Montgomery County zoning: Council wants to change zoning throughout the county to multi-family

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there’s no restrictions on the number of kids who can live in an ADU. Typical MoCo-the schools nearest to Metro and jobs, most of which are already way over capacity with no solution in sight, will suffer the increased enrollment from this plan which of course MoCo doesn’t bother to factor in.

Well, no. Because that would be illegal discrimination and a violation of state and federal housing laws.

Well, they didn’t bother to consider increasing school capacity in high density areas that will be most impacted by this proposal. This is why so many schools are overcrowded in the first place. MoCo pushes through pro-developer policy and then kids suffer.

Actually so many schools are overcrowded in the first place because people who didn't have kids in school are selling their homes to people who do.

Maybe Montgomery County should have policies against people selling their homes to people with school-aged children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you know how many homes are within 1 mile of a metro station? Thousands and thousands. My home is and it certainly isn’t in a high density area so without a new parking space I can add an ADU. Most other jurisdictions who have encouraged ADUs just did it for within a half a mile, not one mile of a metro-type station. As for adding the cost of the unit, well, anyone who can afford a renovation an expects a return on their ADU can do this. And yes, my neighbor should care and have a right to say something. I have a shed that borders their property because when my house was built 100 years ago that was allowed-under today’s regulations it would not be, but my shed, which contains play equipment for my kid is grandfathered in. And so could be my ADU which could contain multiple people living there or even serve as an Air B n’ b

Yes. That's the whole point.

WHY should your neighbor have a right to control your use of your property?

The proposed ADU regulation prohibits use as an AirBnB.

Also, that must be a really big shed.

My neighbor didn’t buy a house expecting that a tiny house could be put not even 3 feet from his property line. The windows of my shed overlook his backyard. Lots of things are prohibited in MoCo, doesn’t mean they don’t happen. A study found 200 licensed units for AirBnB in the county, yet there were 1600 active listings. So they’re missing most of the bad actors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are plenty of landlords who will keep their apartments empty. It’s not such a dumb thing to do.

This has been the issue at Rockville Town Center. The landlord kept raising rents so that they became unreasonably high and so many stores closed. Then the City swooped in and promised to subsidize Dawson’s. So the landlord ended up getting more money. And had the units stayed empty, they declare it a loss.

Could you describe two scenarios under which it's not dumb for a landlord to keep an apartment vacant for long periods of time, during which they continue to pay mortgage payments, property taxes, condo/HOA fees, insurance, maintenance, and utilities?

Also, the issue at Rockville Town Center is commercial vacancies. Nobody lives at Dawson's Market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do you know how many homes are within 1 mile of a metro station? Thousands and thousands. My home is and it certainly isn’t in a high density area so without a new parking space I can add an ADU. Most other jurisdictions who have encouraged ADUs just did it for within a half a mile, not one mile of a metro-type station. As for adding the cost of the unit, well, anyone who can afford a renovation an expects a return on their ADU can do this. And yes, my neighbor should care and have a right to say something. I have a shed that borders their property because when my house was built 100 years ago that was allowed-under today’s regulations it would not be, but my shed, which contains play equipment for my kid is grandfathered in. And so could be my ADU which could contain multiple people living there or even serve as an Air B n’ b

Yes. That's the whole point.

WHY should your neighbor have a right to control your use of your property?

The proposed ADU regulation prohibits use as an AirBnB.

Also, that must be a really big shed.

My neighbor didn’t buy a house expecting that a tiny house could be put not even 3 feet from his property line. The windows of my shed overlook his backyard. Lots of things are prohibited in MoCo, doesn’t mean they don’t happen. A study found 200 licensed units for AirBnB in the county, yet there were 1600 active listings. So they’re missing most of the bad actors.

Yes, that's surely true. But it doesn't answer the question of why your neighbor should have a right to control your use of your property.

Also, "people violate existing regulations" is not a good argument against more regulations. It's a good argument for more enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So there’s no restrictions on the number of kids who can live in an ADU. Typical MoCo-the schools nearest to Metro and jobs, most of which are already way over capacity with no solution in sight, will suffer the increased enrollment from this plan which of course MoCo doesn’t bother to factor in.

I don't know about other areas, but most of the lots around Rockville metro aren't large enough to build ADUs in their backyard. And even if they were, a lot of the yards are slopey so it' s not that easy to build on, nor is it cheap. How many people around here would actually build an ADU? I might consider it for retirement, while I rent out the main house, but my backyard is about 5000sqft, narrow and long, and if I do build an ADU, most of the yard would be gone. I can't imagine building an ADU in my yard that would be big enough to be comfortable with the setback rules, and I wouldn't want the ADU to be too close to the main house. It would pretty tiny for two people, let alone for an adult with kids.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that the population has grown to such a level that our "inner suburbs" would be dense urban city in pretty much any other global city. The inner suburbs need to urbanize; we are running out of space and have a lot more people in the metro area. Similarly, DC needs to go denser and higher. I live in a SFH neighborhood in NW DC (R-40 zoning); its ridiculous that builders cannot convert any homes into multi-unit properties. And my elderly neighbors will fight them tooth and nail.

