Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Let’s put up all these high density homes in Potomac. Those two acre lots have plenty of space and there are ride on options.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s put up all these high density homes in Potomac. Those two acre lots have plenty of space and there are ride on options.

Yeah, nice try. Needs to be Metro adjacent to work. MoCo will remain a mostly suburban county except around these metro stops.

Maybe we can extend metro into more places?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s put up all these high density homes in Potomac. Those two acre lots have plenty of space and there are ride on options.

The 42 bus is not Metro, the Purple Line, or BRT, but I agree that duplexes by right would make a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

Yes, they are free to do so.

And they have, sending county budget toward crisis.

Certainly there is at least one DCUM poster who moved to Urbana, but I'm ok with that.

Oh way more than one. More people are leaving MoCo than coming in. Taxes leaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

Yes, they are free to do so.

And they have, sending county budget toward crisis.

Um, no. The loss in tax revenue had nothing to do with people leaving the county. In fact, people are coming to MoCo, and not just low income people:
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023.12.7-Item-9-Demographic-Trends.pdf

True, there was an increase, but it had nothing to do with people leaving.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

Yes, they are free to do so.

And they have, sending county budget toward crisis.

Um, no. The loss in tax revenue had nothing to do with people leaving the county. In fact, people are coming to MoCo, and not just low income people:
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023.12.7-Item-9-Demographic-Trends.pdf

True, there was an increase, but it had nothing to do with people leaving.

Dang. Bringing facts again. You're messin' with DCUM's mojo!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

Yes, they are free to do so.

And they have, sending county budget toward crisis.

Um, no. The loss in tax revenue had nothing to do with people leaving the county. In fact, people are coming to MoCo, and not just low income people:
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023.12.7-Item-9-Demographic-Trends.pdf

True, there was an increase, but it had nothing to do with people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/10/31/exodus-from-moco-part-one/

When the high earners leave, revenue goes down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

Yes, they are free to do so.

And they have, sending county budget toward crisis.

Um, no. The loss in tax revenue had nothing to do with people leaving the county. In fact, people are coming to MoCo, and not just low income people:
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023.12.7-Item-9-Demographic-Trends.pdf

True, there was an increase, but it had nothing to do with people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/10/31/exodus-from-moco-part-one/

When the high earners leave, revenue goes down.

When young people are unwilling or unable to live in a place, the place starts to die.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

Yes, they are free to do so.

And they have, sending county budget toward crisis.

Um, no. The loss in tax revenue had nothing to do with people leaving the county. In fact, people are coming to MoCo, and not just low income people:
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023.12.7-Item-9-Demographic-Trends.pdf

True, there was an increase, but it had nothing to do with people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/10/31/exodus-from-moco-part-one/

When the high earners leave, revenue goes down.

Your above assertion is not at all reflected in actual numbers.

"On a calendar year basis, per capita personal income is estimated to increase from $91,513 in 2022 to $95,112 in 2023 (+3.9 percent) and is estimated to increase at an average annual rate of 2.8 percent from 2014 to 2023."

"The County’s total government-wide net position increased by $642.9 million."
"As of the close of FY23, the County’s governmental funds reported combined ending fund balances of $1,720.9 million, an increase of $52.1 million over the prior year’s ending fund balances."
p.13 chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Finance/Resources/Files/data/financial/acfr/FY2023_ACFR.pdf

[Anonymous]

More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

Yes, they are free to do so.

And they have, sending county budget toward crisis.

Certainly there is at least one DCUM poster who moved to Urbana, but I'm ok with that.

Oh way more than one. More people are leaving MoCo than coming in. Taxes leaving.

Not sure how the population keeps going up!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More on the losses due to people leaving.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2023/11/01/exodus-from-moco-part-two/

Dunno about you, but I think the purpose of county government is to serve people, not tax returns or real AGI.

Dunno where you went to school but no services without the cash.

Do you have any evidence that the county is losing any money as a result of people leaving?

DP. Would be nice if you addressed the issues raised instead of continually questioning them. Just makes you sound like you don't want to face reality if that hurts your particular interest.

Whether or not there is wealth flight, which has been shown time and again to lead to a deterioration of municipal services, there certainly is a school overcrowding issue. The proposed law allows further crowding without requiring steps to remediate that additional crowding.

Wealthy areas are more insulated from the potential effect of this bill than less wealthy areas, given rail proximity and likely geographic application of the other two categories (prior state land & nonprofit land). Schools there are also more likely to be:

Less overcrowded in the first place,

Better supported financially by the community, ameliorating some of the possible effect, and

Politically connected to reduce eventual inpact.

Suggesting that this should go through for housing, and that a separate effort should be made to remediate the infrastructure, both ignores the great hurdle of that required advocacy (given the already great difficulty in achieving success, there, over the past few decades) and misses the opportunity to achieve a more holistic solution. In the meantime, it will be the already overcrowded, less wealthy areas that will bear the brunt of this lack of foresight. Inequity coming from those claiming to be supporting equity in the first place.

Fix the bill. Then pass it.