MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother to sign petitions people. They give a false sense of security and are completely ineffective. You need to be sending emails nonstop, requesting meetings with elected representatives and showing up to attend any public events where you can provide public statements to your elected representatives stating opposition to the proposal. Have people protest about it every day. This is proposal is a disaster and we need to do everything possible to have a chance at stopping it. Otherwise the developers and real estate lobby will use their influence to screw over county residents.

An interesting way to frame the issue, given that county residents will live in the housing that will be built as a result of the proposal.

So the perceived needs of an unknown number of residents relocating within the county should completely outweigh the needs and wants of the very real current residents of SFH neighborhoods who purchased them under the current zoning regulations?

Besides, I thought that the planning board said that they needed these changes to provide housing for the projected new residents. If people are residents, they have homes.

Housing is not a perceived need, it's an actual need.

I can acknowledge that some county residents might not benefit from this proposal, but other county residents would benefit. Can you likewise acknowledge that some county residents would benefit from this proposal?

^^^and also, the County Council should be focused on THE FUTURE of Montgomery County. The future of Montgomery County encompasses more than merely what current residents might or might not expect under current laws. I don't think the County Council should weigh "But when I bought my house, I expected the zoning to stay the same forever" more heavily than the what residents of Montgomery County will need in the future.

Or, to put it in more personal terms: I don't think the County Council should weigh my preferences more heavily than my kids' needs. If you don't care about the needs of county residents in the future, then keep doing what you're doing. I do care, though, and that's why I support the zoning proposal.

Are you assuming your kids will never be able to afford a SFH? That's a crappy way to think.

When is the last time you listened to anybody under age 35 talk about housing? I do mean actually listen, not just be in the same room as someone who is talking.

I am the PP and 34 with a 2yr old. I own a home in Chevy Chase, MD. I decided (hint, didn't get some worthless degree) to work in a lucrative field and marry someone who decided to continue working. All of my friends own a home and have owned homes for at least the last 4 years. No family assistance for me.

My daughter will absolutely be able to afford a SFH because I will make sure she can. That is my job as a parent, not the county council's job.

There is plenty of affordability in PG county and further west. Stop being leeches and expect others to bend over backward for you and figure it out.

Oh, PP. I hope the Just World Hypothesis never lets you down.

and i hope the victim mentality never lets you down

So I'm the PP you're responding to, and my hope was actually sincere. I sincerely hope that bad things won't happen to you or yours.

As for the victim mentality - well, that's a weird response. First of all, this is not about me. I'm pushing 60, I've been a homeowner for decades, I'm financially comfortable (though of course bad things can happen to anyone, see above). I don't know why you would assume this was about me. Second of all, this is a zoning proposal that would allow property owners to build more types of housing on the property they own. How did you get from that to "victim mentality" and "leeches"?

Not PP

The county council is the problem..they are the "victims" and "leeches"

The county council, elected by the voters of Montgomery County in 2022? 7 district council members, 4 at large council members - that county council?

However far you get with "new housing only benefits developers" and "housing isn't a need" - and I don't think you'll get far - I think you'll get even less far with "the members of the county council are victims and leeches."

Get far with…who?

The YIMBYs love the process when it works for them and whine when it doesn’t. They are currently crying about the fact that the Great Seneca Plan update didn’t touch SFH for the most part. Shouldn’t they really be taking this advice and STFU about it? I mean, the elected officials hired the planners and approved the plan. The decision was made. No complaining.

With the County Council. Do you think calling the County Council victims and leeches will persuade the County Council to do what you're advocating for?

I don't know who these purported YIMBYs are who are purportedly crying about the Great Seneca Plan, or where you encountered them, or whether they called the County Council victims and leeches.

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

I don't understand what you're saying. Who are these "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive? Why isn't the Great Seneca Plan it where they'd want to be developing housing at density? Why do you think it would harm them (whoever they are) to live in places where the zoning would allow more types of housing?

Also have you ever been to the areas in the scope of the Great Seneca Plan? Or looked at a map of it? Whatever "housing at density" means, most of those areas already have it. Are you implying that the "YIMBY" folks who (etc etc) all live in detached single family houses in the area of Thurgood Marshall ES and Ridgeview MS, or in the few streets east of the synagogue on 28? That seems oddly specific. The other areas in the plan are the apartments and townhouses in the triangle between East Diamond, Muddy Branch, and 270; NIST (where nobody lives); the Washingtonian area; the industrial area between Shady Grove Road and 370 (where nobody lives); and the area around Shady Grove hospital.

You should really start by reading this thread, it would answer so many of your questions.

No, I've read this thread (to my sorrow), and my questions remain. The PP is clearly trying to imply something, and/or allude to something, but I have no idea what.

Hello, doubt-casting Questioner. That something likely is obvious to most reading this thread. Given your regular demonstration of your knowledge of detail, it is highly doubtful that you, yourself, struggle with comprehension of that something.

This is weird. First, I have read the thread. Second, how is it bad to ask questions? Third, if you don't like being asked questions, then all you have to do is ignore the post. And finally, I sincerely do not understand who and what the PP is talking about in their post. If you were the PP, or if you understand who and what the PP is talking about, please explain. Or don't explain, if you don't want to; that's ok too.

I'm referring to this post right here:

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

Anyone who has read the thread has seen The Questioner pose such "earnest" questions...and the criticism of The Questioner, given their lack of providing a critiqueable position of thier own to facilitate truth-seeking and given their then jumping on hyperbolized/straw-man representations of single aspects of responses without acknowledgement of the validity of the remainder (or of the context). This is the rhetorical behavior as someone who asks, not because they earnestly seek clarification, but because they wish to hold an imbalanced discussion, casting much doubt on another's position without risking their own.

Reaponding directly to such an individual serves no good purpose, nor does leaving their question to hang as the last word for others to read.

Hey, they are “just asking questions!”

https://thedecisionlab.com/insights/policy/why-theres-no-such-thing-as-just-asking-questions

Did you read your own link? I am not "just asking questions". Maybe you think this post is clear:

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

But I don't. I don't have any idea what it means, besides implying that unnamed dark self-interested forces are at work.

Whatever you're doing here, I don't think it's facilitating truth-seeking, because that would require you to engage with the idea that people might have sincere, disinterested, and fact-based reasons to disagree with your opinions. However, since you're interested in my position, I will restate my position: I generally support the zoning proposal because I think it's good housing policy to allow property owners to build more types of housing on property they own.

Also, it's always possible to ignore posts. There is no rule requiring you to respond to all posts, or indeed to any posts at all.

PP here, what truth do you think that someone is seeking?

There are some simple facts about proposed changes in zoning.

The simple facts are: the Planning Board transmitted a set of recommendations to the County Council, the County Council will follow the process for considering and enacting them, and any changes will be changes in the law.

Everything else is not simple, because the Montgomery County zoning code is not simple. And everything else is not facts - it's opinions and predictions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish for the developers to put up a 6 sotry building on the left (or as many as are allowed), and as many townhouses as can fit on the right, and a home with chickens behind, of every council and planning board member's single family house.

The Robin Hood implication is belied by the fact that the recommendations rob from the not-so-rich -- those in older, closer-in, built-out neighborhoods without alternate protections to their existing zoning -- instead of the truly wealthy -- those more typically protected by covenants or more likely to effect such (e.g., Chevy Chase), those protected by historic designation (e.g., historic Takoma Park), separation from the high-density zones (e.g., Bethesda along Massachusetts/MacArthur/the river) and those living in their no-BRT-for-us-thanks mansion zones (e.g., Potomac). One wonders how many of the Council, the Planning Board and the developers who would gain greatly from this plan really live in those older, closer-in, built-out, more-to-the-east detached SFH neighborhoods that would be most affected.

