MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

That’s contrary to Montgomery County’s housing policy, which is focused on profit.

No, it's focused on housing.

If you're referring to developers, who profit from building housing, well obviously. That's their business. Grocery stores also profit from selling food. But we rarely advise our children not to buy food.

Seems like you missed all the discussions about developer taxes at the council and the planning board as well as the rent control discussion and the run-up to the subsidy for Grosvenor. Increasing housing supply is a secondary effect that they hope will happen if they increase profit margins.

Housing doesn't magically appear. Someone has to build it. We call those someones developers.

Right, and housing policy in Montgomery County is focused on their profits.

Nope. Housing policy in Montgomery County is focused on housing, which is built by developers, for profit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People also forget that many of the older homes will be demolished for new builds with multiple flats, in order to maximize profit and lot coverage

I do hope that some of the beautiful older single family homes will be restored however during their conversions.

They are already being demolished for new builds to maximize profit and lot coverage, it's just that they're single-unit new builds. Also they're not necessarily beautiful, unless you're extremely fond of generic ranch or split-level houses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

For all the above listed reasons, single family homes will be the next frontier for subdividing especially in close-in, historic suburbs. We all forget that 100 years ago, all those large victorian homes (both single family and rowhouses) were subdivided during that era’s housing crunch. Beginning in the 1970s many of those homes, then somewhat rundown, became single family homes again in places like Newton Mass., Logan Circle, Angelino Heights (LA), Alamo Square (SF), etc. They were beautifully restored, but now many of those large single family homes are once again being subdivided due to the current housing crisis / high demand for housing.

I can easily see the large homes in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and other suburbs being subdivided into multiple condos/apartments. These are all transit adjacent neighborhoods near urban amenities, with a moderate to high level of preexisting density in proximity. All have high walkability scores.

Single family home cost $400,000 in Hyattsville. There's tons of affordable housing in PG county. Not exactly a big incentive to subdivide houses.

In these other places, like Chevy Chase, people will simply stop selling their single family homes. At some point, if you own a single family home in a desirable area, you would have to be crazy to sell it. You can rent it out for far more than your mortgage costs and the underlying value of the home will go to the moon. At some point, owning a SFH in DC will be like owning a single family home in Manhattan. Only the rich and people who never sold will have them, and everyone else can go live in their claustrophobic little condos.

I have zero interest in ever selling my CC house and have been contemplating setting restrictions in our trust to prevent my kids/grandkids from selling for this reason for “x” amount of years. 25-50yrs from now, our property will be a goldmine and they can cash flow off it, or sell it for a ridiculous amount. Sadly; the only route Moco will head is to add significant density in what are currently wealthy areas.

What a terrible thing to do to your children and grandchildren, tying their hands like that long after you're dead.

yeah what a monster giving his kids a house that will be worth $15 million in 25 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

For all the above listed reasons, single family homes will be the next frontier for subdividing especially in close-in, historic suburbs. We all forget that 100 years ago, all those large victorian homes (both single family and rowhouses) were subdivided during that era’s housing crunch. Beginning in the 1970s many of those homes, then somewhat rundown, became single family homes again in places like Newton Mass., Logan Circle, Angelino Heights (LA), Alamo Square (SF), etc. They were beautifully restored, but now many of those large single family homes are once again being subdivided due to the current housing crisis / high demand for housing.

I can easily see the large homes in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and other suburbs being subdivided into multiple condos/apartments. These are all transit adjacent neighborhoods near urban amenities, with a moderate to high level of preexisting density in proximity. All have high walkability scores.

Single family home cost $400,000 in Hyattsville. There's tons of affordable housing in PG county. Not exactly a big incentive to subdivide houses.

In these other places, like Chevy Chase, people will simply stop selling their single family homes. At some point, if you own a single family home in a desirable area, you would have to be crazy to sell it. You can rent it out for far more than your mortgage costs and the underlying value of the home will go to the moon. At some point, owning a SFH in DC will be like owning a single family home in Manhattan. Only the rich and people who never sold will have them, and everyone else can go live in their claustrophobic little condos.

I have zero interest in ever selling my CC house and have been contemplating setting restrictions in our trust to prevent my kids/grandkids from selling for this reason for “x” amount of years. 25-50yrs from now, our property will be a goldmine and they can cash flow off it, or sell it for a ridiculous amount. Sadly; the only route Moco will head is to add significant density in what are currently wealthy areas.

What a terrible thing to do to your children and grandchildren, tying their hands like that long after you're dead.

yeah what a monster giving his kids a house that will be worth $15 million in 25 years.

