Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation

[Anonymous]

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

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

Can they?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casey Anderson and Mike Riley threw this together to punish people in cars. That’s the only reason it looks this way. There was no reason not to make it safer for everyone. It’s a failure of parks that the council had to even get involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casey Anderson and Mike Riley threw this together to punish people in cars. That’s the only reason it looks this way. There was no reason not to make it safer for everyone. It’s a failure of parks that the council had to even get involved.

I'm sorry you feel this way, but no, it was not punishment for drivers, and it actually is safer for everyone. But now the Council has voted to make it less safe for everyone again.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casey Anderson and Mike Riley threw this together to punish people in cars. That’s the only reason it looks this way. There was no reason not to make it safer for everyone. It’s a failure of parks that the council had to even get involved.

I'm sorry you feel this way, but no, it was not punishment for drivers, and it actually is safer for everyone. But now the Council has voted to make it less safe for everyone again.

Whatever makes my commute from Spring Hill to downtown Bethesda faster..I’ll take it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Casey Anderson and Mike Riley threw this together to punish people in cars. That’s the only reason it looks this way. There was no reason not to make it safer for everyone. It’s a failure of parks that the council had to even get involved.

+1. It was a bureaucratic tantrum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I personally want to Manhattanize the entire urban corridor from Downtown Bethesda all the way to Germantown

Agreed. Also an airport in Kensington.

That would be fantastic, if it can have international flights. I live in Kensington, and it would be fantastic not to have to drive or metro all the way to Dulles or BWI.

You could probably put it right in rock creek park. Run the creek through a tunnel and put the airport right on the park itself. I’d literally be able to walk to the airport.

Plus, I love watching airplanes landing and taking off. That would be fantastic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Can they?

They’d have to secede from MOCO, but if anywhere has enough lawyers on hand to do it, it’s them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This taxpayer finds it ironic that those who push upzoning were against gentrification a few decades ago. I note of course that those who sold out in the gentrification days to wealthier newcomers at least benefited from the extra cash. Upzoning and gentrification of course both involve changing a community's character against the wishes its residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This taxpayer finds it ironic that those who push upzoning were against gentrification a few decades ago. I note of course that those who sold out in the gentrification days to wealthier newcomers at least benefited from the extra cash. Upzoning and gentrification of course both involve changing a community's character against the wishes its residents.

Wait wait wait, I thought that those "who push upzoning" weren't even born a few decades ago?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".

Link? Citation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".

The government didn’t decide anything. Planning did financial analysis in consultation with industry and reached the conclusions that it did. It’s usually good to have an idea of what your proposal will do before you invest in executing it.

Duplexes are single family homes (attached) so ending subsidies for single family homes (which are so entrenched in the U.S. economy that it’s not a realistic suggestion) would make duplexes less viable, not more viable.

[Anonymous]

That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".

Planning and zoning decisions must balance numerous competing priorities such as school capacity, infrastructure, market demand, environmental impacts, historic preservation, revenue impacts, public health, and overall quality of life concerns. Developers only care about making money; They will not consider the negative externalities of their decisions without guardrails to encourage sustainable and fiscally responsible growth.

There are many subsidies for both single-family and multifamily housing. The housing market is not a situation where you sell trinkets, and the market will generally function efficiently. The housing market is more akin to the healthcare industry due to layers of regulation, safety standards, and land use restrictions. Some of these rules are reasonable and some of them may not be reasonable. There is room for improvement and it may be justified to relax some zoning restrictions. However, this argument that the market will solve everything is disingenuous. YIMBYs have become the left-leaning corollary to the conservatives who are convinced that free markets will fix all in the healthcare industry. Both groups have a large number of useful idiots who are being funded/manipulated by wealthy special interest groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".

Link? Citation?

If you’re not familiar with the literature you should probably bow out of the conversation and you definitely should refrain from doing any advocacy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".

Link? Citation?

If you’re not familiar with the literature you should probably bow out of the conversation and you definitely should refrain from doing any advocacy.

So, it doesn’t exist in any credible format.