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: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.

[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 very real difference between saying that making development more profitable is ONE way to increase housing supply and saying that the "entire theory" of the housing policy is to do that.

That is like saying you have a goal to reduce carbon emissions and that being translated as saying your goal is to increase the profitability of renewable energy companies. One is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

[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.

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.

Which chair, what exactly did he say, and when did he say this?

Making development more profitable (vs. unprofitable) is a means to an end. I seriously doubt that anybody involved in making housing policy has ever said that it's an end in itself.

[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.

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.

The GIP is not the county's housing policy. So I'm not sure why we are mixing the two.

And the stated goal of the GIP is plainly on the website: "The foundation of the Growth and Infrastructure Policy is that Montgomery County must have adequate infrastructure to support growth. This policy is the guide for administering the county’s adequate public facilities (APF) requirements."
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Where did anybody say the goal of that policy is to maximize developer profits?

[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.

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.

The GIP is not the county's housing policy. So I'm not sure why we are mixing the two.

And the stated goal of the GIP is plainly on the website: "The foundation of the Growth and Infrastructure Policy is that Montgomery County must have adequate infrastructure to support growth. This policy is the guide for administering the county’s adequate public facilities (APF) requirements."
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Where did anybody say the goal of that policy is to maximize developer profits?

The GIP is the county’s growth policy, which is a significant document in the county’s planning cannon, so the comments the planning chair made during its consideration are an important indicator of what the theory of the case is. Casey Anderson said the theory behind the policy was to make development more profitable because “it stands to reason” that higher profits would cause developers to build more housing. The new GIP keeps the underlying rationale, so it’s fair to say the theory of the case hasn’t changed. The immediate outcome of this policy (if it works) is that developers make more money. Anything beyond the immediate outcome is an indirect outcome or more of a hope. Looking at housing production in the county, it’s safe to say it hasn’t worked, even as it has cost taxpayers money.

This is just one example. Planning and the council make the same argument every time they put forward a new financial incentive for market rate housing production. It’s in Thrive, and it’s in the Attainable Housing Strategy, among other places. Andrew Friedson has also said he only wants to offer carrots (financial incentives such as tax abatements) and not sticks (whatever he meant by that he never made clear). It’s fair to say that our housing policy for market rate housing has put profitability at its center and that the county hopes that increasing profitability through taxpayer-funded subsidies will result in more production, but it hasn’t so far.

All the people hitting back on this characterization seem awfully defensive. Maybe it hits too close to the truth for your comfort. It’s not the only time that politicians have tried to sell subsidies to businesses as helping the middle class, but nearly all the benefits of such policies accrue to businesses and wealthy individuals and very few pass through to the middle class.

[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:

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.

The GIP is not the county's housing policy. So I'm not sure why we are mixing the two.

And the stated goal of the GIP is plainly on the website: "The foundation of the Growth and Infrastructure Policy is that Montgomery County must have adequate infrastructure to support growth. This policy is the guide for administering the county’s adequate public facilities (APF) requirements."
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Where did anybody say the goal of that policy is to maximize developer profits?

The GIP is the county’s growth policy, which is a significant document in the county’s planning cannon, so the comments the planning chair made during its consideration are an important indicator of what the theory of the case is. Casey Anderson said the theory behind the policy was to make development more profitable because “it stands to reason” that higher profits would cause developers to build more housing. The new GIP keeps the underlying rationale, so it’s fair to say the theory of the case hasn’t changed. The immediate outcome of this policy (if it works) is that developers make more money. Anything beyond the immediate outcome is an indirect outcome or more of a hope. Looking at housing production in the county, it’s safe to say it hasn’t worked, even as it has cost taxpayers money.

This is just one example. Planning and the council make the same argument every time they put forward a new financial incentive for market rate housing production. It’s in Thrive, and it’s in the Attainable Housing Strategy, among other places. Andrew Friedson has also said he only wants to offer carrots (financial incentives such as tax abatements) and not sticks (whatever he meant by that he never made clear). It’s fair to say that our housing policy for market rate housing has put profitability at its center and that the county hopes that increasing profitability through taxpayer-funded subsidies will result in more production, but it hasn’t so far.

