MoCo Council Vote Today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose our personal finance math may differ, but two married people making a combined 140 a yr or so, I wouldnt feel comfortable with a 700k house. (thats on the low end by the way, the ones in Arlington ended up over 1M). But lets assume 700k here. You would need 140 for a down payment for an 80/20 mortgage.

Then you factor in property taxes, insurance, etc etc... no effing way two teachers or two nurses are swinging that.

Again-its a fairy tale story "we want affordable houses for teachers and nurses and cops!!" (then they build 700-1M triplexes, that none of those people will actually buy or be able to afford).

Just admit that.

New construction is always going to demand a premium. The issue isn't so much what the new units will cost, but what effect they will have on other units compared to maintaining the status quo.

Scarcity drives prices. More people competing for the same number of homes is going to keep driving prices up faster than incomes.

Now we’ve reached the point in the conversation where the YIMBYs admit the program won’t help the people it was supposed to help but tell us not to worry because the effects will just trickle down. The problem with that approach is that very little actually does trickle down (most benefit gets booked as profit), making your approach an ineffective transmission mechanism for support to the middle class.

The other problem with your approach is that developers are much less likely to build while prices are falling, so when prices fall because of a supply shock, the effect is short lived. On top of that, your approach relies on having a supply shock to begin with, and cities that have experienced a supply shock did so only after rents went up way more than they have around here. Your approach is not a sustainable way to increase housing stock and it shouldn’t be a basis for policy.

Housing supply is only relevant to them in that it creates their walkable 15 minute cities. They absolutely don’t care about affordability. It’s a ruse.

Walkable 15 minute cities are good. We can’t have them because we don’t have enough job growth here.

Walkable 15 minute cities also shouldn’t be the only type of new housing being built, but it’s where the developer lobby owns land, so they try to make it impossible to build anything anywhere else. The county has made building housing illegal in large swaths of the county and has made building townhouses and single family homes prohibitively expensive in other areas. The number of new single family homes that get added to the housing stock this year will be in the dozens. You never hear about that from the YIMBYs even though building more SFH and townhouses would ease demand pressure in the rental market (or perhaps you never hear about that because it would ease demand pressure and make it harder for landlords to raise the rent).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose our personal finance math may differ, but two married people making a combined 140 a yr or so, I wouldnt feel comfortable with a 700k house. (thats on the low end by the way, the ones in Arlington ended up over 1M). But lets assume 700k here. You would need 140 for a down payment for an 80/20 mortgage.

Then you factor in property taxes, insurance, etc etc... no effing way two teachers or two nurses are swinging that.

Again-its a fairy tale story "we want affordable houses for teachers and nurses and cops!!" (then they build 700-1M triplexes, that none of those people will actually buy or be able to afford).

Just admit that.

New construction is always going to demand a premium. The issue isn't so much what the new units will cost, but what effect they will have on other units compared to maintaining the status quo.

Scarcity drives prices. More people competing for the same number of homes is going to keep driving prices up faster than incomes.

Now we’ve reached the point in the conversation where the YIMBYs admit the program won’t help the people it was supposed to help but tell us not to worry because the effects will just trickle down. The problem with that approach is that very little actually does trickle down (most benefit gets booked as profit), making your approach an ineffective transmission mechanism for support to the middle class.

The other problem with your approach is that developers are much less likely to build while prices are falling, so when prices fall because of a supply shock, the effect is short lived. On top of that, your approach relies on having a supply shock to begin with, and cities that have experienced a supply shock did so only after rents went up way more than they have around here. Your approach is not a sustainable way to increase housing stock and it shouldn’t be a basis for policy.

Housing supply is only relevant to them in that it creates their walkable 15 minute cities. They absolutely don’t care about affordability. It’s a ruse.

Walkable 15 minute cities are good. We can’t have them because we don’t have enough job growth here.

Walkable 15 minute cities also shouldn’t be the only type of new housing being built, but it’s where the developer lobby owns land, so they try to make it impossible to build anything anywhere else. The county has made building housing illegal in large swaths of the county and has made building townhouses and single family homes prohibitively expensive in other areas. The number of new single family homes that get added to the housing stock this year will be in the dozens. You never hear about that from the YIMBYs even though building more SFH and townhouses would ease demand pressure in the rental market (or perhaps you never hear about that because it would ease demand pressure and make it harder for landlords to raise the rent).

The NIMBYs who don't want townhomes in their neighborhoods also the NIMBYs who don't want the new/bigger roads going through their neighborhoods to support the sprawl you're advocating for.