One doesn't. For example, I don't. Maybe you do.

With all these dark allusions, you think somebody would be willing to do the work and figure out where the Council members and Planning Board members live. But why do that, when you can just keep making dark allusions?

While you were listing people/groups who would gain greatly from this plan, you forgot to list one important group: the people who will live in the new housing.

Not denying that, and that has been mentioned previously. But they are not the ones driving this.

And the way that this has been driven -- "we have to take from those in detached SFHs to make room for the people who need new housing," which amounts to a Robin Hood claim -- is clearly just a show by those who are driving it when the negative effects are far less likely to be felt by those at the highest end of county wealth.

It's the same squeeze-the-middle/allow-accumulation-at-the-top-with-bread-and-circuses-to-distract that we've seen in the country for a couple of decades that is being pursued, here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish for the developers to put up a 6 sotry building on the left (or as many as are allowed), and as many townhouses as can fit on the right, and a home with chickens behind, of every council and planning board member's single family house.

The Robin Hood implication is belied by the fact that the recommendations rob from the not-so-rich -- those in older, closer-in, built-out neighborhoods without alternate protections to their existing zoning -- instead of the truly wealthy -- those more typically protected by covenants or more likely to effect such (e.g., Chevy Chase), those protected by historic designation (e.g., historic Takoma Park), separation from the high-density zones (e.g., Bethesda along Massachusetts/MacArthur/the river) and those living in their no-BRT-for-us-thanks mansion zones (e.g., Potomac). One wonders how many of the Council, the Planning Board and the developers who would gain greatly from this plan really live in those older, closer-in, built-out, more-to-the-east detached SFH neighborhoods that would be most affected.

One doesn't. For example, I don't. Maybe you do.

With all these dark allusions, you think somebody would be willing to do the work and figure out where the Council members and Planning Board members live. But why do that, when you can just keep making dark allusions?

While you were listing people/groups who would gain greatly from this plan, you forgot to list one important group: the people who will live in the new housing.

Not denying that, and that has been mentioned previously. But they are not the ones driving this.

And the way that this has been driven -- "we have to take from those in detached SFHs to make room for the people who need new housing," which amounts to a Robin Hood claim -- is clearly just a show by those who are driving it when the negative effects are far less likely to be felt by those at the highest end of county wealth.

It's the same squeeze-the-middle/allow-accumulation-at-the-top-with-bread-and-circuses-to-distract that we've seen in the country for a couple of decades that is being pursued, here.

This is not fact, it's your perception, and it's based on your opinion that your neighborhood will be worse if there are small multi-unit residential buildings in it. Plenty of people do not share your opinion about this.

[Anonymous]

Bethesda residents, your Master Plan might be getting some new density:

REMINDER: The community is invited to informational workshops on the Bethesda Downtown Minor Master Plan Amendment we're working on.

The first one is tonight, and there are two more August 14 and August 17.

Learn more about the plan and the workshops: https://bit.ly/4cXECok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda residents, your Master Plan might be getting some new density:

REMINDER: The community is invited to informational workshops on the Bethesda Downtown Minor Master Plan Amendment we're working on.

The first one is tonight, and there are two more August 14 and August 17.

Learn more about the plan and the workshops: https://bit.ly/4cXECok

Oh no, density in downtown Bethesda?

As noted above, the MMPA will not re-open the entire 2017 plan. The existing zoning, parks,
transportation, and other recommendations will remain unchanged while we explore how better to
implement those recommendations. The MMPA will focus on implementation strategies for the
following and related elements:
 economic development
 park development
 transportation improvements
 schools
 affordable housing
 community recreation center.

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS
The MMPA will consider the following questions, among others:
 Is a development cap necessary in downtown Bethesda? If so, does it need to be raised? Are
there alternative approaches that would work better?
 How do we ensure that public infrastructure can support future growth?
Bethesda Downtown Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment Scope of Work 10
 What are the top-priority public improvements recommended in the plan (e.g., parks, capital
crescent trail tunnel, community recreation center, and/or others) and does the MMPA need to
provide additional incentives to realize them?
 Is the park implementation strategy in the 2017 plan still the right one?
 Could any of the current implementation recommendations be modified to better achieve the
goals of the plan?

RELATED ANALYSES
To inform the MMPA recommendations, staff will analyze the following and other areas as necessary:
 development density
 transportation
 economic development
 climate
 racial equity and social justice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda residents, your Master Plan might be getting some new density:

REMINDER: The community is invited to informational workshops on the Bethesda Downtown Minor Master Plan Amendment we're working on.

The first one is tonight, and there are two more August 14 and August 17.

Learn more about the plan and the workshops: https://bit.ly/4cXECok

Oh no, density in downtown Bethesda?

As noted above, the MMPA will not re-open the entire 2017 plan. The existing zoning, parks,
transportation, and other recommendations will remain unchanged while we explore how better to
implement those recommendations. The MMPA will focus on implementation strategies for the
following and related elements:
 economic development
 park development
 transportation improvements
 schools
 affordable housing
 community recreation center.

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS
The MMPA will consider the following questions, among others:
 Is a development cap necessary in downtown Bethesda? If so, does it need to be raised? Are
there alternative approaches that would work better?
 How do we ensure that public infrastructure can support future growth?
Bethesda Downtown Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment Scope of Work 10
 What are the top-priority public improvements recommended in the plan (e.g., parks, capital
crescent trail tunnel, community recreation center, and/or others) and does the MMPA need to
provide additional incentives to realize them?
 Is the park implementation strategy in the 2017 plan still the right one?
 Could any of the current implementation recommendations be modified to better achieve the
goals of the plan?

RELATED ANALYSES
To inform the MMPA recommendations, staff will analyze the following and other areas as necessary:
 development density
 transportation
 economic development
 climate
 racial equity and social justice.

Wow, so defensive.

It is quite YIMBY of you to be afraid of people being notified about and possibly having a say about changes to their neighborhoods. If it’s harmless, then why not just let people decide if they like an adjustment to the cap on development in downtown Bethesda?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bethesda residents, your Master Plan might be getting some new density:

REMINDER: The community is invited to informational workshops on the Bethesda Downtown Minor Master Plan Amendment we're working on.

The first one is tonight, and there are two more August 14 and August 17.

Learn more about the plan and the workshops: https://bit.ly/4cXECok

Oh no, density in downtown Bethesda?

As noted above, the MMPA will not re-open the entire 2017 plan. The existing zoning, parks,
transportation, and other recommendations will remain unchanged while we explore how better to
implement those recommendations. The MMPA will focus on implementation strategies for the
following and related elements:
 economic development
 park development
 transportation improvements
 schools
 affordable housing
 community recreation center.

QUESTIONS TO ADDRESS
The MMPA will consider the following questions, among others:
 Is a development cap necessary in downtown Bethesda? If so, does it need to be raised? Are
there alternative approaches that would work better?
 How do we ensure that public infrastructure can support future growth?
Bethesda Downtown Plan Minor Master Plan Amendment Scope of Work 10
 What are the top-priority public improvements recommended in the plan (e.g., parks, capital
crescent trail tunnel, community recreation center, and/or others) and does the MMPA need to
provide additional incentives to realize them?
 Is the park implementation strategy in the 2017 plan still the right one?
 Could any of the current implementation recommendations be modified to better achieve the
goals of the plan?

RELATED ANALYSES
To inform the MMPA recommendations, staff will analyze the following and other areas as necessary:
 development density
 transportation
 economic development
 climate
 racial equity and social justice.

