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:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.


The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

Yup....this is how they take away land from the middle class. They are destroying the last pillar of obtaining wealth for the middle class. Ruin neighborhoods and turn everyone into a permanent renter for life.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

Tell the developers to pay for the actual cost of building new schools for students generated by their houses. The last time I checked each student cost MOCO around $60,000 for extra space in school facilities. This means that most developments should be paying a minimum of 20k per unit for school impact fees. However, the real estate industry would rather screw over the county by lobbying the state to pass heavy handed zoning reform that allow developers to weasel out of responsibilities for schools through using by-right density bonus loopholes.

Who do you think would actually pay that? Not the developers.

If you're intimating that those residing (buying or renting) would have to pay more, yes, they would, but microeconomics suggests not the entirety. Some would be absorbed by the developers as lower profit.

If we don't get them to pay, then we are left with the current populace shouldering the burden or the school system remaining underfunded, and similar circumstances for other public facilities/infrastructure.

I.e., they wouldn't build in the first place.

No. Some would not be built. Overall/on average, developers would make less profit. Go learn some micro.

[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:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.


The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

Yup....this is how they take away land from the middle class. They are destroying the last pillar of obtaining wealth for the middle class. Ruin neighborhoods and turn everyone into a permanent renter for life.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

Tell the developers to pay for the actual cost of building new schools for students generated by their houses. The last time I checked each student cost MOCO around $60,000 for extra space in school facilities. This means that most developments should be paying a minimum of 20k per unit for school impact fees. However, the real estate industry would rather screw over the county by lobbying the state to pass heavy handed zoning reform that allow developers to weasel out of responsibilities for schools through using by-right density bonus loopholes.

Who do you think would actually pay that? Not the developers.

If you're intimating that those residing (buying or renting) would have to pay more, yes, they would, but microeconomics suggests not the entirety. Some would be absorbed by the developers as lower profit.

If we don't get them to pay, then we are left with the current populace shouldering the burden or the school system remaining underfunded, and similar circumstances for other public facilities/infrastructure.

I.e., they wouldn't build in the first place.

The YIMBYs always make this claim but you haven’t been able to show that cutting fees has increased development. It seems plausible on its face but hasn’t worked out in practice. For rentals, I suspect that concerns about demand (especially over the long term) are suppressing production far more than any other factor.

[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:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.


The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

Yup....this is how they take away land from the middle class. They are destroying the last pillar of obtaining wealth for the middle class. Ruin neighborhoods and turn everyone into a permanent renter for life.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

Tell the developers to pay for the actual cost of building new schools for students generated by their houses. The last time I checked each student cost MOCO around $60,000 for extra space in school facilities. This means that most developments should be paying a minimum of 20k per unit for school impact fees. However, the real estate industry would rather screw over the county by lobbying the state to pass heavy handed zoning reform that allow developers to weasel out of responsibilities for schools through using by-right density bonus loopholes.

Who do you think would actually pay that? Not the developers.

If you're intimating that those residing (buying or renting) would have to pay more, yes, they would, but microeconomics suggests not the entirety. Some would be absorbed by the developers as lower profit.

If we don't get them to pay, then we are left with the current populace shouldering the burden or the school system remaining underfunded, and similar circumstances for other public facilities/infrastructure.

I.e., they wouldn't build in the first place.

The YIMBYs always make this claim but you haven’t been able to show that cutting fees has increased development. It seems plausible on its face but hasn’t worked out in practice. For rentals, I suspect that concerns about demand (especially over the long term) are suppressing production far more than any other factor.

What’s funny is that the YIMBY mothership the APA supports impact fees.
https://www.planning.org/policy/guides/adopted/impactfees.htm

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Same could be said of Georgia Avenue. There is no reason that there are SFHs on Georgia Avenue between SS and Wheaton. But so a logical approach would benefit everyone and hurt no one so obviously it’s not going to happen. The driving force behind these proposals is an animus towards a made up group of people who are enemies that are somehow the reason for racism and inequality. Harming these imagined bogeymen is the goal. Along with getting likes and retweets on social media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

This would make sense if it was actually about housing, but it’s really about some bizarre sociology experiment. The YImBYs got their wires crossed at some point and confused equal with fair. It’s not “fair” that people can’t live everywhere, even if they can’t afford it or the infrastructure doesn’t support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Same could be said of Georgia Avenue. There is no reason that there are SFHs on Georgia Avenue between SS and Wheaton. But so a logical approach would benefit everyone and hurt no one so obviously it’s not going to happen. The driving force behind these proposals is an animus towards a made up group of people who are enemies that are somehow the reason for racism and inequality. Harming these imagined bogeymen is the goal. Along with getting likes and retweets on social media.

Did you not know it is racist to own a nice SFH? How dare you contribute to the inequality. You don't deserve to live in a quiet, leafy, neighborhood! Affordable housing for all! Eat the rich!

[Anonymous]

They want to prevent the middle class from owning anything. It is as simple as that. This is the future:

* monthly subscriptions to every feature of your car

* monthly subscriptions to use a phone on top of service fees because you won’t be allowed to own proprietary tech anymore

* complete ruination of SFHs as developers lobby to rip up neighborhoods and are successful through astroturfing lobbying efforts by tricking people to vote for ‘affordable housing’ through upzoning. Entire country gets turned into a nation of renters, wiping out the remaining pillar left for the middle class to build wealth


This is literally turning into a cyberpunk dystopia where there will be fees for everything and you own nothing. The elites and corporations are coming for your homes and neighborhoods now under the guise of ‘affordable housing’. They will tear down homes, build rentals, and simultaneously try to increase taxes to drive out middle class homeowners. Then they’ll swoop in and gobble them up to build rentals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

[Anonymous]

It’s not the big developers who are lobbying for this. The big developers shifted blame for housing shortages to zoning, so upzoning became the preferred policy solution over land value tax, enforcement of antitrust laws, or other mechanisms to make supply manipulation more costly. The big developers aren’t opposed to upzoning but they’re not pressing for it the same way they pressed for subsidies or opposing it the same way they lined up against rent control. They know the impact on their businesses will be negligible if there’s any impact at all.

The county council (primarily Hucker and Riemer) pushed planning to do this, and even planning knows that upzoning won’t have much impact. But it’s an opportunity for planning and the council to make it look like they care about housing prices, and the most vocal advocates all have zoning as their top issue, so they’ll do upzoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Is that what is being proposed?

No, it’s not. If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback. I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Is that what is being proposed?

No, it’s not. If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback. I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.

Yes. Two-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones; three-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and four-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District. The Priority Housing District is areas within a one mile straight line distance from Metrorail’s Red Line, the Purple Line light rail, and MARC rail stations, plus 500 feet from a Thrive Montgomery 2050 identified Growth Corridor.

If you think that's destruction, I don't know what to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Is that what is being proposed?

No, it’s not. If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback. I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.

Yes. Two-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones; three-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and four-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District. The Priority Housing District is areas within a one mile straight line distance from Metrorail’s Red Line, the Purple Line light rail, and MARC rail stations, plus 500 feet from a Thrive Montgomery 2050 identified Growth Corridor.

If you think that's destruction, I don't know what to say.

Exactly, so you were wrong.