There's no quick fix here. Everything will take time and will need to be combined with other measures (including more sprawl into the ag reserve). But look at the prices of 20+ year old townhome prices compared to single family homes. Even looking at similarly dizes, the townhomes homes are regularly 20-40% less expensive. More affordable housing accomodating more people is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose our personal finance math may differ, but two married people making a combined 140 a yr or so, I wouldnt feel comfortable with a 700k house. (thats on the low end by the way, the ones in Arlington ended up over 1M). But lets assume 700k here. You would need 140 for a down payment for an 80/20 mortgage.

Then you factor in property taxes, insurance, etc etc... no effing way two teachers or two nurses are swinging that.

Again-its a fairy tale story "we want affordable houses for teachers and nurses and cops!!" (then they build 700-1M triplexes, that none of those people will actually buy or be able to afford).

Just admit that.

New construction is always going to demand a premium. The issue isn't so much what the new units will cost, but what effect they will have on other units compared to maintaining the status quo.

Scarcity drives prices. More people competing for the same number of homes is going to keep driving prices up faster than incomes.

I would be inclined to agree somewhat with this theory (full on admitting by the way that the new constuction isnt actually for the famed "teachers, firefighters, cops, nurses" trope mind you), but the wealthier will buy them and free up some of the older, cheaper, inventory... EXCEPT.... no one is leaving a 2.5-3.5% mortgage for a 6.5. It's jsut not happening.

So the new builds will need to be price attainable for the actual middle class you are claiming to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose our personal finance math may differ, but two married people making a combined 140 a yr or so, I wouldnt feel comfortable with a 700k house. (thats on the low end by the way, the ones in Arlington ended up over 1M). But lets assume 700k here. You would need 140 for a down payment for an 80/20 mortgage.

Then you factor in property taxes, insurance, etc etc... no effing way two teachers or two nurses are swinging that.

Again-its a fairy tale story "we want affordable houses for teachers and nurses and cops!!" (then they build 700-1M triplexes, that none of those people will actually buy or be able to afford).

Just admit that.

New construction is always going to demand a premium. The issue isn't so much what the new units will cost, but what effect they will have on other units compared to maintaining the status quo.

Scarcity drives prices. More people competing for the same number of homes is going to keep driving prices up faster than incomes.

I would be inclined to agree somewhat with this theory (full on admitting by the way that the new constuction isnt actually for the famed "teachers, firefighters, cops, nurses" trope mind you), but the wealthier will buy them and free up some of the older, cheaper, inventory... EXCEPT.... no one is leaving a 2.5-3.5% mortgage for a 6.5. It's jsut not happening.

So the new builds will need to be price attainable for the actual middle class you are claiming to help.

Change happens slowly. There's no quick fix here. Certainly this proposal isn't a big enough to do much on its own-- it only applies to about 2500 lots in the county. But we need to be making changes get us to a better place in 20 years.

To deal with the immediate problem, there isn't much we can do other than subsidize housing for low-income workers. And we're never going to be able to fund that sustainably at the necessary levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose our personal finance math may differ, but two married people making a combined 140 a yr or so, I wouldnt feel comfortable with a 700k house. (thats on the low end by the way, the ones in Arlington ended up over 1M). But lets assume 700k here. You would need 140 for a down payment for an 80/20 mortgage.

Then you factor in property taxes, insurance, etc etc... no effing way two teachers or two nurses are swinging that.

Again-its a fairy tale story "we want affordable houses for teachers and nurses and cops!!" (then they build 700-1M triplexes, that none of those people will actually buy or be able to afford).

Just admit that.

New construction is always going to demand a premium. The issue isn't so much what the new units will cost, but what effect they will have on other units compared to maintaining the status quo.

Scarcity drives prices. More people competing for the same number of homes is going to keep driving prices up faster than incomes.

I would be inclined to agree somewhat with this theory (full on admitting by the way that the new constuction isnt actually for the famed "teachers, firefighters, cops, nurses" trope mind you), but the wealthier will buy them and free up some of the older, cheaper, inventory... EXCEPT.... no one is leaving a 2.5-3.5% mortgage for a 6.5. It's jsut not happening.

So the new builds will need to be price attainable for the actual middle class you are claiming to help.

There is a bottleneck of people at or above 120 percent AMI who are looking to buy. They will absorb any new homes for purchase, which is great for them, but they’re not the people Friedson said the bill was for.