Wow, so defensive.

It is quite YIMBY of you to be afraid of people being notified about and possibly having a say about changes to their neighborhoods. If it’s harmless, then why not just let people decide if they like an adjustment to the cap on development in downtown Bethesda?

I copy and pasted information about the scope of work. It's weird that you consider this defensive. It's weird that you consider this being afraid of people being informed. It's weird that you turned this into a personal attack on me.

https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/BDPMMPA-Scope-of-Work-20240620-FINAL-UPDATED.pdf

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother to sign petitions people. They give a false sense of security and are completely ineffective. You need to be sending emails nonstop, requesting meetings with elected representatives and showing up to attend any public events where you can provide public statements to your elected representatives stating opposition to the proposal. Have people protest about it every day. This is proposal is a disaster and we need to do everything possible to have a chance at stopping it. Otherwise the developers and real estate lobby will use their influence to screw over county residents.

An interesting way to frame the issue, given that county residents will live in the housing that will be built as a result of the proposal.

So the perceived needs of an unknown number of residents relocating within the county should completely outweigh the needs and wants of the very real current residents of SFH neighborhoods who purchased them under the current zoning regulations?

Besides, I thought that the planning board said that they needed these changes to provide housing for the projected new residents. If people are residents, they have homes.

Housing is not a perceived need, it's an actual need.

I can acknowledge that some county residents might not benefit from this proposal, but other county residents would benefit. Can you likewise acknowledge that some county residents would benefit from this proposal?

^^^and also, the County Council should be focused on THE FUTURE of Montgomery County. The future of Montgomery County encompasses more than merely what current residents might or might not expect under current laws. I don't think the County Council should weigh "But when I bought my house, I expected the zoning to stay the same forever" more heavily than the what residents of Montgomery County will need in the future.

Or, to put it in more personal terms: I don't think the County Council should weigh my preferences more heavily than my kids' needs. If you don't care about the needs of county residents in the future, then keep doing what you're doing. I do care, though, and that's why I support the zoning proposal.

Are you assuming your kids will never be able to afford a SFH? That's a crappy way to think.

When is the last time you listened to anybody under age 35 talk about housing? I do mean actually listen, not just be in the same room as someone who is talking.

I am the PP and 34 with a 2yr old. I own a home in Chevy Chase, MD. I decided (hint, didn't get some worthless degree) to work in a lucrative field and marry someone who decided to continue working. All of my friends own a home and have owned homes for at least the last 4 years. No family assistance for me.

My daughter will absolutely be able to afford a SFH because I will make sure she can. That is my job as a parent, not the county council's job.

There is plenty of affordability in PG county and further west. Stop being leeches and expect others to bend over backward for you and figure it out.

Oh, PP. I hope the Just World Hypothesis never lets you down.

and i hope the victim mentality never lets you down

So I'm the PP you're responding to, and my hope was actually sincere. I sincerely hope that bad things won't happen to you or yours.

As for the victim mentality - well, that's a weird response. First of all, this is not about me. I'm pushing 60, I've been a homeowner for decades, I'm financially comfortable (though of course bad things can happen to anyone, see above). I don't know why you would assume this was about me. Second of all, this is a zoning proposal that would allow property owners to build more types of housing on the property they own. How did you get from that to "victim mentality" and "leeches"?

Not PP

The county council is the problem..they are the "victims" and "leeches"

The county council, elected by the voters of Montgomery County in 2022? 7 district council members, 4 at large council members - that county council?

However far you get with "new housing only benefits developers" and "housing isn't a need" - and I don't think you'll get far - I think you'll get even less far with "the members of the county council are victims and leeches."

Get far with…who?

The YIMBYs love the process when it works for them and whine when it doesn’t. They are currently crying about the fact that the Great Seneca Plan update didn’t touch SFH for the most part. Shouldn’t they really be taking this advice and STFU about it? I mean, the elected officials hired the planners and approved the plan. The decision was made. No complaining.

With the County Council. Do you think calling the County Council victims and leeches will persuade the County Council to do what you're advocating for?

I don't know who these purported YIMBYs are who are purportedly crying about the Great Seneca Plan, or where you encountered them, or whether they called the County Council victims and leeches.

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

You NIMBY's sure do hate "profit" by those evil developers.

How about you all sign up and commit to sell your house at no more than the rate of inflation + cost of improvements? You wouldn't want you to make an undue profit, right?

Oh, you do want to do that? Hmmmm, I wonder why.

DP. I don’t hate profit but I’m smart enough to know that if you build your housing policy around maximizing profit for developers then in the best case developers get high profits but there’s no guarantee that we get more housing or more attainable housing. You also get bad outcomes if your housing policy is built around maximizing profit for homeowners, but MoCo hasn’t done that so it’s theoretical gripe.

MoCo hasn't done that though, and is also not proposing to do so.

Yes it has, and the tax breaks suggested in the attainable housing strategy are more of them same. The articulated rationale for the impact fee reductions, the tax abatements, and the other subsidies was that if building housing is more profitable developers will build more housing. Casey Anderson said “it just stands to reason” that it will work that way from the dais at Planning many times.

The people who supported this will one day look back and realize that they hurt a lot of people financially for the benefit of very wealthy people. Those with a conscience will regret that. Others will just move onto their next great cause.

That doesn't mean MoCo is maximizing profit for developers. That means the housing market works like other markets.

It means the entire theory of MoCo’s housing policy is increasing profits for developers. The main difference is other markets build housing and this one doesn’t, and a lot of those other markets aren’t subsidizing market rate housing.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother to sign petitions people. They give a false sense of security and are completely ineffective. You need to be sending emails nonstop, requesting meetings with elected representatives and showing up to attend any public events where you can provide public statements to your elected representatives stating opposition to the proposal. Have people protest about it every day. This is proposal is a disaster and we need to do everything possible to have a chance at stopping it. Otherwise the developers and real estate lobby will use their influence to screw over county residents.

An interesting way to frame the issue, given that county residents will live in the housing that will be built as a result of the proposal.

So the perceived needs of an unknown number of residents relocating within the county should completely outweigh the needs and wants of the very real current residents of SFH neighborhoods who purchased them under the current zoning regulations?

Besides, I thought that the planning board said that they needed these changes to provide housing for the projected new residents. If people are residents, they have homes.

Housing is not a perceived need, it's an actual need.

I can acknowledge that some county residents might not benefit from this proposal, but other county residents would benefit. Can you likewise acknowledge that some county residents would benefit from this proposal?

^^^and also, the County Council should be focused on THE FUTURE of Montgomery County. The future of Montgomery County encompasses more than merely what current residents might or might not expect under current laws. I don't think the County Council should weigh "But when I bought my house, I expected the zoning to stay the same forever" more heavily than the what residents of Montgomery County will need in the future.

Or, to put it in more personal terms: I don't think the County Council should weigh my preferences more heavily than my kids' needs. If you don't care about the needs of county residents in the future, then keep doing what you're doing. I do care, though, and that's why I support the zoning proposal.

Are you assuming your kids will never be able to afford a SFH? That's a crappy way to think.

When is the last time you listened to anybody under age 35 talk about housing? I do mean actually listen, not just be in the same room as someone who is talking.

I am the PP and 34 with a 2yr old. I own a home in Chevy Chase, MD. I decided (hint, didn't get some worthless degree) to work in a lucrative field and marry someone who decided to continue working. All of my friends own a home and have owned homes for at least the last 4 years. No family assistance for me.

My daughter will absolutely be able to afford a SFH because I will make sure she can. That is my job as a parent, not the county council's job.