All the people hitting back on this characterization seem awfully defensive. Maybe it hits too close to the truth for your comfort. It’s not the only time that politicians have tried to sell subsidies to businesses as helping the middle class, but nearly all the benefits of such policies accrue to businesses and wealthy individuals and very few pass through to the middle class.

Can you please cite to me where he said that?

The policy itself is not designed to maximize profits for developers. Read it. It wants to align with a lot of policy objectives including environmental resilience, safety, good governance, racial equity, housing attainability, etc.

Here is one recommendation in the policy: "Recommendation 2.3: Allow funds collected as UPPs to be used for capital projects adding capacity at schools adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected, as outlined in the School Utilization Report."

Here is another: "Recommendation 3.2: Require LATR studies for a proposed development project generating 50 or more peak-hour vehicle trips."

Another: "Recommendation 3.4: Simplify the Non-Motor Vehicle Adequacy Test. The test will have five components: Pedestrian Level of Comfort (PLOC), illuminance, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, bicycle system, and bus transit system. This test will replace the individual pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit systems tests.

I object to your characterization because it simply isn't true.

[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:

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.

The GIP is not the county's housing policy. So I'm not sure why we are mixing the two.

And the stated goal of the GIP is plainly on the website: "The foundation of the Growth and Infrastructure Policy is that Montgomery County must have adequate infrastructure to support growth. This policy is the guide for administering the county’s adequate public facilities (APF) requirements."
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Where did anybody say the goal of that policy is to maximize developer profits?

The GIP is the county’s growth policy, which is a significant document in the county’s planning cannon, so the comments the planning chair made during its consideration are an important indicator of what the theory of the case is. Casey Anderson said the theory behind the policy was to make development more profitable because “it stands to reason” that higher profits would cause developers to build more housing. The new GIP keeps the underlying rationale, so it’s fair to say the theory of the case hasn’t changed. The immediate outcome of this policy (if it works) is that developers make more money. Anything beyond the immediate outcome is an indirect outcome or more of a hope. Looking at housing production in the county, it’s safe to say it hasn’t worked, even as it has cost taxpayers money.

This is just one example. Planning and the council make the same argument every time they put forward a new financial incentive for market rate housing production. It’s in Thrive, and it’s in the Attainable Housing Strategy, among other places. Andrew Friedson has also said he only wants to offer carrots (financial incentives such as tax abatements) and not sticks (whatever he meant by that he never made clear). It’s fair to say that our housing policy for market rate housing has put profitability at its center and that the county hopes that increasing profitability through taxpayer-funded subsidies will result in more production, but it hasn’t so far.

All the people hitting back on this characterization seem awfully defensive. Maybe it hits too close to the truth for your comfort. It’s not the only time that politicians have tried to sell subsidies to businesses as helping the middle class, but nearly all the benefits of such policies accrue to businesses and wealthy individuals and very few pass through to the middle class.

Can you please cite to me where he said that?

The policy itself is not designed to maximize profits for developers. Read it. It wants to align with a lot of policy objectives including environmental resilience, safety, good governance, racial equity, housing attainability, etc.

Here is one recommendation in the policy: "Recommendation 2.3: Allow funds collected as UPPs to be used for capital projects adding capacity at schools adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected, as outlined in the School Utilization Report."

Here is another: "Recommendation 3.2: Require LATR studies for a proposed development project generating 50 or more peak-hour vehicle trips."

Another: "Recommendation 3.4: Simplify the Non-Motor Vehicle Adequacy Test. The test will have five components: Pedestrian Level of Comfort (PLOC), illuminance, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, bicycle system, and bus transit system. This test will replace the individual pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit systems tests.

I object to your characterization because it simply isn't true.