These things are starting to happen, but it will take time. The dying off of Boomers and elderly who bought their houses 30-50 years ago for a song will quicken the pace of upzoning. You're hamstringing two generations of young families that need a home and are spending 40-50%+ of their wages on housing. This isn't working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the population has grown to such a level that our "inner suburbs" would be dense urban city in pretty much any other global city. The inner suburbs need to urbanize; we are running out of space and have a lot more people in the metro area. Similarly, DC needs to go denser and higher. I live in a SFH neighborhood in NW DC (R-40 zoning); its ridiculous that builders cannot convert any homes into multi-unit properties. And my elderly neighbors will fight them tooth and nail.

These things are starting to happen, but it will take time. The dying off of Boomers and elderly who bought their houses 30-50 years ago for a song will quicken the pace of upzoning. You're hamstringing two generations of young families that need a home and are spending 40-50%+ of their wages on housing. This isn't working.

Yes, the fundamental thinking is:

1. I've got mine
2. If you have enough money, you too can have what I've got
3. If you don't have enough money, too bad

My opinion is that this ADU proposal doesn't go anywhere near what we need, and yet here people are, acting as though this very, very, very minimal proposal were the end of all that's sacred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the population has grown to such a level that our "inner suburbs" would be dense urban city in pretty much any other global city. The inner suburbs need to urbanize; we are running out of space and have a lot more people in the metro area. Similarly, DC needs to go denser and higher. I live in a SFH neighborhood in NW DC (R-40 zoning); its ridiculous that builders cannot convert any homes into multi-unit properties. And my elderly neighbors will fight them tooth and nail.

These things are starting to happen, but it will take time. The dying off of Boomers and elderly who bought their houses 30-50 years ago for a song will quicken the pace of upzoning. You're hamstringing two generations of young families that need a home and are spending 40-50%+ of their wages on housing. This isn't working.

Yes, the fundamental thinking is:

1. I've got mine
2. If you have enough money, you too can have what I've got
3. If you don't have enough money, too bad

My opinion is that this ADU proposal doesn't go anywhere near what we need, and yet here people are, acting as though this very, very, very minimal proposal were the end of all that's sacred.

What would go far enough, in your mind?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the population has grown to such a level that our "inner suburbs" would be dense urban city in pretty much any other global city. The inner suburbs need to urbanize; we are running out of space and have a lot more people in the metro area. Similarly, DC needs to go denser and higher. I live in a SFH neighborhood in NW DC (R-40 zoning); its ridiculous that builders cannot convert any homes into multi-unit properties. And my elderly neighbors will fight them tooth and nail.

These things are starting to happen, but it will take time. The dying off of Boomers and elderly who bought their houses 30-50 years ago for a song will quicken the pace of upzoning. You're hamstringing two generations of young families that need a home and are spending 40-50%+ of their wages on housing. This isn't working.

Yes, the fundamental thinking is:

1. I've got mine
2. If you have enough money, you too can have what I've got
3. If you don't have enough money, too bad

My opinion is that this ADU proposal doesn't go anywhere near what we need, and yet here people are, acting as though this very, very, very minimal proposal were the end of all that's sacred.

Agreed, this proposal is simply a Band-Aid for a gushing wound.

Look at it this way: Bethesda is less than 7 miles from the White House. In any other global city, Bethesda would be chock-full of dense urban dwellings. 7 miles in Paris, London, or Tokyo gets you nowhere and you won't encounter any neighborhood with REQUIRED SFH zoning. The island of Manhattan is 13.4 miles long and you won't see SFHs REQUIRED by zoning.

It's ridiculous. Families need homes and the zoning in the DC metro areas makes housing prohibitively expensive.

If you're worried about over-crowded schools? More families mean we need to build more schools - let's pressure our local leaders to do so. WOTP DC is in dire need of more schools and soon; the school-age population is set to increase by 15-20% in the next 5 years. Bethesda also needs more schools. That's how you respond to needing more seats. For every old person that dies in my MIL's Bethesda neighborhood, either (1) a young family moves in to an expensive house that usually in dire need of repairs and updates or (2) it's sold to a flipper who then sells the house to a family. All these people want to put their kids in Bethesda schools. And yet I hear incessant whining from MoCO retirees who sent their kids to MoCo public schools.

Enough of the ridiculous "got mine" attitudes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the population has grown to such a level that our "inner suburbs" would be dense urban city in pretty much any other global city. The inner suburbs need to urbanize; we are running out of space and have a lot more people in the metro area. Similarly, DC needs to go denser and higher. I live in a SFH neighborhood in NW DC (R-40 zoning); its ridiculous that builders cannot convert any homes into multi-unit properties. And my elderly neighbors will fight them tooth and nail.

These things are starting to happen, but it will take time. The dying off of Boomers and elderly who bought their houses 30-50 years ago for a song will quicken the pace of upzoning. You're hamstringing two generations of young families that need a home and are spending 40-50%+ of their wages on housing. This isn't working.