There is plenty of affordability in PG county and further west. Stop being leeches and expect others to bend over backward for you and figure it out.

Oh, PP. I hope the Just World Hypothesis never lets you down.

and i hope the victim mentality never lets you down

So I'm the PP you're responding to, and my hope was actually sincere. I sincerely hope that bad things won't happen to you or yours.

As for the victim mentality - well, that's a weird response. First of all, this is not about me. I'm pushing 60, I've been a homeowner for decades, I'm financially comfortable (though of course bad things can happen to anyone, see above). I don't know why you would assume this was about me. Second of all, this is a zoning proposal that would allow property owners to build more types of housing on the property they own. How did you get from that to "victim mentality" and "leeches"?

Not PP

The county council is the problem..they are the "victims" and "leeches"

The county council, elected by the voters of Montgomery County in 2022? 7 district council members, 4 at large council members - that county council?

However far you get with "new housing only benefits developers" and "housing isn't a need" - and I don't think you'll get far - I think you'll get even less far with "the members of the county council are victims and leeches."

Get far with…who?

The YIMBYs love the process when it works for them and whine when it doesn’t. They are currently crying about the fact that the Great Seneca Plan update didn’t touch SFH for the most part. Shouldn’t they really be taking this advice and STFU about it? I mean, the elected officials hired the planners and approved the plan. The decision was made. No complaining.

With the County Council. Do you think calling the County Council victims and leeches will persuade the County Council to do what you're advocating for?

I don't know who these purported YIMBYs are who are purportedly crying about the Great Seneca Plan, or where you encountered them, or whether they called the County Council victims and leeches.

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

You NIMBY's sure do hate "profit" by those evil developers.

How about you all sign up and commit to sell your house at no more than the rate of inflation + cost of improvements? You wouldn't want you to make an undue profit, right?

Oh, you do want to do that? Hmmmm, I wonder why.

DP. I don’t hate profit but I’m smart enough to know that if you build your housing policy around maximizing profit for developers then in the best case developers get high profits but there’s no guarantee that we get more housing or more attainable housing. You also get bad outcomes if your housing policy is built around maximizing profit for homeowners, but MoCo hasn’t done that so it’s theoretical gripe.

MoCo hasn't done that though, and is also not proposing to do so.

Yes it has, and the tax breaks suggested in the attainable housing strategy are more of them same. The articulated rationale for the impact fee reductions, the tax abatements, and the other subsidies was that if building housing is more profitable developers will build more housing. Casey Anderson said “it just stands to reason” that it will work that way from the dais at Planning many times.

The people who supported this will one day look back and realize that they hurt a lot of people financially for the benefit of very wealthy people. Those with a conscience will regret that. Others will just move onto their next great cause.

That doesn't mean MoCo is maximizing profit for developers. That means the housing market works like other markets.

It means the entire theory of MoCo’s housing policy is increasing profits for developers. The main difference is other markets build housing and this one doesn’t, and a lot of those other markets aren’t subsidizing market rate housing.

It does not mean that. That is your opinion.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother to sign petitions people. They give a false sense of security and are completely ineffective. You need to be sending emails nonstop, requesting meetings with elected representatives and showing up to attend any public events where you can provide public statements to your elected representatives stating opposition to the proposal. Have people protest about it every day. This is proposal is a disaster and we need to do everything possible to have a chance at stopping it. Otherwise the developers and real estate lobby will use their influence to screw over county residents.

An interesting way to frame the issue, given that county residents will live in the housing that will be built as a result of the proposal.

So the perceived needs of an unknown number of residents relocating within the county should completely outweigh the needs and wants of the very real current residents of SFH neighborhoods who purchased them under the current zoning regulations?

Besides, I thought that the planning board said that they needed these changes to provide housing for the projected new residents. If people are residents, they have homes.

Housing is not a perceived need, it's an actual need.

I can acknowledge that some county residents might not benefit from this proposal, but other county residents would benefit. Can you likewise acknowledge that some county residents would benefit from this proposal?

^^^and also, the County Council should be focused on THE FUTURE of Montgomery County. The future of Montgomery County encompasses more than merely what current residents might or might not expect under current laws. I don't think the County Council should weigh "But when I bought my house, I expected the zoning to stay the same forever" more heavily than the what residents of Montgomery County will need in the future.

Or, to put it in more personal terms: I don't think the County Council should weigh my preferences more heavily than my kids' needs. If you don't care about the needs of county residents in the future, then keep doing what you're doing. I do care, though, and that's why I support the zoning proposal.

Are you assuming your kids will never be able to afford a SFH? That's a crappy way to think.

When is the last time you listened to anybody under age 35 talk about housing? I do mean actually listen, not just be in the same room as someone who is talking.

I am the PP and 34 with a 2yr old. I own a home in Chevy Chase, MD. I decided (hint, didn't get some worthless degree) to work in a lucrative field and marry someone who decided to continue working. All of my friends own a home and have owned homes for at least the last 4 years. No family assistance for me.

My daughter will absolutely be able to afford a SFH because I will make sure she can. That is my job as a parent, not the county council's job.

There is plenty of affordability in PG county and further west. Stop being leeches and expect others to bend over backward for you and figure it out.

Oh, PP. I hope the Just World Hypothesis never lets you down.

and i hope the victim mentality never lets you down

So I'm the PP you're responding to, and my hope was actually sincere. I sincerely hope that bad things won't happen to you or yours.

As for the victim mentality - well, that's a weird response. First of all, this is not about me. I'm pushing 60, I've been a homeowner for decades, I'm financially comfortable (though of course bad things can happen to anyone, see above). I don't know why you would assume this was about me. Second of all, this is a zoning proposal that would allow property owners to build more types of housing on the property they own. How did you get from that to "victim mentality" and "leeches"?

Not PP

The county council is the problem..they are the "victims" and "leeches"

The county council, elected by the voters of Montgomery County in 2022? 7 district council members, 4 at large council members - that county council?

However far you get with "new housing only benefits developers" and "housing isn't a need" - and I don't think you'll get far - I think you'll get even less far with "the members of the county council are victims and leeches."

Get far with…who?

The YIMBYs love the process when it works for them and whine when it doesn’t. They are currently crying about the fact that the Great Seneca Plan update didn’t touch SFH for the most part. Shouldn’t they really be taking this advice and STFU about it? I mean, the elected officials hired the planners and approved the plan. The decision was made. No complaining.

With the County Council. Do you think calling the County Council victims and leeches will persuade the County Council to do what you're advocating for?

I don't know who these purported YIMBYs are who are purportedly crying about the Great Seneca Plan, or where you encountered them, or whether they called the County Council victims and leeches.

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

You NIMBY's sure do hate "profit" by those evil developers.

How about you all sign up and commit to sell your house at no more than the rate of inflation + cost of improvements? You wouldn't want you to make an undue profit, right?

Oh, you do want to do that? Hmmmm, I wonder why.

DP. I don’t hate profit but I’m smart enough to know that if you build your housing policy around maximizing profit for developers then in the best case developers get high profits but there’s no guarantee that we get more housing or more attainable housing. You also get bad outcomes if your housing policy is built around maximizing profit for homeowners, but MoCo hasn’t done that so it’s theoretical gripe.

MoCo hasn't done that though, and is also not proposing to do so.

Yes it has, and the tax breaks suggested in the attainable housing strategy are more of them same. The articulated rationale for the impact fee reductions, the tax abatements, and the other subsidies was that if building housing is more profitable developers will build more housing. Casey Anderson said “it just stands to reason” that it will work that way from the dais at Planning many times.

The people who supported this will one day look back and realize that they hurt a lot of people financially for the benefit of very wealthy people. Those with a conscience will regret that. Others will just move onto their next great cause.