The main objective of the GIP was lowering impact fees for certain housing types in certain areas of the county. If you go back and watch the hearings, you’ll hear that ring out very clearly. The other parts of the GIP (which planning wanted to call the “Growth Policy”) are pieces of furniture.

It’s interesting that you want to argue about the intent but you don’t deny the outcome. It hasn’t worked. It’s cost us money (except for the lucky few who got subsidies), but it hasn’t resulted in housing. Nor do you deny that the financial incentives proposed in thrive and the the housing strategy work from the same theory: increase profits to increase housing production. You keep posting to pick at nits but we have a policy that isn’t producing more housing. It’s just producing more profit. Maybe you’re happy with that outcome. I think we need more 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:

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.

The GIP is not the county's housing policy. So I'm not sure why we are mixing the two.

And the stated goal of the GIP is plainly on the website: "The foundation of the Growth and Infrastructure Policy is that Montgomery County must have adequate infrastructure to support growth. This policy is the guide for administering the county’s adequate public facilities (APF) requirements."
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Where did anybody say the goal of that policy is to maximize developer profits?

The GIP is the county’s growth policy, which is a significant document in the county’s planning cannon, so the comments the planning chair made during its consideration are an important indicator of what the theory of the case is. Casey Anderson said the theory behind the policy was to make development more profitable because “it stands to reason” that higher profits would cause developers to build more housing. The new GIP keeps the underlying rationale, so it’s fair to say the theory of the case hasn’t changed. The immediate outcome of this policy (if it works) is that developers make more money. Anything beyond the immediate outcome is an indirect outcome or more of a hope. Looking at housing production in the county, it’s safe to say it hasn’t worked, even as it has cost taxpayers money.

This is just one example. Planning and the council make the same argument every time they put forward a new financial incentive for market rate housing production. It’s in Thrive, and it’s in the Attainable Housing Strategy, among other places. Andrew Friedson has also said he only wants to offer carrots (financial incentives such as tax abatements) and not sticks (whatever he meant by that he never made clear). It’s fair to say that our housing policy for market rate housing has put profitability at its center and that the county hopes that increasing profitability through taxpayer-funded subsidies will result in more production, but it hasn’t so far.

All the people hitting back on this characterization seem awfully defensive. Maybe it hits too close to the truth for your comfort. It’s not the only time that politicians have tried to sell subsidies to businesses as helping the middle class, but nearly all the benefits of such policies accrue to businesses and wealthy individuals and very few pass through to the middle class.

Can you please cite to me where he said that?

The policy itself is not designed to maximize profits for developers. Read it. It wants to align with a lot of policy objectives including environmental resilience, safety, good governance, racial equity, housing attainability, etc.

Here is one recommendation in the policy: "Recommendation 2.3: Allow funds collected as UPPs to be used for capital projects adding capacity at schools adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected, as outlined in the School Utilization Report."

Here is another: "Recommendation 3.2: Require LATR studies for a proposed development project generating 50 or more peak-hour vehicle trips."

Another: "Recommendation 3.4: Simplify the Non-Motor Vehicle Adequacy Test. The test will have five components: Pedestrian Level of Comfort (PLOC), illuminance, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, bicycle system, and bus transit system. This test will replace the individual pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit systems tests.

I object to your characterization because it simply isn't true.

The main objective of the GIP was lowering impact fees for certain housing types in certain areas of the county. If you go back and watch the hearings, you’ll hear that ring out very clearly. The other parts of the GIP (which planning wanted to call the “Growth Policy”) are pieces of furniture.

It’s interesting that you want to argue about the intent but you don’t deny the outcome. It hasn’t worked. It’s cost us money (except for the lucky few who got subsidies), but it hasn’t resulted in housing. Nor do you deny that the financial incentives proposed in thrive and the the housing strategy work from the same theory: increase profits to increase housing production. You keep posting to pick at nits but we have a policy that isn’t producing more housing. It’s just producing more profit. Maybe you’re happy with that outcome. I think we need more housing.

