MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

Except that's not their best policy lever. Increasing taxes on unused land is. They don't even seem to he considering that.

“Unused”.
You’re thinking about Georgism. Ideally, you’d tax land that is not maximally efficiently used. A SFH, even when occupied is an enormous waste of land use resources. They should be taxed way higher. But the usual screechers on this thread would blow a carotid if this happened

No, land that is left to no use at all, creating an eyesore for the community it's in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

it's just a selfish mentality. Enjoy the leafy neighborhood you've lived in, enjoy the appreciation from new buyers increasing your real estate values then sell out and ruin the neighborhood.

Stop being a communist. Embrace the values of this great Nation. Property rights are sacred and should be upheld.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

Except that's not their best policy lever. Increasing taxes on unused land is. They don't even seem to he considering that.

“Unused”.
You’re thinking about Georgism. Ideally, you’d tax land that is not maximally efficiently used. A SFH, even when occupied is an enormous waste of land use resources. They should be taxed way higher. But the usual screechers on this thread would blow a carotid if this happened

No, land that is left to no use at all, creating an eyesore for the community it's in.

There is no “unused” land left. What is considered used is subjective

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

it's just a selfish mentality. Enjoy the leafy neighborhood you've lived in, enjoy the appreciation from new buyers increasing your real estate values then sell out and ruin the neighborhood.

Stop being a communist. Embrace the values of this great Nation. Property rights are sacred and should be upheld.

how is that being a communist? You bought a SFH and enjoyed the benefits of it, now you want to screw over other people who are trying to do the same thing? If you actually liked density, you would be living in Dupont

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

it's just a selfish mentality. Enjoy the leafy neighborhood you've lived in, enjoy the appreciation from new buyers increasing your real estate values then sell out and ruin the neighborhood.

Stop being a communist. Embrace the values of this great Nation. Property rights are sacred and should be upheld.

how is that being a communist? You bought a SFH and enjoyed the benefits of it, now you want to screw over other people who are trying to do the same thing? If you actually liked density, you would be living in Dupont

Property rights apply equally on both sides of Western Ave, not just in DuPont. Zoning is a restriction to my liberty to do what I want to do with my land

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

it's just a selfish mentality. Enjoy the leafy neighborhood you've lived in, enjoy the appreciation from new buyers increasing your real estate values then sell out and ruin the neighborhood.

Stop being a communist. Embrace the values of this great Nation. Property rights are sacred and should be upheld.

how is that being a communist? You bought a SFH and enjoyed the benefits of it, now you want to screw over other people who are trying to do the same thing? If you actually liked density, you would be living in Dupont

Property rights apply equally on both sides of Western Ave, not just in DuPont. Zoning is a restriction to my liberty to do what I want to do with my land

"my liberty"

The land isn't yours anyway. Uncle Sam charges you rent every year that will only go up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

it's just a selfish mentality. Enjoy the leafy neighborhood you've lived in, enjoy the appreciation from new buyers increasing your real estate values then sell out and ruin the neighborhood.

Stop being a communist. Embrace the values of this great Nation. Property rights are sacred and should be upheld.

how is that being a communist? You bought a SFH and enjoyed the benefits of it, now you want to screw over other people who are trying to do the same thing? If you actually liked density, you would be living in Dupont

Property rights apply equally on both sides of Western Ave, not just in DuPont. Zoning is a restriction to my liberty to do what I want to do with my land

Property rights are not unlimited because the use of your property has impacts on the community at large and nearby property owners. Unless you are 100% self sufficient, don’t use public schools, or any other local government services, create zero noise pollution, have no impact on traffic, water runoff, air pollution, this reasoning doesn’t make sense. This whole argument that “property rights” means I can do whatever the hell I want without regard for the impact on any else is incredibly juvenile. The use of your property can directly impact the property rights (use and enjoyment) of nearby properties so there needs to be balance between protecting the individual property rights and the property rights of surrounding owners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

Except that's not their best policy lever. Increasing taxes on unused land is. They don't even seem to he considering that.

“Unused”.
You’re thinking about Georgism. Ideally, you’d tax land that is not maximally efficiently used. A SFH, even when occupied is an enormous waste of land use resources. They should be taxed way higher. But the usual screechers on this thread would blow a carotid if this happened

You either don’t know what you’re talking about or are deliberately misrepresenting. The property taxes are sky high in MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Realtors and Virginia developers are all over this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

Except that's not their best policy lever. Increasing taxes on unused land is. They don't even seem to he considering that.

“Unused”.
You’re thinking about Georgism. Ideally, you’d tax land that is not maximally efficiently used. A SFH, even when occupied is an enormous waste of land use resources. They should be taxed way higher. But the usual screechers on this thread would blow a carotid if this happened

You either don’t know what you’re talking about or are deliberately misrepresenting. The property taxes are sky high in MoCo.

Property taxes in MoCo and Maryland by extension are quite low, actually, because we have state income tax. Texas and Florida have way higher property taxes for the same home price of a property. Just because they’re high to your own personal household economy doesn’t mean they’re “sky high”. And they should adjust to incentivize smart use of limited land resources. A yard within a mile of a metro station is a hugely inefficient use of those resources, but SFHs with yards are not sufficiently taxed to offset this inefficiency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

You are ridiculous. This initiative will disproportionately harm middle class minority communities that live in single family homes because of lower average land prices in their neighborhoods. Don’t give me this moralistic BS because these progressive policies you are pushing actually harm the very people you claim to support while screeching “racism” and “equity” to everyone else. There is a very significant middle class Black and Hispanic population in MOCO and this policy will disproportionately destroy the wealth and communities that they worked hard to build. Rich white neighborhood’s are the most likely to have HOAs and/covenants. Even if they don’t have either of those the property prices in their neighborhood are likely high enough that it is more profitable for developers to build a multimillion dollar SFH on an existing lot than a plex unit. This policy will benefit wealthy developers while making racial inequality worse and disproportionately harming middle class minority households. This policy does not promote “equity” and it is a handout to developers/real estate lobby disguised as a social justice initiative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

Ok - it’s not 1940, nothing to do with race..unless you are assuming certain races can’t ever obtain SFHs, which in itself, is racist.

We just want our neighbors to remain cohesive. I don’t care who lives in the homes.