MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Maybe the council can give out some SFH participation medals for all the millennial SFH homeowners that feel like their merit is not recognized?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Maybe the council can give out some SFH participation medals for all the millennial SFH homeowners that feel like their merit is not recognized?

Well, you certainly aren’t getting one, you haven’t even tried. Best we can do is a pat on the head and a ride to the new bus stop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Boy, there sure is a lot of talk about "destruction of neighborhoods" here. When I think of destruction of neighborhoods, I think of the flooding in central Europe. I don't think of legalizing duplexes.

That is a natural disaster, this is a disaster by way of government incompetence. However, with this increased density we can expect infrastructure that cannot withstand the influx; and problems like the ones faced by cities like Houston. The flooding there has come, in part, by additional density and struggling infrastructure.

The topic is: what constitutes destruction of neighborhoods.

The flooding in Houston is due to sprawl and loose environmental regulations.

Nearly 30% of all homes are now bought by investment firms. This will increase with these kinds of proposals. Why don't you go read investigative pieces on areas that have been completely bought out by investment groups and Blackrock? There are many examples of neighborhoods in the South and the sun belt all bought out by huge investors. It is ruination of the entire neighborhood. Middle class owners eventually get squeezed out from owning anything and get transformed into permanent renters. The quality of housing goes to ass and the the neighborhood gets destroyed.

This is what the lapdogs of Black Rock and major developers on the council are bringing to the county. Complete ruination of middle class neighborhoods. They will replace families from owning homes with corporate overlords who'll run slums and raise the rent whenever they feel like it. In the end it won't solve anything except lining the pockets of corporations more while the middle class in MoCo gets even worse quality housing stock for even higher prices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Maybe the council can give out some SFH participation medals for all the millennial SFH homeowners that feel like their merit is not recognized?

DP. Your response says it all. The smug contempt for working class / middle class people who live in the neighborhoods affected by this atrocious proposal highlights that this is about developers making $$$, not housing or affordability or closing the generational wealth gap or expanding housing ownership for POC and immigrants. Because if it was, you’d show more respect and be less entitled to diminishing and negatively altering SFH neighborhoods in the notably diverse and non-wealthy areas of the county. Also, many of us aren’t Millennials. It took us a while to save for our homes and so maybe 40 or in my case 48 was when we bought our first home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Boy, there sure is a lot of talk about "destruction of neighborhoods" here. When I think of destruction of neighborhoods, I think of the flooding in central Europe. I don't think of legalizing duplexes.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Boy, there sure is a lot of talk about "destruction of neighborhoods" here. When I think of destruction of neighborhoods, I think of the flooding in central Europe. I don't think of legalizing duplexes.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Maybe the council can give out some SFH participation medals for all the millennial SFH homeowners that feel like their merit is not recognized?

DP. Your response says it all. The smug contempt for working class / middle class people who live in the neighborhoods affected by this atrocious proposal highlights that this is about developers making $$$, not housing or affordability or closing the generational wealth gap or expanding housing ownership for POC and immigrants. Because if it was, you’d show more respect and be less entitled to diminishing and negatively altering SFH neighborhoods in the notably diverse and non-wealthy areas of the county. Also, many of us aren’t Millennials. It took us a while to save for our homes and so maybe 40 or in my case 48 was when we bought our first home.

DP. But I don't think it is diminishing or negatively altering those neighborhoods.

As for developers - they will only make money if people live in the housing the developers have built. Just like people are living in the housing the developers built, in the neighborhoods you're talking about. Those houses didn't just grow, and they weren't always there. Developers built them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Boy, there sure is a lot of talk about "destruction of neighborhoods" here. When I think of destruction of neighborhoods, I think of the flooding in central Europe. I don't think of legalizing duplexes.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

Whether the invasion of small scale neighborhoods with quadplexes tomorrow or in four years, doesn’t matter - most people invest in neighborhoods for a long time.

Also look at how quickly developers have swooped in elsewhere and completely transformed - not always in a good way - neighborhoods.

And yes, my neighbors are much more invested in trees, treating each other with respect, our schools, our community than ANY developer will be. So your straw man falls short.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Maybe the council can give out some SFH participation medals for all the millennial SFH homeowners that feel like their merit is not recognized?

DP. Your response says it all. The smug contempt for working class / middle class people who live in the neighborhoods affected by this atrocious proposal highlights that this is about developers making $$$, not housing or affordability or closing the generational wealth gap or expanding housing ownership for POC and immigrants. Because if it was, you’d show more respect and be less entitled to diminishing and negatively altering SFH neighborhoods in the notably diverse and non-wealthy areas of the county. Also, many of us aren’t Millennials. It took us a while to save for our homes and so maybe 40 or in my case 48 was when we bought our first home.

DP. But I don't think it is diminishing or negatively altering those neighborhoods.

As for developers - they will only make money if people live in the housing the developers have built. Just like people are living in the housing the developers built, in the neighborhoods you're talking about. Those houses didn't just grow, and they weren't always there. Developers built them.

Developers built these with a development and community in mind - just like many small scale neighborhoods in the down county. They are older homes that were laid out thoughtfully and have smaller scale streets to match.

Once again, no developer is going to come in and thoughtfully redo the neighborhood. They are going to degrade it house by house. And they will not care about parking, infrastructure, schools, house values, or the quality of life of people already living there - many of us POC, working class, or middle class.