I am focused on this issue because I like to try to discuss actual facts and debate about the impact of them. If we can get to some common understanding of the GIP, I am happy to go back to discussing the housing strategy. The bolded is inaccurate. I have read the GIP and watched the hearings.

[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:

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.

The GIP is not the county's housing policy. So I'm not sure why we are mixing the two.

And the stated goal of the GIP is plainly on the website: "The foundation of the Growth and Infrastructure Policy is that Montgomery County must have adequate infrastructure to support growth. This policy is the guide for administering the county’s adequate public facilities (APF) requirements."
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Where did anybody say the goal of that policy is to maximize developer profits?

The GIP is the county’s growth policy, which is a significant document in the county’s planning cannon, so the comments the planning chair made during its consideration are an important indicator of what the theory of the case is. Casey Anderson said the theory behind the policy was to make development more profitable because “it stands to reason” that higher profits would cause developers to build more housing. The new GIP keeps the underlying rationale, so it’s fair to say the theory of the case hasn’t changed. The immediate outcome of this policy (if it works) is that developers make more money. Anything beyond the immediate outcome is an indirect outcome or more of a hope. Looking at housing production in the county, it’s safe to say it hasn’t worked, even as it has cost taxpayers money.

This is just one example. Planning and the council make the same argument every time they put forward a new financial incentive for market rate housing production. It’s in Thrive, and it’s in the Attainable Housing Strategy, among other places. Andrew Friedson has also said he only wants to offer carrots (financial incentives such as tax abatements) and not sticks (whatever he meant by that he never made clear). It’s fair to say that our housing policy for market rate housing has put profitability at its center and that the county hopes that increasing profitability through taxpayer-funded subsidies will result in more production, but it hasn’t so far.

All the people hitting back on this characterization seem awfully defensive. Maybe it hits too close to the truth for your comfort. It’s not the only time that politicians have tried to sell subsidies to businesses as helping the middle class, but nearly all the benefits of such policies accrue to businesses and wealthy individuals and very few pass through to the middle class.

Can you please cite to me where he said that?

The policy itself is not designed to maximize profits for developers. Read it. It wants to align with a lot of policy objectives including environmental resilience, safety, good governance, racial equity, housing attainability, etc.

Here is one recommendation in the policy: "Recommendation 2.3: Allow funds collected as UPPs to be used for capital projects adding capacity at schools adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected, as outlined in the School Utilization Report."

Here is another: "Recommendation 3.2: Require LATR studies for a proposed development project generating 50 or more peak-hour vehicle trips."

Another: "Recommendation 3.4: Simplify the Non-Motor Vehicle Adequacy Test. The test will have five components: Pedestrian Level of Comfort (PLOC), illuminance, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, bicycle system, and bus transit system. This test will replace the individual pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit systems tests.

I object to your characterization because it simply isn't true.

The main objective of the GIP was lowering impact fees for certain housing types in certain areas of the county. If you go back and watch the hearings, you’ll hear that ring out very clearly. The other parts of the GIP (which planning wanted to call the “Growth Policy”) are pieces of furniture.

It’s interesting that you want to argue about the intent but you don’t deny the outcome. It hasn’t worked. It’s cost us money (except for the lucky few who got subsidies), but it hasn’t resulted in housing. Nor do you deny that the financial incentives proposed in thrive and the the housing strategy work from the same theory: increase profits to increase housing production. You keep posting to pick at nits but we have a policy that isn’t producing more housing. It’s just producing more profit. Maybe you’re happy with that outcome. I think we need more housing.

I am focused on this issue because I like to try to discuss actual facts and debate about the impact of them. If we can get to some common understanding of the GIP, I am happy to go back to discussing the housing strategy. The bolded is inaccurate. I have read the GIP and watched the hearings.

Try it another way: if you give a market rate developer a subsidy, what is the first outcome of the subsidy? You’ve given the developer money but haven’t increased costs or demanded anything in return. What is the outcome of that action?

[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:

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.

The GIP is not the county's housing policy. So I'm not sure why we are mixing the two.

