MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

They are not ignoring it.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

[Anonymous]

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

I own a SFH and would have no problem living next door to a multifamily structure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

They are not ignoring it.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Yes they are ignoring it. Their only response is that these things will have “minimal impact”, so don’t worry about it. They didn’t include anything in their final report to suggest that they did a thorough analysis on impacts to school enrollment or traffic. A question and answer page where they dismiss resident concerns without any evidence or analysis to support their assertions is complete bs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

They are not ignoring it.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Yes they are ignoring it. Their only response is that these things will have “minimal impact”, so don’t worry about it. They didn’t include anything in their final report to suggest that they did a thorough analysis on impacts to school enrollment or traffic. A question and answer page where they dismiss resident concerns without any evidence or analysis to support their assertions is complete bs.

Have you read the growth and infrastructure policy?

[Anonymous]

I live in a R90 zone and have three nearby neighbors with ADUs. Not a problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

They are not ignoring it.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Yes they are ignoring it. Their only response is that these things will have “minimal impact”, so don’t worry about it. They didn’t include anything in their final report to suggest that they did a thorough analysis on impacts to school enrollment or traffic. A question and answer page where they dismiss resident concerns without any evidence or analysis to support their assertions is complete bs.

It is because their answer is the Growth and Infrastructure policy, which they reference. The analysis is, and always has been, conducted at the time of development application.
"Mitigation comes in the form of Utilization Premium Payments (UPPs) that vary based on the School Impact Area, the type of development, the degree of projected overutilization, and the
estimated number of students to be generated by the development. The payments are in addition to the school impact tax, which developers must pay on new residential units regardless of the adequacy status of the schools serving the proposed project area. School impact taxes help pay for new construction or classroom additions to school facilities countywide. The tax rates are determined by School Impact Area and residential unit type (single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family low-rise, or multi-family high-rise) classifications."
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attachment-1-2024-GIP-Update-Public-Hearing-Draft_5-23-24.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a well supported response, there. Definitely covers things; let's move on, then!

Exactly the kind of post we've come to expect from those pushing density when trying to avoid issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

If you give them the benefit of the doubt, then respond like it, instead of essentially repeating the characterization by again alluding to those "-ist" posters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in a R90 zone and have three nearby neighbors with ADUs. Not a problem.

This is part of the problem. An ADU is very different from a 19 unit building squeezed into the lot nextdoor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

They are not ignoring it.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Yes they are ignoring it. Their only response is that these things will have “minimal impact”, so don’t worry about it. They didn’t include anything in their final report to suggest that they did a thorough analysis on impacts to school enrollment or traffic. A question and answer page where they dismiss resident concerns without any evidence or analysis to support their assertions is complete bs.

It is because their answer is the Growth and Infrastructure policy, which they reference. The analysis is, and always has been, conducted at the time of development application.
"Mitigation comes in the form of Utilization Premium Payments (UPPs) that vary based on the School Impact Area, the type of development, the degree of projected overutilization, and the
estimated number of students to be generated by the development. The payments are in addition to the school impact tax, which developers must pay on new residential units regardless of the adequacy status of the schools serving the proposed project area. School impact taxes help pay for new construction or classroom additions to school facilities countywide. The tax rates are determined by School Impact Area and residential unit type (single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family low-rise, or multi-family high-rise) classifications."
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attachment-1-2024-GIP-Update-Public-Hearing-Draft_5-23-24.pdf

Yes , I have read the policy and you are being blatantly dishonest.

This report actually proposes reducing or eliminating the impact payments you are pointing mention that would help to mitigate school capacity and funding issues.
It proposes the following changes that will apply to many of these plex units
1) introduce a 50% discount for units under 1500sq feet (planning is recommending a maximum average unit size of 1500 sq feet for attainable housing development)
2)Any development with 25% of more MPDUs
Furthermore, the county already provides for the following
3)exemption for all MPDUs.
4)all developments located in opportunity zones
So this impact payment will not apply to most of these units and even when it does it will be a pittance in comparison to the actual cost per student to build new school facilities. Then county is also talking about 10+ property tax discounts to incentivize these new units. So there will be a completely inadequate impact payment structure for these units, because many if not most of the plex units will be exempt. They the county also wants worsen school funding issues defund by providing up to a 75% discount on annual property taxes for a decade or more. This policy is not beneficial for MOCO and YIMBYS are gaslighting county residents. The discounted impact payments and reduction in property taxes proposed eliminate any possibility that the county will be able to prevent this zoning change from harming our school system. Anyone who is a remotely reasonable person can see this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

They are not ignoring it.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Yes they are ignoring it. Their only response is that these things will have “minimal impact”, so don’t worry about it. They didn’t include anything in their final report to suggest that they did a thorough analysis on impacts to school enrollment or traffic. A question and answer page where they dismiss resident concerns without any evidence or analysis to support their assertions is complete bs.

It is because their answer is the Growth and Infrastructure policy, which they reference. The analysis is, and always has been, conducted at the time of development application.
"Mitigation comes in the form of Utilization Premium Payments (UPPs) that vary based on the School Impact Area, the type of development, the degree of projected overutilization, and the
estimated number of students to be generated by the development. The payments are in addition to the school impact tax, which developers must pay on new residential units regardless of the adequacy status of the schools serving the proposed project area. School impact taxes help pay for new construction or classroom additions to school facilities countywide. The tax rates are determined by School Impact Area and residential unit type (single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family low-rise, or multi-family high-rise) classifications."
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attachment-1-2024-GIP-Update-Public-Hearing-Draft_5-23-24.pdf

Yes , I have read the policy and you are being blatantly dishonest.

This report actually proposes reducing or eliminating the impact payments you are pointing mention that would help to mitigate school capacity and funding issues.
It proposes the following changes that will apply to many of these plex units
1) introduce a 50% discount for units under 1500sq feet (planning is recommending a maximum average unit size of 1500 sq feet for attainable housing development)
2)Any development with 25% of more MPDUs
Furthermore, the county already provides for the following
3)exemption for all MPDUs.
4)all developments located in opportunity zones
So this impact payment will not apply to most of these units and even when it does it will be a pittance in comparison to the actual cost per student to build new school facilities. Then county is also talking about 10+ property tax discounts to incentivize these new units. So there will be a completely inadequate impact payment structure for these units, because many if not most of the plex units will be exempt. They the county also wants worsen school funding issues defund by providing up to a 75% discount on annual property taxes for a decade or more. This policy is not beneficial for MOCO and YIMBYS are gaslighting county residents. The discounted impact payments and reduction in property taxes proposed eliminate any possibility that the county will be able to prevent this zoning change from harming our school system. Anyone who is a remotely reasonable person can see this.

If you ever needed proof that this was all aboit developer profit at its heart...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

Not necessarily. If you live next to neighborhoods that aren’t protected from this crazy policy, it could actually reduce your property values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

Wow! If that comes to pass and you live in a desirable neighborhood with a protective covenant your home will be worth a fortune!

My understanding is that this will override protective covenants

No it will not. Covenants are an agreement between property owners and the county has no legal authority to override them.