People who claim to be affordable housing advocates consistently make these ageist remarks and they always get away with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the population has grown to such a level that our "inner suburbs" would be dense urban city in pretty much any other global city. The inner suburbs need to urbanize; we are running out of space and have a lot more people in the metro area. Similarly, DC needs to go denser and higher. I live in a SFH neighborhood in NW DC (R-40 zoning); its ridiculous that builders cannot convert any homes into multi-unit properties. And my elderly neighbors will fight them tooth and nail.

These things are starting to happen, but it will take time. The dying off of Boomers and elderly who bought their houses 30-50 years ago for a song will quicken the pace of upzoning. You're hamstringing two generations of young families that need a home and are spending 40-50%+ of their wages on housing. This isn't working.

People who claim to be affordable housing advocates consistently make these ageist remarks and they always get away with it.

What's age-ist about it? It is a fact that the majority of homeowners are 55 or older. It's also a fact that homeownership rates among young adults are decreasing. Part of that is probably due to lifestyle choice, but a lot of is due to high housing costs.

ADUs are one way to reduce housing costs (by increasing the supply of housing). This will benefit people who can't afford to be homeowners due to high housing costs - who are disproportionately young adults. But some vocal current homeowners - who are disproportionately 55 or older - oppose ADUs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that the population has grown to such a level that our "inner suburbs" would be dense urban city in pretty much any other global city. The inner suburbs need to urbanize; we are running out of space and have a lot more people in the metro area. Similarly, DC needs to go denser and higher. I live in a SFH neighborhood in NW DC (R-40 zoning); its ridiculous that builders cannot convert any homes into multi-unit properties. And my elderly neighbors will fight them tooth and nail.

These things are starting to happen, but it will take time. The dying off of Boomers and elderly who bought their houses 30-50 years ago for a song will quicken the pace of upzoning. You're hamstringing two generations of young families that need a home and are spending 40-50%+ of their wages on housing. This isn't working.

Yes, the fundamental thinking is:

1. I've got mine
2. If you have enough money, you too can have what I've got
3. If you don't have enough money, too bad

My opinion is that this ADU proposal doesn't go anywhere near what we need, and yet here people are, acting as though this very, very, very minimal proposal were the end of all that's sacred.

What would go far enough, in your mind?

PP you're responding to. I think we'd need 3 things.

First, rezone (like the city of Minneapolis) to allow duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes by right, everywhere that's currently zoned for single-family detached on public water/sewer.

Second, subsidize the construction/conversion/maintenance of housing for people with low incomes. The market alone won't do that, and MPDUs don't do it either.

Third, get rid of the traffic models, subdivision staging policies based on driving, and required parking minimums, and put the money into reliable and frequent transit supported by safe and convenient biking and walking facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there’s no restrictions on the number of kids who can live in an ADU. Typical MoCo-the schools nearest to Metro and jobs, most of which are already way over capacity with no solution in sight, will suffer the increased enrollment from this plan which of course MoCo doesn’t bother to factor in.

I don't know about other areas, but most of the lots around Rockville metro aren't large enough to build ADUs in their backyard. And even if they were, a lot of the yards are slopey so it' s not that easy to build on, nor is it cheap. How many people around here would actually build an ADU? I might consider it for retirement, while I rent out the main house, but my backyard is about 5000sqft, narrow and long, and if I do build an ADU, most of the yard would be gone. I can't imagine building an ADU in my yard that would be big enough to be comfortable with the setback rules, and I wouldn't want the ADU to be too close to the main house. It would pretty tiny for two people, let alone for an adult with kids.

I live in a MoCO neighborhood with less that 1/4 acre lots for the most part and we already have some of these illegal apartments in our neighborhoods. People either build up or out and then rent out to too many people. You’ll be surprised at how many people will fit in a teeny area. Personally, I’m not a fan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So there’s no restrictions on the number of kids who can live in an ADU. Typical MoCo-the schools nearest to Metro and jobs, most of which are already way over capacity with no solution in sight, will suffer the increased enrollment from this plan which of course MoCo doesn’t bother to factor in.

Well, no. Because that would be illegal discrimination and a violation of state and federal housing laws.

Well, they didn’t bother to consider increasing school capacity in high density areas that will be most impacted by this proposal. This is why so many schools are overcrowded in the first place. MoCo pushes through pro-developer policy and then kids suffer.

Actually so many schools are overcrowded in the first place because people who didn't have kids in school are selling their homes to people who do.

Maybe Montgomery County should have policies against people selling their homes to people with school-aged children.

Not true for our area. In my neighborhood the older couples move out of the homes and it’s purchased by an illegal landlord and turned into a boarding house. So in a SFH where there used to be 3 kids, we now have 7. Poor enforcement of the housing codes already in place has led to more and more of these homes taking over our neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I live in a MoCO neighborhood with less that 1/4 acre lots for the most part and we already have some of these illegal apartments in our neighborhoods. People either build up or out and then rent out to too many people. You’ll be surprised at how many people will fit in a teeny area. Personally, I’m not a fan.

But this is not a proposal for illegal apartments. It's a proposal for legal apartments.