It’s also more likely that the new units will be rentals, not units for purchase, and that construction of these units will substitute for construction of other rentals because the inclusionary zoning requirements in the ZTA are outrageously favorable to developers. Remember that developers produce units to meet demand. They try not to create surpluses and are more than happy to have shortages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, no one is blaming developers or calling them "evil" or whatever. That's a total strawman.

Developers are businesspeople, like anyone else. Thery need to make a profit for providing a good. And that's fine.

The issue is with the council and the advocates for this plan, using emotional tactics to sell this plan, that have absolutely no basis in reality.

"Dont you want teachers and firefighters, and nurses and cops to be able to live here??"

Well first of all, yes. Of course we do. But just like I would anyone making a middle class salary in the county, those jobs arent special as far as access to housing.

But then the plan itself is to allow duplexes, triplexes, townhomes- that all will be 700k+. What teacher is affording that? The answer is they are not.

But to sell the plan honestly- "look we just want more housing, period" would never work, so they lie. And the lie offends me, and I am hardly a NIMBY by any stretch. But this is pure gaslighting, and the county is going to get steamrolled. The "listening sessions" are a pure joke, the planning board and the council are going to do exactly what they always were going to.

700k is cheaper than a 2 million mcmansion. And if people are married a 700k is absolutely in reach for a middle class family. Not sure what you are talking about there.

I’m married. $700k is not within reach for me. $5000 mortgage? What’s your definition of “affordable”? Clearly it’s different than mine.

But more importantly, the ZTA and UBC undermine communities where housing IS CURRENTLY affordable. Places where middle class people and working class people can buy a home. Fani Gonzalez and her crew want to insert high density developments and leave taxpayers and residents to subsidize. It’s wrong on so many levels.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, no one is blaming developers or calling them "evil" or whatever. That's a total strawman.

Developers are businesspeople, like anyone else. Thery need to make a profit for providing a good. And that's fine.

The issue is with the council and the advocates for this plan, using emotional tactics to sell this plan, that have absolutely no basis in reality.

"Dont you want teachers and firefighters, and nurses and cops to be able to live here??"

Well first of all, yes. Of course we do. But just like I would anyone making a middle class salary in the county, those jobs arent special as far as access to housing.

But then the plan itself is to allow duplexes, triplexes, townhomes- that all will be 700k+. What teacher is affording that? The answer is they are not.

But to sell the plan honestly- "look we just want more housing, period" would never work, so they lie. And the lie offends me, and I am hardly a NIMBY by any stretch. But this is pure gaslighting, and the county is going to get steamrolled. The "listening sessions" are a pure joke, the planning board and the council are going to do exactly what they always were going to.

700k is cheaper than a 2 million mcmansion. And if people are married a 700k is absolutely in reach for a middle class family. Not sure what you are talking about there.

I’m married. $700k is not within reach for me. $5000 mortgage? What’s your definition of “affordable”? Clearly it’s different than mine.

But more importantly, the ZTA and UBC undermine communities where housing IS CURRENTLY affordable. Places where middle class people and working class people can buy a home. Fani Gonzalez and her crew want to insert high density developments and leave taxpayers and residents to subsidize. It’s wrong on so many levels.

It is becoming increasingly obvious that you don't actually know what is covered by this ZTA. The number and location of lots affected by this is very limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose our personal finance math may differ, but two married people making a combined 140 a yr or so, I wouldnt feel comfortable with a 700k house. (thats on the low end by the way, the ones in Arlington ended up over 1M). But lets assume 700k here. You would need 140 for a down payment for an 80/20 mortgage.

Then you factor in property taxes, insurance, etc etc... no effing way two teachers or two nurses are swinging that.

Again-its a fairy tale story "we want affordable houses for teachers and nurses and cops!!" (then they build 700-1M triplexes, that none of those people will actually buy or be able to afford).

Just admit that.

New construction is always going to demand a premium. The issue isn't so much what the new units will cost, but what effect they will have on other units compared to maintaining the status quo.

Scarcity drives prices. More people competing for the same number of homes is going to keep driving prices up faster than incomes.

I would be inclined to agree somewhat with this theory (full on admitting by the way that the new constuction isnt actually for the famed "teachers, firefighters, cops, nurses" trope mind you), but the wealthier will buy them and free up some of the older, cheaper, inventory... EXCEPT.... no one is leaving a 2.5-3.5% mortgage for a 6.5. It's jsut not happening.

So the new builds will need to be price attainable for the actual middle class you are claiming to help.