That doesn't mean MoCo is maximizing profit for developers. That means the housing market works like other markets.

It means the entire theory of MoCo’s housing policy is increasing profits for developers. The main difference is other markets build housing and this one doesn’t, and a lot of those other markets aren’t subsidizing market rate housing.

It does not mean that. That is your opinion.

It’s what the principals themselves have said, that their objective is to make development more profitable, so it’s not my opinion. It’s the stated rationale. You might disagree with their rationale but it’s what they said, frequently.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother to sign petitions people. They give a false sense of security and are completely ineffective. You need to be sending emails nonstop, requesting meetings with elected representatives and showing up to attend any public events where you can provide public statements to your elected representatives stating opposition to the proposal. Have people protest about it every day. This is proposal is a disaster and we need to do everything possible to have a chance at stopping it. Otherwise the developers and real estate lobby will use their influence to screw over county residents.

An interesting way to frame the issue, given that county residents will live in the housing that will be built as a result of the proposal.

So the perceived needs of an unknown number of residents relocating within the county should completely outweigh the needs and wants of the very real current residents of SFH neighborhoods who purchased them under the current zoning regulations?

Besides, I thought that the planning board said that they needed these changes to provide housing for the projected new residents. If people are residents, they have homes.

Housing is not a perceived need, it's an actual need.

I can acknowledge that some county residents might not benefit from this proposal, but other county residents would benefit. Can you likewise acknowledge that some county residents would benefit from this proposal?

^^^and also, the County Council should be focused on THE FUTURE of Montgomery County. The future of Montgomery County encompasses more than merely what current residents might or might not expect under current laws. I don't think the County Council should weigh "But when I bought my house, I expected the zoning to stay the same forever" more heavily than the what residents of Montgomery County will need in the future.

Or, to put it in more personal terms: I don't think the County Council should weigh my preferences more heavily than my kids' needs. If you don't care about the needs of county residents in the future, then keep doing what you're doing. I do care, though, and that's why I support the zoning proposal.

Are you assuming your kids will never be able to afford a SFH? That's a crappy way to think.

When is the last time you listened to anybody under age 35 talk about housing? I do mean actually listen, not just be in the same room as someone who is talking.

I am the PP and 34 with a 2yr old. I own a home in Chevy Chase, MD. I decided (hint, didn't get some worthless degree) to work in a lucrative field and marry someone who decided to continue working. All of my friends own a home and have owned homes for at least the last 4 years. No family assistance for me.

My daughter will absolutely be able to afford a SFH because I will make sure she can. That is my job as a parent, not the county council's job.

There is plenty of affordability in PG county and further west. Stop being leeches and expect others to bend over backward for you and figure it out.

Oh, PP. I hope the Just World Hypothesis never lets you down.

and i hope the victim mentality never lets you down

So I'm the PP you're responding to, and my hope was actually sincere. I sincerely hope that bad things won't happen to you or yours.

As for the victim mentality - well, that's a weird response. First of all, this is not about me. I'm pushing 60, I've been a homeowner for decades, I'm financially comfortable (though of course bad things can happen to anyone, see above). I don't know why you would assume this was about me. Second of all, this is a zoning proposal that would allow property owners to build more types of housing on the property they own. How did you get from that to "victim mentality" and "leeches"?

Not PP

The county council is the problem..they are the "victims" and "leeches"

The county council, elected by the voters of Montgomery County in 2022? 7 district council members, 4 at large council members - that county council?

However far you get with "new housing only benefits developers" and "housing isn't a need" - and I don't think you'll get far - I think you'll get even less far with "the members of the county council are victims and leeches."

Get far with…who?

The YIMBYs love the process when it works for them and whine when it doesn’t. They are currently crying about the fact that the Great Seneca Plan update didn’t touch SFH for the most part. Shouldn’t they really be taking this advice and STFU about it? I mean, the elected officials hired the planners and approved the plan. The decision was made. No complaining.

With the County Council. Do you think calling the County Council victims and leeches will persuade the County Council to do what you're advocating for?

I don't know who these purported YIMBYs are who are purportedly crying about the Great Seneca Plan, or where you encountered them, or whether they called the County Council victims and leeches.

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

You NIMBY's sure do hate "profit" by those evil developers.

How about you all sign up and commit to sell your house at no more than the rate of inflation + cost of improvements? You wouldn't want you to make an undue profit, right?

Oh, you do want to do that? Hmmmm, I wonder why.

DP. I don’t hate profit but I’m smart enough to know that if you build your housing policy around maximizing profit for developers then in the best case developers get high profits but there’s no guarantee that we get more housing or more attainable housing. You also get bad outcomes if your housing policy is built around maximizing profit for homeowners, but MoCo hasn’t done that so it’s theoretical gripe.

MoCo hasn't done that though, and is also not proposing to do so.

Yes it has, and the tax breaks suggested in the attainable housing strategy are more of them same. The articulated rationale for the impact fee reductions, the tax abatements, and the other subsidies was that if building housing is more profitable developers will build more housing. Casey Anderson said “it just stands to reason” that it will work that way from the dais at Planning many times.

The people who supported this will one day look back and realize that they hurt a lot of people financially for the benefit of very wealthy people. Those with a conscience will regret that. Others will just move onto their next great cause.

That doesn't mean MoCo is maximizing profit for developers. That means the housing market works like other markets.

It means the entire theory of MoCo’s housing policy is increasing profits for developers. The main difference is other markets build housing and this one doesn’t, and a lot of those other markets aren’t subsidizing market rate housing.

It does not mean that. That is your opinion.

It’s what the principals themselves have said, that their objective is to make development more profitable, so it’s not my opinion. It’s the stated rationale. You might disagree with their rationale but it’s what they said, frequently.

There is a lot of space between making development more profitable for developers (if that is indeed what the principals, whoever they are, have said), and either the entire theory of MoCo's housing policy being increasing profits for developers, or building a housing policy around maximizing profit for developers.

In any case, here are the basics:

People live in housing.
Most housing is built by developers.
Most developers build housing for profit.

There are definitely developer incentives in Montgomery County that I consider bad housing policy, but if the goal is to have more housing, that has to include both developers and profit.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother to sign petitions people. They give a false sense of security and are completely ineffective. You need to be sending emails nonstop, requesting meetings with elected representatives and showing up to attend any public events where you can provide public statements to your elected representatives stating opposition to the proposal. Have people protest about it every day. This is proposal is a disaster and we need to do everything possible to have a chance at stopping it. Otherwise the developers and real estate lobby will use their influence to screw over county residents.

An interesting way to frame the issue, given that county residents will live in the housing that will be built as a result of the proposal.

So the perceived needs of an unknown number of residents relocating within the county should completely outweigh the needs and wants of the very real current residents of SFH neighborhoods who purchased them under the current zoning regulations?

Besides, I thought that the planning board said that they needed these changes to provide housing for the projected new residents. If people are residents, they have homes.

Housing is not a perceived need, it's an actual need.

I can acknowledge that some county residents might not benefit from this proposal, but other county residents would benefit. Can you likewise acknowledge that some county residents would benefit from this proposal?

^^^and also, the County Council should be focused on THE FUTURE of Montgomery County. The future of Montgomery County encompasses more than merely what current residents might or might not expect under current laws. I don't think the County Council should weigh "But when I bought my house, I expected the zoning to stay the same forever" more heavily than the what residents of Montgomery County will need in the future.

Or, to put it in more personal terms: I don't think the County Council should weigh my preferences more heavily than my kids' needs. If you don't care about the needs of county residents in the future, then keep doing what you're doing. I do care, though, and that's why I support the zoning proposal.

