA/Covenants to protect thew neighborhood are likely safe. However, many middle class homeowners in desirable school attendance zones will be financially destroyed if this passes.

Wow - haven’t heard of “protective covenants” since teaching historical context for A Raisin in the Sun. This level of fear mongering is absolute crazy work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

This is a pretty good concise summary, and I say that as somebody who is in favor of it. One clarification/question: where you wrote minimum, I think you meant maximum?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

It has nothing to do with race or class and everything to do with density. Many areas cannot accommodate quadruple the population density and this policy does nothing to mitigate the costs imposed on residents or the county. They are even encouraging waivers of property taxes for these new plex units which will destroy the counties already strained finances. They are actively encouraging unfunded population growth and ignoring any possible consequences or infrastructure constraints that will harm county residents.

[Anonymous]

There’s a huge affordable housing development coming up at the intersection of Randolph and Viers Mill, right across from the Korean Korner.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

Developers paying a homeowner a boat load to redevelop their detached house into a quadriplex benefits the person receiving the cash, but does nothing to help their neighbors. It's not win-win.

And then there are the concerns about school capacity and other infrastructure, and similar concerns for those currently residing in the affected areas, which are expressed without that racist/classist invective. And they are treated as though they are invalid as density promoters frame them as having the same bias, even as they are presented without it, in order to avoid addressing those issues head on. It's appalling.

[Anonymous]

The houses in our neighborhood seldom have driveways. They are on street parking and people park their car in front of their house.
I can’t even imagine how this will look like if multiple housing comes to our area, let alone what this will do to our schools and services.
The plan says they need to add 41,000 units over the next 10 years. Well, they can build these houses in empty lots already available like the former White Flint mall and not cram them into our neighborhoods.
If you own a single family home, who in their right mind would like to live next door to a multifamily structure?
Delusional.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

This is a pretty good concise summary, and I say that as somebody who is in favor of it. One clarification/question: where you wrote minimum, I think you meant maximum?

Well there are other proposed changes layered on top of the proposal that make it more complicated.
County changes
1) Eliminating single family zoning that make it more complicated.
2) Priority housing districts (with a 1 mile radius of metro stations or MARC stations)
3) Growth Corridors (within 500 feet of certain roads).

These county changes will stack with recent state laws overriding local zoning authority in some circumstances to allow well above 8x the current zoning for eligible properties.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

It has nothing to do with race or class and everything to do with density. Many areas cannot accommodate quadruple the population density and this policy does nothing to mitigate the costs imposed on residents or the county. They are even encouraging waivers of property taxes for these new plex units which will destroy the counties already strained finances. They are actively encouraging unfunded population growth and ignoring any possible consequences or infrastructure constraints that will harm county residents.

+1

I suspect there will be those like the responder who cry out with holier than though rhetoric, when we are simply facing the worst type of urban planning. This added density is sloppy, destructive, devaluing of current communities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

It has nothing to do with race or class and everything to do with density. Many areas cannot accommodate quadruple the population density and this policy does nothing to mitigate the costs imposed on residents or the county. They are even encouraging waivers of property taxes for these new plex units which will destroy the counties already strained finances. They are actively encouraging unfunded population growth and ignoring any possible consequences or infrastructure constraints that will harm county residents.

Uh-huh. I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and believe that is true for you (or at least that you have convinced yourself of it). But lots of the comments on this thread are to the contrary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

This is a pretty good concise summary, and I say that as somebody who is in favor of it. One clarification/question: where you wrote minimum, I think you meant maximum?

Well there are other proposed changes layered on top of the proposal that make it more complicated.
County changes
1) Eliminating single family zoning that make it more complicated.
2) Priority housing districts (with a 1 mile radius of metro stations or MARC stations)
3) Growth Corridors (within 500 feet of certain roads).

These county changes will stack with recent state laws overriding local zoning authority in some circumstances to allow well above 8x the current zoning for eligible properties.

In the meeting, linked recording above, they discussed how nobody knows how the state laws will apply and the state is going to put out implementation guidance later this week.
Also, I don't know what your #1 means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

Developers paying a homeowner a boat load to redevelop their detached house into a quadriplex benefits the person receiving the cash, but does nothing to help their neighbors. It's not win-win.

And then there are the concerns about school capacity and other infrastructure, and similar concerns for those currently residing in the affected areas, which are expressed without that racist/classist invective. And they are treated as though they are invalid as density promoters frame them as having the same bias, even as they are presented without it, in order to avoid addressing those issues head on. It's appalling.

Well, it helps the developer, the seller, and the four people moving in. And even if it doesn't help the neighbors, the belief that it will destroy the neighborhood is just Chicken Little, sky is falling speculation, bordering on hysteria.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

It has nothing to do with race or class and everything to do with density. Many areas cannot accommodate quadruple the population density and this policy does nothing to mitigate the costs imposed on residents or the county. They are even encouraging waivers of property taxes for these new plex units which will destroy the counties already strained finances. They are actively encouraging unfunded population growth and ignoring any possible consequences or infrastructure constraints that will harm county residents.

+1

I suspect there will be those like the responder who cry out with holier than though rhetoric, when we are simply facing the worst type of urban planning. This added density is sloppy, destructive, devaluing of current communities.

Thou. Holier-than-thou.

Is it just your opinion that this proposal is sloppy, destructive, and devaluing of current communities?