Change happens slowly. There's no quick fix here. Certainly this proposal isn't a big enough to do much on its own-- it only applies to about 2500 lots in the county. But we need to be making changes get us to a better place in 20 years.

To deal with the immediate problem, there isn't much we can do other than subsidize housing for low-income workers. And we're never going to be able to fund that sustainably at the necessary levels.

This is what people say when they don’t want to be held accountable for the outcomes of their policies. How long should we wait? We’ve been doing some version of smart growth/urbanism for more than 20 years and housing production has been unimpressive even though developers’ profits have soared. Under the housing theory that has prevailed in that time, profit signal should have resulted in a flood of production. At what point do you recognize that our land use policy has encouraged rent seeking instead of growth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, no one is blaming developers or calling them "evil" or whatever. That's a total strawman.

Developers are businesspeople, like anyone else. Thery need to make a profit for providing a good. And that's fine.

The issue is with the council and the advocates for this plan, using emotional tactics to sell this plan, that have absolutely no basis in reality.

"Dont you want teachers and firefighters, and nurses and cops to be able to live here??"

Well first of all, yes. Of course we do. But just like I would anyone making a middle class salary in the county, those jobs arent special as far as access to housing.

But then the plan itself is to allow duplexes, triplexes, townhomes- that all will be 700k+. What teacher is affording that? The answer is they are not.

But to sell the plan honestly- "look we just want more housing, period" would never work, so they lie. And the lie offends me, and I am hardly a NIMBY by any stretch. But this is pure gaslighting, and the county is going to get steamrolled. The "listening sessions" are a pure joke, the planning board and the council are going to do exactly what they always were going to.

700k is cheaper than a 2 million mcmansion. And if people are married a 700k is absolutely in reach for a middle class family. Not sure what you are talking about there.

I’m married. $700k is not within reach for me. $5000 mortgage? What’s your definition of “affordable”? Clearly it’s different than mine.

But more importantly, the ZTA and UBC undermine communities where housing IS CURRENTLY affordable. Places where middle class people and working class people can buy a home. Fani Gonzalez and her crew want to insert high density developments and leave taxpayers and residents to subsidize. It’s wrong on so many levels.

Middle class people don't live in Bethesda or CHevy Chase..I don't get why people always assume they have a right to live wherever they want

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, no one is blaming developers or calling them "evil" or whatever. That's a total strawman.

Developers are businesspeople, like anyone else. Thery need to make a profit for providing a good. And that's fine.

The issue is with the council and the advocates for this plan, using emotional tactics to sell this plan, that have absolutely no basis in reality.

"Dont you want teachers and firefighters, and nurses and cops to be able to live here??"

Well first of all, yes. Of course we do. But just like I would anyone making a middle class salary in the county, those jobs arent special as far as access to housing.

But then the plan itself is to allow duplexes, triplexes, townhomes- that all will be 700k+. What teacher is affording that? The answer is they are not.

But to sell the plan honestly- "look we just want more housing, period" would never work, so they lie. And the lie offends me, and I am hardly a NIMBY by any stretch. But this is pure gaslighting, and the county is going to get steamrolled. The "listening sessions" are a pure joke, the planning board and the council are going to do exactly what they always were going to.

700k is cheaper than a 2 million mcmansion. And if people are married a 700k is absolutely in reach for a middle class family. Not sure what you are talking about there.

I’m married. $700k is not within reach for me. $5000 mortgage? What’s your definition of “affordable”? Clearly it’s different than mine.

But more importantly, the ZTA and UBC undermine communities where housing IS CURRENTLY affordable. Places where middle class people and working class people can buy a home. Fani Gonzalez and her crew want to insert high density developments and leave taxpayers and residents to subsidize. It’s wrong on so many levels.

Middle class people don't live in Bethesda or CHevy Chase..I don't get why people always assume they have a right to live wherever they want

This ZTA won’t help middle class people live in Bethesda or Chevy Chase or even places where they currently live, so I guess that means you’re ok with it?

[Anonymous]

If anyone wants to understand why this country doesn't build ANYTHING any more (high speed rail, infrastructure, clean energy, new cities) you just have to listen to these NIMBYs.

Just so disappointing to see a bunch of old people hold the country hostage while more and more people struggle. Typical boomers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to understand why this country doesn't build ANYTHING any more (high speed rail, infrastructure, clean energy, new cities) you just have to listen to these NIMBYs.

Just so disappointing to see a bunch of old people hold the country hostage while more and more people struggle. Typical boomers.

THERE IS A TON OF CHEAP LAND IN THE COUNTY...just not in Bethesda or Chevy Chase.