Are you assuming your kids will never be able to afford a SFH? That's a crappy way to think.

When is the last time you listened to anybody under age 35 talk about housing? I do mean actually listen, not just be in the same room as someone who is talking.

I am the PP and 34 with a 2yr old. I own a home in Chevy Chase, MD. I decided (hint, didn't get some worthless degree) to work in a lucrative field and marry someone who decided to continue working. All of my friends own a home and have owned homes for at least the last 4 years. No family assistance for me.

My daughter will absolutely be able to afford a SFH because I will make sure she can. That is my job as a parent, not the county council's job.

There is plenty of affordability in PG county and further west. Stop being leeches and expect others to bend over backward for you and figure it out.

Oh, PP. I hope the Just World Hypothesis never lets you down.

and i hope the victim mentality never lets you down

So I'm the PP you're responding to, and my hope was actually sincere. I sincerely hope that bad things won't happen to you or yours.

As for the victim mentality - well, that's a weird response. First of all, this is not about me. I'm pushing 60, I've been a homeowner for decades, I'm financially comfortable (though of course bad things can happen to anyone, see above). I don't know why you would assume this was about me. Second of all, this is a zoning proposal that would allow property owners to build more types of housing on the property they own. How did you get from that to "victim mentality" and "leeches"?

Not PP

The county council is the problem..they are the "victims" and "leeches"

The county council, elected by the voters of Montgomery County in 2022? 7 district council members, 4 at large council members - that county council?

However far you get with "new housing only benefits developers" and "housing isn't a need" - and I don't think you'll get far - I think you'll get even less far with "the members of the county council are victims and leeches."

Get far with…who?

The YIMBYs love the process when it works for them and whine when it doesn’t. They are currently crying about the fact that the Great Seneca Plan update didn’t touch SFH for the most part. Shouldn’t they really be taking this advice and STFU about it? I mean, the elected officials hired the planners and approved the plan. The decision was made. No complaining.

With the County Council. Do you think calling the County Council victims and leeches will persuade the County Council to do what you're advocating for?

I don't know who these purported YIMBYs are who are purportedly crying about the Great Seneca Plan, or where you encountered them, or whether they called the County Council victims and leeches.

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

You NIMBY's sure do hate "profit" by those evil developers.

How about you all sign up and commit to sell your house at no more than the rate of inflation + cost of improvements? You wouldn't want you to make an undue profit, right?

Oh, you do want to do that? Hmmmm, I wonder why.

DP. I don’t hate profit but I’m smart enough to know that if you build your housing policy around maximizing profit for developers then in the best case developers get high profits but there’s no guarantee that we get more housing or more attainable housing. You also get bad outcomes if your housing policy is built around maximizing profit for homeowners, but MoCo hasn’t done that so it’s theoretical gripe.

MoCo hasn't done that though, and is also not proposing to do so.

Yes it has, and the tax breaks suggested in the attainable housing strategy are more of them same. The articulated rationale for the impact fee reductions, the tax abatements, and the other subsidies was that if building housing is more profitable developers will build more housing. Casey Anderson said “it just stands to reason” that it will work that way from the dais at Planning many times.

The people who supported this will one day look back and realize that they hurt a lot of people financially for the benefit of very wealthy people. Those with a conscience will regret that. Others will just move onto their next great cause.

That doesn't mean MoCo is maximizing profit for developers. That means the housing market works like other markets.

It means the entire theory of MoCo’s housing policy is increasing profits for developers. The main difference is other markets build housing and this one doesn’t, and a lot of those other markets aren’t subsidizing market rate housing.

It does not mean that. That is your opinion.

It’s what the principals themselves have said, that their objective is to make development more profitable, so it’s not my opinion. It’s the stated rationale. You might disagree with their rationale but it’s what they said, frequently.

There is a lot of space between making development more profitable for developers (if that is indeed what the principals, whoever they are, have said), and either the entire theory of MoCo's housing policy being increasing profits for developers, or building a housing policy around maximizing profit for developers.

In any case, here are the basics:

People live in housing.
Most housing is built by developers.
Most developers build housing for profit.

There are definitely developer incentives in Montgomery County that I consider bad housing policy, but if the goal is to have more housing, that has to include both developers and profit.

It doesn't have to include ruining nice SFH neighborhoods miles from public transit though.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother to sign petitions people. They give a false sense of security and are completely ineffective. You need to be sending emails nonstop, requesting meetings with elected representatives and showing up to attend any public events where you can provide public statements to your elected representatives stating opposition to the proposal. Have people protest about it every day. This is proposal is a disaster and we need to do everything possible to have a chance at stopping it. Otherwise the developers and real estate lobby will use their influence to screw over county residents.

An interesting way to frame the issue, given that county residents will live in the housing that will be built as a result of the proposal.

So the perceived needs of an unknown number of residents relocating within the county should completely outweigh the needs and wants of the very real current residents of SFH neighborhoods who purchased them under the current zoning regulations?

Besides, I thought that the planning board said that they needed these changes to provide housing for the projected new residents. If people are residents, they have homes.

Housing is not a perceived need, it's an actual need.

I can acknowledge that some county residents might not benefit from this proposal, but other county residents would benefit. Can you likewise acknowledge that some county residents would benefit from this proposal?

^^^and also, the County Council should be focused on THE FUTURE of Montgomery County. The future of Montgomery County encompasses more than merely what current residents might or might not expect under current laws. I don't think the County Council should weigh "But when I bought my house, I expected the zoning to stay the same forever" more heavily than the what residents of Montgomery County will need in the future.

Or, to put it in more personal terms: I don't think the County Council should weigh my preferences more heavily than my kids' needs. If you don't care about the needs of county residents in the future, then keep doing what you're doing. I do care, though, and that's why I support the zoning proposal.

Are you assuming your kids will never be able to afford a SFH? That's a crappy way to think.

When is the last time you listened to anybody under age 35 talk about housing? I do mean actually listen, not just be in the same room as someone who is talking.

I am the PP and 34 with a 2yr old. I own a home in Chevy Chase, MD. I decided (hint, didn't get some worthless degree) to work in a lucrative field and marry someone who decided to continue working. All of my friends own a home and have owned homes for at least the last 4 years. No family assistance for me.

My daughter will absolutely be able to afford a SFH because I will make sure she can. That is my job as a parent, not the county council's job.

There is plenty of affordability in PG county and further west. Stop being leeches and expect others to bend over backward for you and figure it out.

Oh, PP. I hope the Just World Hypothesis never lets you down.

and i hope the victim mentality never lets you down

So I'm the PP you're responding to, and my hope was actually sincere. I sincerely hope that bad things won't happen to you or yours.

As for the victim mentality - well, that's a weird response. First of all, this is not about me. I'm pushing 60, I've been a homeowner for decades, I'm financially comfortable (though of course bad things can happen to anyone, see above). I don't know why you would assume this was about me. Second of all, this is a zoning proposal that would allow property owners to build more types of housing on the property they own. How did you get from that to "victim mentality" and "leeches"?

Not PP

The county council is the problem..they are the "victims" and "leeches"

The county council, elected by the voters of Montgomery County in 2022? 7 district council members, 4 at large council members - that county council?

However far you get with "new housing only benefits developers" and "housing isn't a need" - and I don't think you'll get far - I think you'll get even less far with "the members of the county council are victims and leeches."

Get far with…who?

The YIMBYs love the process when it works for them and whine when it doesn’t. They are currently crying about the fact that the Great Seneca Plan update didn’t touch SFH for the most part. Shouldn’t they really be taking this advice and STFU about it? I mean, the elected officials hired the planners and approved the plan. The decision was made. No complaining.