And the stated goal of the GIP is plainly on the website: "The foundation of the Growth and Infrastructure Policy is that Montgomery County must have adequate infrastructure to support growth. This policy is the guide for administering the county’s adequate public facilities (APF) requirements."
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Where did anybody say the goal of that policy is to maximize developer profits?

The GIP is the county’s growth policy, which is a significant document in the county’s planning cannon, so the comments the planning chair made during its consideration are an important indicator of what the theory of the case is. Casey Anderson said the theory behind the policy was to make development more profitable because “it stands to reason” that higher profits would cause developers to build more housing. The new GIP keeps the underlying rationale, so it’s fair to say the theory of the case hasn’t changed. The immediate outcome of this policy (if it works) is that developers make more money. Anything beyond the immediate outcome is an indirect outcome or more of a hope. Looking at housing production in the county, it’s safe to say it hasn’t worked, even as it has cost taxpayers money.

This is just one example. Planning and the council make the same argument every time they put forward a new financial incentive for market rate housing production. It’s in Thrive, and it’s in the Attainable Housing Strategy, among other places. Andrew Friedson has also said he only wants to offer carrots (financial incentives such as tax abatements) and not sticks (whatever he meant by that he never made clear). It’s fair to say that our housing policy for market rate housing has put profitability at its center and that the county hopes that increasing profitability through taxpayer-funded subsidies will result in more production, but it hasn’t so far.

All the people hitting back on this characterization seem awfully defensive. Maybe it hits too close to the truth for your comfort. It’s not the only time that politicians have tried to sell subsidies to businesses as helping the middle class, but nearly all the benefits of such policies accrue to businesses and wealthy individuals and very few pass through to the middle class.

Can you please cite to me where he said that?

The policy itself is not designed to maximize profits for developers. Read it. It wants to align with a lot of policy objectives including environmental resilience, safety, good governance, racial equity, housing attainability, etc.

Here is one recommendation in the policy: "Recommendation 2.3: Allow funds collected as UPPs to be used for capital projects adding capacity at schools adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected, as outlined in the School Utilization Report."

Here is another: "Recommendation 3.2: Require LATR studies for a proposed development project generating 50 or more peak-hour vehicle trips."

Another: "Recommendation 3.4: Simplify the Non-Motor Vehicle Adequacy Test. The test will have five components: Pedestrian Level of Comfort (PLOC), illuminance, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, bicycle system, and bus transit system. This test will replace the individual pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit systems tests.

I object to your characterization because it simply isn't true.

The main objective of the GIP was lowering impact fees for certain housing types in certain areas of the county. If you go back and watch the hearings, you’ll hear that ring out very clearly. The other parts of the GIP (which planning wanted to call the “Growth Policy”) are pieces of furniture.

It’s interesting that you want to argue about the intent but you don’t deny the outcome. It hasn’t worked. It’s cost us money (except for the lucky few who got subsidies), but it hasn’t resulted in housing. Nor do you deny that the financial incentives proposed in thrive and the the housing strategy work from the same theory: increase profits to increase housing production. You keep posting to pick at nits but we have a policy that isn’t producing more housing. It’s just producing more profit. Maybe you’re happy with that outcome. I think we need more housing.

I am focused on this issue because I like to try to discuss actual facts and debate about the impact of them. If we can get to some common understanding of the GIP, I am happy to go back to discussing the housing strategy. The bolded is inaccurate. I have read the GIP and watched the hearings.

Try it another way: if you give a market rate developer a subsidy, what is the first outcome of the subsidy? You’ve given the developer money but haven’t increased costs or demanded anything in return. What is the outcome of that action?

The outcome of the action you lay out is to increase profits for the developer.

But that isn't the point in question. The point in question is whether the "entire theory" or "goal" of the GIP is to maximize profits for developers. It is not. (Note I am speaking about the GIP, not the Attainable Housing strategy)

[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:

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.

The GIP is not the county's housing policy. So I'm not sure why we are mixing the two.