Even assuming he knows what the future holds - which he doesn't - controlling his children from the grave for 25 years? I wouldn't expect them to remember him fondly. Or even think of him fondly now, because anybody who wants to be that controlling after he's dead is surely also that controlling while alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People also forget that many of the older homes will be demolished for new builds with multiple flats, in order to maximize profit and lot coverage

I do hope that some of the beautiful older single family homes will be restored however during their conversions.

They are already being demolished for new builds to maximize profit and lot coverage, it's just that they're single-unit new builds. Also they're not necessarily beautiful, unless you're extremely fond of generic ranch or split-level houses.

While no one can legislate good design, I do hope the new, multi-unit builds will complement the older historic homes in massing, scale, and design. (Although most will maximize lot coverage like the current new humongous single family homes). I also hope that least some older homes will undergo thoughtful conversions. Chevy Chase, Bethesda, and Kensington have some very charming neighborhoods that I hope retain their character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

For all the above listed reasons, single family homes will be the next frontier for subdividing especially in close-in, historic suburbs. We all forget that 100 years ago, all those large victorian homes (both single family and rowhouses) were subdivided during that era’s housing crunch. Beginning in the 1970s many of those homes, then somewhat rundown, became single family homes again in places like Newton Mass., Logan Circle, Angelino Heights (LA), Alamo Square (SF), etc. They were beautifully restored, but now many of those large single family homes are once again being subdivided due to the current housing crisis / high demand for housing.

I can easily see the large homes in Chevy Chase, Takoma Park, Hyattsville, and other suburbs being subdivided into multiple condos/apartments. These are all transit adjacent neighborhoods near urban amenities, with a moderate to high level of preexisting density in proximity. All have high walkability scores.

Single family home cost $400,000 in Hyattsville. There's tons of affordable housing in PG county. Not exactly a big incentive to subdivide houses.

In these other places, like Chevy Chase, people will simply stop selling their single family homes. At some point, if you own a single family home in a desirable area, you would have to be crazy to sell it. You can rent it out for far more than your mortgage costs and the underlying value of the home will go to the moon. At some point, owning a SFH in DC will be like owning a single family home in Manhattan. Only the rich and people who never sold will have them, and everyone else can go live in their claustrophobic little condos.

I have zero interest in ever selling my CC house and have been contemplating setting restrictions in our trust to prevent my kids/grandkids from selling for this reason for “x” amount of years. 25-50yrs from now, our property will be a goldmine and they can cash flow off it, or sell it for a ridiculous amount. Sadly; the only route Moco will head is to add significant density in what are currently wealthy areas.

What a terrible thing to do to your children and grandchildren, tying their hands like that long after you're dead.

yeah what a monster giving his kids a house that will be worth $15 million in 25 years.

Even assuming he knows what the future holds - which he doesn't - controlling his children from the grave for 25 years? I wouldn't expect them to remember him fondly. Or even think of him fondly now, because anybody who wants to be that controlling after he's dead is surely also that controlling while alive.

Ok well I think it’s safe to say that you’re an idiot who makes lots of bizarre assumptions

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

That’s contrary to Montgomery County’s housing policy, which is focused on profit.

No, it's focused on housing.

If you're referring to developers, who profit from building housing, well obviously. That's their business. Grocery stores also profit from selling food. But we rarely advise our children not to buy food.

Seems like you missed all the discussions about developer taxes at the council and the planning board as well as the rent control discussion and the run-up to the subsidy for Grosvenor. Increasing housing supply is a secondary effect that they hope will happen if they increase profit margins.

Housing doesn't magically appear. Someone has to build it. We call those someones developers.

Right, and housing policy in Montgomery County is focused on their profits.

Nope. Housing policy in Montgomery County is focused on housing, which is built by developers, for profit.

Then it’s a terrible failure. The county doesn’t produce much housing and prices are through the roof.

But developers do have very high profit margins (higher than Fairfax) so if it’s focused on profit it’s working well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

That’s contrary to Montgomery County’s housing policy, which is focused on profit.

No, it's focused on housing.

If you're referring to developers, who profit from building housing, well obviously. That's their business. Grocery stores also profit from selling food. But we rarely advise our children not to buy food.

Seems like you missed all the discussions about developer taxes at the council and the planning board as well as the rent control discussion and the run-up to the subsidy for Grosvenor. Increasing housing supply is a secondary effect that they hope will happen if they increase profit margins.

Housing doesn't magically appear. Someone has to build it. We call those someones developers.

Right, and housing policy in Montgomery County is focused on their profits.

Nope. Housing policy in Montgomery County is focused on housing, which is built by developers, for profit.

Then it’s a terrible failure. The county doesn’t produce much housing and prices are through the roof.