With the County Council. Do you think calling the County Council victims and leeches will persuade the County Council to do what you're advocating for?

I don't know who these purported YIMBYs are who are purportedly crying about the Great Seneca Plan, or where you encountered them, or whether they called the County Council victims and leeches.

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

You NIMBY's sure do hate "profit" by those evil developers.

How about you all sign up and commit to sell your house at no more than the rate of inflation + cost of improvements? You wouldn't want you to make an undue profit, right?

Oh, you do want to do that? Hmmmm, I wonder why.

DP. I don’t hate profit but I’m smart enough to know that if you build your housing policy around maximizing profit for developers then in the best case developers get high profits but there’s no guarantee that we get more housing or more attainable housing. You also get bad outcomes if your housing policy is built around maximizing profit for homeowners, but MoCo hasn’t done that so it’s theoretical gripe.

MoCo hasn't done that though, and is also not proposing to do so.

Yes it has, and the tax breaks suggested in the attainable housing strategy are more of them same. The articulated rationale for the impact fee reductions, the tax abatements, and the other subsidies was that if building housing is more profitable developers will build more housing. Casey Anderson said “it just stands to reason” that it will work that way from the dais at Planning many times.

The people who supported this will one day look back and realize that they hurt a lot of people financially for the benefit of very wealthy people. Those with a conscience will regret that. Others will just move onto their next great cause.

That doesn't mean MoCo is maximizing profit for developers. That means the housing market works like other markets.

It means the entire theory of MoCo’s housing policy is increasing profits for developers. The main difference is other markets build housing and this one doesn’t, and a lot of those other markets aren’t subsidizing market rate housing.

It does not mean that. That is your opinion.

It’s what the principals themselves have said, that their objective is to make development more profitable, so it’s not my opinion. It’s the stated rationale. You might disagree with their rationale but it’s what they said, frequently.

There is a lot of space between making development more profitable for developers (if that is indeed what the principals, whoever they are, have said), and either the entire theory of MoCo's housing policy being increasing profits for developers, or building a housing policy around maximizing profit for developers.

In any case, here are the basics:

People live in housing.
Most housing is built by developers.
Most developers build housing for profit.

There are definitely developer incentives in Montgomery County that I consider bad housing policy, but if the goal is to have more housing, that has to include both developers and profit.

It doesn't have to include ruining nice SFH neighborhoods miles from public transit though.

Buses are public transit, and small multi-unit residential buildings do not "ruin" neighborhoods.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother to sign petitions people. They give a false sense of security and are completely ineffective. You need to be sending emails nonstop, requesting meetings with elected representatives and showing up to attend any public events where you can provide public statements to your elected representatives stating opposition to the proposal. Have people protest about it every day. This is proposal is a disaster and we need to do everything possible to have a chance at stopping it. Otherwise the developers and real estate lobby will use their influence to screw over county residents.

An interesting way to frame the issue, given that county residents will live in the housing that will be built as a result of the proposal.

So the perceived needs of an unknown number of residents relocating within the county should completely outweigh the needs and wants of the very real current residents of SFH neighborhoods who purchased them under the current zoning regulations?

Besides, I thought that the planning board said that they needed these changes to provide housing for the projected new residents. If people are residents, they have homes.

Housing is not a perceived need, it's an actual need.

I can acknowledge that some county residents might not benefit from this proposal, but other county residents would benefit. Can you likewise acknowledge that some county residents would benefit from this proposal?

^^^and also, the County Council should be focused on THE FUTURE of Montgomery County. The future of Montgomery County encompasses more than merely what current residents might or might not expect under current laws. I don't think the County Council should weigh "But when I bought my house, I expected the zoning to stay the same forever" more heavily than the what residents of Montgomery County will need in the future.

Or, to put it in more personal terms: I don't think the County Council should weigh my preferences more heavily than my kids' needs. If you don't care about the needs of county residents in the future, then keep doing what you're doing. I do care, though, and that's why I support the zoning proposal.

Are you assuming your kids will never be able to afford a SFH? That's a crappy way to think.

When is the last time you listened to anybody under age 35 talk about housing? I do mean actually listen, not just be in the same room as someone who is talking.

I am the PP and 34 with a 2yr old. I own a home in Chevy Chase, MD. I decided (hint, didn't get some worthless degree) to work in a lucrative field and marry someone who decided to continue working. All of my friends own a home and have owned homes for at least the last 4 years. No family assistance for me.

My daughter will absolutely be able to afford a SFH because I will make sure she can. That is my job as a parent, not the county council's job.

There is plenty of affordability in PG county and further west. Stop being leeches and expect others to bend over backward for you and figure it out.

Oh, PP. I hope the Just World Hypothesis never lets you down.

and i hope the victim mentality never lets you down

So I'm the PP you're responding to, and my hope was actually sincere. I sincerely hope that bad things won't happen to you or yours.

As for the victim mentality - well, that's a weird response. First of all, this is not about me. I'm pushing 60, I've been a homeowner for decades, I'm financially comfortable (though of course bad things can happen to anyone, see above). I don't know why you would assume this was about me. Second of all, this is a zoning proposal that would allow property owners to build more types of housing on the property they own. How did you get from that to "victim mentality" and "leeches"?

Not PP

The county council is the problem..they are the "victims" and "leeches"

The county council, elected by the voters of Montgomery County in 2022? 7 district council members, 4 at large council members - that county council?

However far you get with "new housing only benefits developers" and "housing isn't a need" - and I don't think you'll get far - I think you'll get even less far with "the members of the county council are victims and leeches."

Get far with…who?

The YIMBYs love the process when it works for them and whine when it doesn’t. They are currently crying about the fact that the Great Seneca Plan update didn’t touch SFH for the most part. Shouldn’t they really be taking this advice and STFU about it? I mean, the elected officials hired the planners and approved the plan. The decision was made. No complaining.

With the County Council. Do you think calling the County Council victims and leeches will persuade the County Council to do what you're advocating for?

I don't know who these purported YIMBYs are who are purportedly crying about the Great Seneca Plan, or where you encountered them, or whether they called the County Council victims and leeches.

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

You NIMBY's sure do hate "profit" by those evil developers.

How about you all sign up and commit to sell your house at no more than the rate of inflation + cost of improvements? You wouldn't want you to make an undue profit, right?

Oh, you do want to do that? Hmmmm, I wonder why.

DP. I don’t hate profit but I’m smart enough to know that if you build your housing policy around maximizing profit for developers then in the best case developers get high profits but there’s no guarantee that we get more housing or more attainable housing. You also get bad outcomes if your housing policy is built around maximizing profit for homeowners, but MoCo hasn’t done that so it’s theoretical gripe.

MoCo hasn't done that though, and is also not proposing to do so.

Yes it has, and the tax breaks suggested in the attainable housing strategy are more of them same. The articulated rationale for the impact fee reductions, the tax abatements, and the other subsidies was that if building housing is more profitable developers will build more housing. Casey Anderson said “it just stands to reason” that it will work that way from the dais at Planning many times.

The people who supported this will one day look back and realize that they hurt a lot of people financially for the benefit of very wealthy people. Those with a conscience will regret that. Others will just move onto their next great cause.

That doesn't mean MoCo is maximizing profit for developers. That means the housing market works like other markets.

It means the entire theory of MoCo’s housing policy is increasing profits for developers. The main difference is other markets build housing and this one doesn’t, and a lot of those other markets aren’t subsidizing market rate housing.

It does not mean that. That is your opinion.