This proposal preys upon these neighborhoods and it’s shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Maybe the council can give out some SFH participation medals for all the millennial SFH homeowners that feel like their merit is not recognized?

DP. Your response says it all. The smug contempt for working class / middle class people who live in the neighborhoods affected by this atrocious proposal highlights that this is about developers making $$$, not housing or affordability or closing the generational wealth gap or expanding housing ownership for POC and immigrants. Because if it was, you’d show more respect and be less entitled to diminishing and negatively altering SFH neighborhoods in the notably diverse and non-wealthy areas of the county. Also, many of us aren’t Millennials. It took us a while to save for our homes and so maybe 40 or in my case 48 was when we bought our first home.

DP. But I don't think it is diminishing or negatively altering those neighborhoods.

As for developers - they will only make money if people live in the housing the developers have built. Just like people are living in the housing the developers built, in the neighborhoods you're talking about. Those houses didn't just grow, and they weren't always there. Developers built them.

Developers built these with a development and community in mind - just like many small scale neighborhoods in the down county. They are older homes that were laid out thoughtfully and have smaller scale streets to match.

Once again, no developer is going to come in and thoughtfully redo the neighborhood. They are going to degrade it house by house. And they will not care about parking, infrastructure, schools, house values, or the quality of life of people already living there - many of us POC, working class, or middle class.

This proposal preys upon these neighborhoods and it’s shameful.

That's sweet naivete, but I recommend that you read Royce Hanson's book Suburb. Developers built those developments with profit in mind, and the houses they built were brand-new.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Boy, there sure is a lot of talk about "destruction of neighborhoods" here. When I think of destruction of neighborhoods, I think of the flooding in central Europe. I don't think of legalizing duplexes.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

Whether the invasion of small scale neighborhoods with quadplexes tomorrow or in four years, doesn’t matter - most people invest in neighborhoods for a long time.

Also look at how quickly developers have swooped in elsewhere and completely transformed - not always in a good way - neighborhoods.

And yes, my neighbors are much more invested in trees, treating each other with respect, our schools, our community than ANY developer will be. So your straw man falls short.

I hate to state the obvious, but those neighborhoods were built by ... developers.

In a further statement of the obvious: anyone who moves into the housing (built by developers) on your street will be your neighbor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How would this apply to incorporated places like town of Chevy Chase?

I'm wonder if this spurs a local backlash to incorporate currently unincorporated census designated places (eg, Bethesda).

I'm really hoping it does.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How would this apply to incorporated places like town of Chevy Chase?

I'm wonder if this spurs a local backlash to incorporate currently unincorporated census designated places (eg, Bethesda).

I'm really hoping it does.

Do be foolish. It won’t apply to most properties is Chevy chase. Do you really wealthy people will just will take this lying down? No, they won’t. Many of these houses in SF neighborhoods have covenants already and the few areas that don’t are working establishing them now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Boy, there sure is a lot of talk about "destruction of neighborhoods" here. When I think of destruction of neighborhoods, I think of the flooding in central Europe. I don't think of legalizing duplexes.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

Whether the invasion of small scale neighborhoods with quadplexes tomorrow or in four years, doesn’t matter - most people invest in neighborhoods for a long time.

Also look at how quickly developers have swooped in elsewhere and completely transformed - not always in a good way - neighborhoods.

And yes, my neighbors are much more invested in trees, treating each other with respect, our schools, our community than ANY developer will be. So your straw man falls short.

I hate to state the obvious, but those neighborhoods were built by ... developers.

In a further statement of the obvious: anyone who moves into the housing (built by developers) on your street will be your neighbor.

Ok, and?

Most of the homes in the area were developed from raw land as neighborhoods of single family homes. That’s a silly point. Someone could install a lighthouse next door to you and it would likely be built by some kind of developer. I guess that the lighthouse operator would also be your neighbor.

You should re-read what that poster said and absorb it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Boy, there sure is a lot of talk about "destruction of neighborhoods" here. When I think of destruction of neighborhoods, I think of the flooding in central Europe. I don't think of legalizing duplexes.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

Whether the invasion of small scale neighborhoods with quadplexes tomorrow or in four years, doesn’t matter - most people invest in neighborhoods for a long time.

Also look at how quickly developers have swooped in elsewhere and completely transformed - not always in a good way - neighborhoods.

And yes, my neighbors are much more invested in trees, treating each other with respect, our schools, our community than ANY developer will be. So your straw man falls short.

I hate to state the obvious, but those neighborhoods were built by ... developers.

In a further statement of the obvious: anyone who moves into the housing (built by developers) on your street will be your neighbor.

Ok, and?

Most of the homes in the area were developed from raw land as neighborhoods of single family homes. That’s a silly point. Someone could install a lighthouse next door to you and it would likely be built by some kind of developer. I guess that the lighthouse operator would also be your neighbor.

You should re-read what that poster said and absorb it.

I don't have much patience with "THESE developers (the ones who built my residence) were good and built good stuff for good people to live in, and the people who were already living there were happy about it, but THOSE developers (the ones who would build multi-unit buildings in my neighborhood) are bad and will build bad stuff for bad people to live in, and the people who are already living there will be angry about it."

Development has always been contentious in Montgomery County. Current residents have never been happy about new buildings for new residents. It's the same now as it was then.