And the stated goal of the GIP is plainly on the website: "The foundation of the Growth and Infrastructure Policy is that Montgomery County must have adequate infrastructure to support growth. This policy is the guide for administering the county’s adequate public facilities (APF) requirements."
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Where did anybody say the goal of that policy is to maximize developer profits?

The GIP is the county’s growth policy, which is a significant document in the county’s planning cannon, so the comments the planning chair made during its consideration are an important indicator of what the theory of the case is. Casey Anderson said the theory behind the policy was to make development more profitable because “it stands to reason” that higher profits would cause developers to build more housing. The new GIP keeps the underlying rationale, so it’s fair to say the theory of the case hasn’t changed. The immediate outcome of this policy (if it works) is that developers make more money. Anything beyond the immediate outcome is an indirect outcome or more of a hope. Looking at housing production in the county, it’s safe to say it hasn’t worked, even as it has cost taxpayers money.

This is just one example. Planning and the council make the same argument every time they put forward a new financial incentive for market rate housing production. It’s in Thrive, and it’s in the Attainable Housing Strategy, among other places. Andrew Friedson has also said he only wants to offer carrots (financial incentives such as tax abatements) and not sticks (whatever he meant by that he never made clear). It’s fair to say that our housing policy for market rate housing has put profitability at its center and that the county hopes that increasing profitability through taxpayer-funded subsidies will result in more production, but it hasn’t so far.

All the people hitting back on this characterization seem awfully defensive. Maybe it hits too close to the truth for your comfort. It’s not the only time that politicians have tried to sell subsidies to businesses as helping the middle class, but nearly all the benefits of such policies accrue to businesses and wealthy individuals and very few pass through to the middle class.

Can you please cite to me where he said that?

The policy itself is not designed to maximize profits for developers. Read it. It wants to align with a lot of policy objectives including environmental resilience, safety, good governance, racial equity, housing attainability, etc.

Here is one recommendation in the policy: "Recommendation 2.3: Allow funds collected as UPPs to be used for capital projects adding capacity at schools adjacent to the school for which the funds were collected, as outlined in the School Utilization Report."

Here is another: "Recommendation 3.2: Require LATR studies for a proposed development project generating 50 or more peak-hour vehicle trips."

Another: "Recommendation 3.4: Simplify the Non-Motor Vehicle Adequacy Test. The test will have five components: Pedestrian Level of Comfort (PLOC), illuminance, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance, bicycle system, and bus transit system. This test will replace the individual pedestrian, bicycle, and bus transit systems tests.

I object to your characterization because it simply isn't true.

The main objective of the GIP was lowering impact fees for certain housing types in certain areas of the county. If you go back and watch the hearings, you’ll hear that ring out very clearly. The other parts of the GIP (which planning wanted to call the “Growth Policy”) are pieces of furniture.

It’s interesting that you want to argue about the intent but you don’t deny the outcome. It hasn’t worked. It’s cost us money (except for the lucky few who got subsidies), but it hasn’t resulted in housing. Nor do you deny that the financial incentives proposed in thrive and the the housing strategy work from the same theory: increase profits to increase housing production. You keep posting to pick at nits but we have a policy that isn’t producing more housing. It’s just producing more profit. Maybe you’re happy with that outcome. I think we need more housing.

I am focused on this issue because I like to try to discuss actual facts and debate about the impact of them. If we can get to some common understanding of the GIP, I am happy to go back to discussing the housing strategy. The bolded is inaccurate. I have read the GIP and watched the hearings.

Try it another way: if you give a market rate developer a subsidy, what is the first outcome of the subsidy? You’ve given the developer money but haven’t increased costs or demanded anything in return. What is the outcome of that action?

The outcome of the action you lay out is to increase profits for the developer.

But that isn't the point in question. The point in question is whether the "entire theory" or "goal" of the GIP is to maximize profits for developers. It is not. (Note I am speaking about the GIP, not the Attainable Housing strategy)

What do you think they’re trying to do when they take actions that increase the profits of developers?