It’s what the principals themselves have said, that their objective is to make development more profitable, so it’s not my opinion. It’s the stated rationale. You might disagree with their rationale but it’s what they said, frequently.

There is a lot of space between making development more profitable for developers (if that is indeed what the principals, whoever they are, have said), and either the entire theory of MoCo's housing policy being increasing profits for developers, or building a housing policy around maximizing profit for developers.

In any case, here are the basics:

People live in housing.
Most housing is built by developers.
Most developers build housing for profit.

There are definitely developer incentives in Montgomery County that I consider bad housing policy, but if the goal is to have more housing, that has to include both developers and profit.

It doesn't have to include ruining nice SFH neighborhoods miles from public transit though.

Buses are public transit, and small multi-unit residential buildings do not "ruin" neighborhoods.

Your opinions are just that, and a whole lot of people think that you are wrong.

How many?

We won’t know until there is a vote.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don’t bother to sign petitions people. They give a false sense of security and are completely ineffective. You need to be sending emails nonstop, requesting meetings with elected representatives and showing up to attend any public events where you can provide public statements to your elected representatives stating opposition to the proposal. Have people protest about it every day. This is proposal is a disaster and we need to do everything possible to have a chance at stopping it. Otherwise the developers and real estate lobby will use their influence to screw over county residents.

An interesting way to frame the issue, given that county residents will live in the housing that will be built as a result of the proposal.

So the perceived needs of an unknown number of residents relocating within the county should completely outweigh the needs and wants of the very real current residents of SFH neighborhoods who purchased them under the current zoning regulations?

Besides, I thought that the planning board said that they needed these changes to provide housing for the projected new residents. If people are residents, they have homes.

Housing is not a perceived need, it's an actual need.

I can acknowledge that some county residents might not benefit from this proposal, but other county residents would benefit. Can you likewise acknowledge that some county residents would benefit from this proposal?

^^^and also, the County Council should be focused on THE FUTURE of Montgomery County. The future of Montgomery County encompasses more than merely what current residents might or might not expect under current laws. I don't think the County Council should weigh "But when I bought my house, I expected the zoning to stay the same forever" more heavily than the what residents of Montgomery County will need in the future.

Or, to put it in more personal terms: I don't think the County Council should weigh my preferences more heavily than my kids' needs. If you don't care about the needs of county residents in the future, then keep doing what you're doing. I do care, though, and that's why I support the zoning proposal.

Are you assuming your kids will never be able to afford a SFH? That's a crappy way to think.

When is the last time you listened to anybody under age 35 talk about housing? I do mean actually listen, not just be in the same room as someone who is talking.

I am the PP and 34 with a 2yr old. I own a home in Chevy Chase, MD. I decided (hint, didn't get some worthless degree) to work in a lucrative field and marry someone who decided to continue working. All of my friends own a home and have owned homes for at least the last 4 years. No family assistance for me.

My daughter will absolutely be able to afford a SFH because I will make sure she can. That is my job as a parent, not the county council's job.

There is plenty of affordability in PG county and further west. Stop being leeches and expect others to bend over backward for you and figure it out.

Oh, PP. I hope the Just World Hypothesis never lets you down.

and i hope the victim mentality never lets you down

So I'm the PP you're responding to, and my hope was actually sincere. I sincerely hope that bad things won't happen to you or yours.

As for the victim mentality - well, that's a weird response. First of all, this is not about me. I'm pushing 60, I've been a homeowner for decades, I'm financially comfortable (though of course bad things can happen to anyone, see above). I don't know why you would assume this was about me. Second of all, this is a zoning proposal that would allow property owners to build more types of housing on the property they own. How did you get from that to "victim mentality" and "leeches"?

Not PP

The county council is the problem..they are the "victims" and "leeches"

The county council, elected by the voters of Montgomery County in 2022? 7 district council members, 4 at large council members - that county council?

However far you get with "new housing only benefits developers" and "housing isn't a need" - and I don't think you'll get far - I think you'll get even less far with "the members of the county council are victims and leeches."

Get far with…who?

The YIMBYs love the process when it works for them and whine when it doesn’t. They are currently crying about the fact that the Great Seneca Plan update didn’t touch SFH for the most part. Shouldn’t they really be taking this advice and STFU about it? I mean, the elected officials hired the planners and approved the plan. The decision was made. No complaining.

With the County Council. Do you think calling the County Council victims and leeches will persuade the County Council to do what you're advocating for?

I don't know who these purported YIMBYs are who are purportedly crying about the Great Seneca Plan, or where you encountered them, or whether they called the County Council victims and leeches.

DP. I'm sure that the "YIMBY" folks who are really pushing the Attainable Housing/Thrive aren't crying at all about the Great Seneca Plan. That isn't where they'd want to be developing housing at density.

On the one hand, it isn't as profitable an opportunity. On the other, it and similar areas (that would go largely unscathed by the recommendations of the Attainable Housing Report) are their back yards.

You NIMBY's sure do hate "profit" by those evil developers.

How about you all sign up and commit to sell your house at no more than the rate of inflation + cost of improvements? You wouldn't want you to make an undue profit, right?

Oh, you do want to do that? Hmmmm, I wonder why.

DP. I don’t hate profit but I’m smart enough to know that if you build your housing policy around maximizing profit for developers then in the best case developers get high profits but there’s no guarantee that we get more housing or more attainable housing. You also get bad outcomes if your housing policy is built around maximizing profit for homeowners, but MoCo hasn’t done that so it’s theoretical gripe.

MoCo hasn't done that though, and is also not proposing to do so.

Yes it has, and the tax breaks suggested in the attainable housing strategy are more of them same. The articulated rationale for the impact fee reductions, the tax abatements, and the other subsidies was that if building housing is more profitable developers will build more housing. Casey Anderson said “it just stands to reason” that it will work that way from the dais at Planning many times.

The people who supported this will one day look back and realize that they hurt a lot of people financially for the benefit of very wealthy people. Those with a conscience will regret that. Others will just move onto their next great cause.

That doesn't mean MoCo is maximizing profit for developers. That means the housing market works like other markets.

It means the entire theory of MoCo’s housing policy is increasing profits for developers. The main difference is other markets build housing and this one doesn’t, and a lot of those other markets aren’t subsidizing market rate housing.

It does not mean that. That is your opinion.

It’s what the principals themselves have said, that their objective is to make development more profitable, so it’s not my opinion. It’s the stated rationale. You might disagree with their rationale but it’s what they said, frequently.

There is a lot of space between making development more profitable for developers (if that is indeed what the principals, whoever they are, have said), and either the entire theory of MoCo's housing policy being increasing profits for developers, or building a housing policy around maximizing profit for developers.

In any case, here are the basics:

People live in housing.
Most housing is built by developers.
Most developers build housing for profit.

There are definitely developer incentives in Montgomery County that I consider bad housing policy, but if the goal is to have more housing, that has to include both developers and profit.

No one said developers shouldn’t make money. Let’s be clear about that so you stop suggesting that they have. Developers should make money unless they’re set up as nonprofits.

The critique was of the housing policy’s focus on profits (not production) as the immediate outcome. The principals are the architects and authorizers of the policy. That would be the planning board and the council. The planning chair himself said the focus of the growth and infrastructure policy was making development more profitable. You may disagree with that goal but it’s what he said.

I agree there are a lot of bad development incentives in MoCo. The only saving grace is that their ineffectiveness has limited the harm they’ve done to the budget. But planning and the council keep coming up with new ideas for transferring money from other taxpayers to developers in the form of fee reductions and tax abatements, so there’s a risk that it gets worse and they do eventually limit revenue in a way that materially impacts infrastructure and services.