But developers do have very high profit margins (higher than Fairfax) so if it’s focused on profit it’s working well.

I mean, yes, those are the problems that the housing policy changes are supposed to address...

I keep hearing that Montgomery County is extremely business-unfriendly, especially compared to northern Virginia, but I guess that's not so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

That’s contrary to Montgomery County’s housing policy, which is focused on profit.

No, it's focused on housing.

If you're referring to developers, who profit from building housing, well obviously. That's their business. Grocery stores also profit from selling food. But we rarely advise our children not to buy food.

Seems like you missed all the discussions about developer taxes at the council and the planning board as well as the rent control discussion and the run-up to the subsidy for Grosvenor. Increasing housing supply is a secondary effect that they hope will happen if they increase profit margins.

Housing doesn't magically appear. Someone has to build it. We call those someones developers.

Right, and housing policy in Montgomery County is focused on their profits.

Nope. Housing policy in Montgomery County is focused on housing, which is built by developers, for profit.

Then it’s a terrible failure. The county doesn’t produce much housing and prices are through the roof.

But developers do have very high profit margins (higher than Fairfax) so if it’s focused on profit it’s working well.

I mean, yes, those are the problems that the housing policy changes are supposed to address...

I keep hearing that Montgomery County is extremely business-unfriendly, especially compared to northern Virginia, but I guess that's not so.

It’s unfriendly to a lot of businesses but they’re patsies for residential real estate developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

Lets get real. The older condos in the inner MD burbs have made little money over the last several decades. Condos are not good investments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The unwritten story here is that these buildings with a small number of condos will turn into disasters for the condo owners. The idea that these small condo associations will be managed well is zero. Disputes will arise. Finances will be poor. Basic maintenance will be ignored. Condo owners will make no money on them. I would never advise anyone, including my children, to buy one. The only people that will profit will be the developers and other real estate professionals.

The primary purpose of housing is housing. Not profit.

And nobody is forcing you to buy a condo in a building with a small number of condos.

Lets get real. The older condos in the inner MD burbs have made little money over the last several decades. Condos are not good investments.

Many of the new condos in the former single family neighborhoods will be to let. Like many townhomes close to transit now owned by investors, rental companies could buy up the multi-plex units on these subdivided lots. The goal is more housing in general, so this would still meet the spirit of the zoning changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lots of tendentious arguments here about cities none of us live in.

You could, instead, just look around DC. Neighborhoods where the housing stock has greatly increased over the past decade or so have gotten a lot more expensive, not less expensive.

Look at Navy Yard. Look at U Street. Look at 14th Street. Look at H Street. Look at Shaw. Look at Logan Circle....

Reasoning from a price change: rookie mistake!

I don't know why everyone decided to replace the word "gentrification" with "upzoning." It's the same thing (and, no, just because you *wish* we could build giant apartment buildings in Georgetown doesn't change that). No one doubted what gentrification did to housing prices, and no one should think the result will be any different just because you've relabeled gentrification as "upzoning."

The reason you don't know why is because it didn't happen. They are different things. There might be upzoning and then gentrification, but gentrification can also happen without upzoning, and guess what? Upzoning can also happen without gentrification.

Uh, sure, in theory. In reality, it basically only happens in ungentrified areas. How else is DC getting so incredibly white? Because developers buy homes from black people and turn them into luxury condos they then sell to white people.

Obviously gentrification only happens in ungentrified areas. How would you go about gentrifying an area that is already gentrified?

DC is currently 38% non-Hispanic white.

What is odd here is that those supporting upzoning generally opposed gentrification. They in reality are the same-changing the character of a neighborhood against the wishes of its residents.

While that might be true, the momentum is on the side of the housing advocates, politicians (both R and D who support this), developers, and property investors. All these groups are very well-organized. The current residents of the single family neighborhoods may be opposed to the changes by and large, but they are a smaller group compared with the majority of residents who are renters, and they generally approve of the changes.

I disagree that the residents and homeowners who are against these zoning reforms are usually the smaller groups; they are less organized than the YIMBYs. Most people have jobs and family responsibilities so they cannot devote a bunch time to advocating against local zoning changes they disagree with. The economic benefits that accrue to the groups advocating for these zoning reforms are much more concentrated than the costs imposed on county residents opposed to the reforms. There is an asymmetric advantage for special interest groups (real estate industry, developers, construction companies) that provides them with greater financial return on advocating for zoning reforms even though they are largely unpopular with the general public. There is generally an asymmetric advantage to lobbying that favors special interest groups over voters' preferences.

Eh. The people who advocate FOR the local zoning changes also have jobs and family responsibilities. For as much as you want to think this is an issue of special interest groups vs. the general public - it's just not true.