Plenty of middle class homes under 750k. People just think because they make 125k a year they are too good for them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If anyone wants to understand why this country doesn't build ANYTHING any more (high speed rail, infrastructure, clean energy, new cities) you just have to listen to these NIMBYs.

Just so disappointing to see a bunch of old people hold the country hostage while more and more people struggle. Typical boomers.

THERE IS A TON OF CHEAP LAND IN THE COUNTY...just not in Bethesda or Chevy Chase.

Plenty of middle class homes under 750k. People just think because they make 125k a year they are too good for them

The further away homes are from jobs, the more transportation infrastructure is needed. The NIMBY's in this country don't want to expand roads or public transportation, either.

By all means, go to meetings saying you want to expand into the ag reserve, build out light rail and bus, and widen Darnestown Rd, Georgia Ave, University Blvd, and Connecticut Ave. See how much support you get.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I suppose our personal finance math may differ, but two married people making a combined 140 a yr or so, I wouldnt feel comfortable with a 700k house. (thats on the low end by the way, the ones in Arlington ended up over 1M). But lets assume 700k here. You would need 140 for a down payment for an 80/20 mortgage.

Then you factor in property taxes, insurance, etc etc... no effing way two teachers or two nurses are swinging that.

Again-its a fairy tale story "we want affordable houses for teachers and nurses and cops!!" (then they build 700-1M triplexes, that none of those people will actually buy or be able to afford).

Just admit that.

New construction is always going to demand a premium. The issue isn't so much what the new units will cost, but what effect they will have on other units compared to maintaining the status quo.

Scarcity drives prices. More people competing for the same number of homes is going to keep driving prices up faster than incomes.

I would be inclined to agree somewhat with this theory (full on admitting by the way that the new constuction isnt actually for the famed "teachers, firefighters, cops, nurses" trope mind you), but the wealthier will buy them and free up some of the older, cheaper, inventory... EXCEPT.... no one is leaving a 2.5-3.5% mortgage for a 6.5. It's jsut not happening.

So the new builds will need to be price attainable for the actual middle class you are claiming to help.

Change happens slowly. There's no quick fix here. Certainly this proposal isn't a big enough to do much on its own-- it only applies to about 2500 lots in the county. But we need to be making changes get us to a better place in 20 years.

To deal with the immediate problem, there isn't much we can do other than subsidize housing for low-income workers. And we're never going to be able to fund that sustainably at the necessary levels.

This is what people say when they don’t want to be held accountable for the outcomes of their policies. How long should we wait? We’ve been doing some version of smart growth/urbanism for more than 20 years and housing production has been unimpressive even though developers’ profits have soared. Under the housing theory that has prevailed in that time, profit signal should have resulted in a flood of production. At what point do you recognize that our land use policy has encouraged rent seeking instead of growth?

The last 20 years have been dominated by NIMBYism in this county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yeah, no one is blaming developers or calling them "evil" or whatever. That's a total strawman.

Developers are businesspeople, like anyone else. Thery need to make a profit for providing a good. And that's fine.

The issue is with the council and the advocates for this plan, using emotional tactics to sell this plan, that have absolutely no basis in reality.

"Dont you want teachers and firefighters, and nurses and cops to be able to live here??"

Well first of all, yes. Of course we do. But just like I would anyone making a middle class salary in the county, those jobs arent special as far as access to housing.

But then the plan itself is to allow duplexes, triplexes, townhomes- that all will be 700k+. What teacher is affording that? The answer is they are not.

But to sell the plan honestly- "look we just want more housing, period" would never work, so they lie. And the lie offends me, and I am hardly a NIMBY by any stretch. But this is pure gaslighting, and the county is going to get steamrolled. The "listening sessions" are a pure joke, the planning board and the council are going to do exactly what they always were going to.

700k is cheaper than a 2 million mcmansion. And if people are married a 700k is absolutely in reach for a middle class family. Not sure what you are talking about there.

I’m married. $700k is not within reach for me. $5000 mortgage? What’s your definition of “affordable”? Clearly it’s different than mine.

But more importantly, the ZTA and UBC undermine communities where housing IS CURRENTLY affordable. Places where middle class people and working class people can buy a home. Fani Gonzalez and her crew want to insert high density developments and leave taxpayers and residents to subsidize. It’s wrong on so many levels.

Middle class people don't live in Bethesda or CHevy Chase..I don't get why people always assume they have a right to live wherever they want

So it was never about workforce housing.