MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[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.

So that residents in Bethesda can pay additional taxes without any additional authority over land use or planning?

[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.

We don’t want more people to come, that’s the point. We want our neighborhoods which we purchased into as SFH to remain as such.

[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.

We don’t want more people to come, that’s the point. We want our neighborhoods which we purchased into as SFH to remain as such.

Yes, it's clear that you don't want change. Change will happen anyway, though, no matter what the County Council does or doesn't do.

One point of disagreement: You purchased a house. You purchased a property. You did not purchase, or purchase into, a neighborhood.

[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.

We don’t want more people to come, that’s the point. We want our neighborhoods which we purchased into as SFH to remain as such.

Yes, it's clear that you don't want change. Change will happen anyway, though, no matter what the County Council does or doesn't do.

One point of disagreement: You purchased a house. You purchased a property. You did not purchase, or purchase into, a neighborhood.

Go back to your rental hole and stop being bitter other people are more successful than you and worked harder than you to own a home.

[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?

Sincere question admittedly coming from someone who largely supports this proposal (I have concerns about school capacity and setbacks.)

I appreciate your position. In fact, I am IN your position. And I think that even supporters should be clear that this plan DOES change something that people have worked for and relied upon for the future. It is wrong to paint people that are concerned about that as blanketly "bad", or worse "racist."

But is there a level of impact on your immediate neighborhood that you would tolerate to create more housing? For example, if we had a guarantee that setbacks would be maintained and infrastructure including schools would be upgraded to meet the need, would you be OK with 1/3 of the buildings on your block were triplexes?

The problem here is, as it almost always is, about extremes and rhetoric. One side gets painted as wanting to turn beautiful Chevy Chase into a slum and the other side gets painted as "Let them eat cake" elites who will tolerate no change to their enclave.

[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.

We don’t want more people to come, that’s the point. We want our neighborhoods which we purchased into as SFH to remain as such.

Yes, it's clear that you don't want change. Change will happen anyway, though, no matter what the County Council does or doesn't do.

One point of disagreement: You purchased a house. You purchased a property. You did not purchase, or purchase into, a neighborhood.

Go back to your rental hole and stop being bitter other people are more successful than you and worked harder than you to own a home.

I'm the PP you're responding to, and I've been a homeowner in Montgomery County for 25 years.

[Anonymous]

Just do it already.

They'll get what they asked for and wonder why their tax base imploded.

The first multiplex that goes up on our street we are taking our fat income and ditching MoCo. Have fun trying to make up the tax revenue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just do it already.

They'll get what they asked for and wonder why their tax base imploded.

The first multiplex that goes up on our street we are taking our fat income and ditching MoCo. Have fun trying to make up the tax revenue.

That will be a win-win. More housing for Montgomery County, and you'll be happier, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just do it already.

They'll get what they asked for and wonder why their tax base imploded.

The first multiplex that goes up on our street we are taking our fat income and ditching MoCo. Have fun trying to make up the tax revenue.

That will be a win-win. More housing for Montgomery County, and you'll be happier, too.

Nope. It'll be a win loss. Win for us ditching MoCo, loss for MoCo losing tax revenue. It's going to be so funny when the county blows up its finances because they imported a ton of poverty and lose a huge number of their highest paying taxpayers.

Remember, the county has had anemic economic growth for decades because they're terrible at making jobs. Their only tax revenue at this point is primarily high earning home owners. They driving them out now.

The collapse is going to be epic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just do it already.

They'll get what they asked for and wonder why their tax base imploded.

The first multiplex that goes up on our street we are taking our fat income and ditching MoCo. Have fun trying to make up the tax revenue.

That will be a win-win. More housing for Montgomery County, and you'll be happier, too.

Nope. It'll be a win loss. Win for us ditching MoCo, loss for MoCo losing tax revenue. It's going to be so funny when the county blows up its finances because they imported a ton of poverty and lose a huge number of their highest paying taxpayers.

Remember, the county has had anemic economic growth for decades because they're terrible at making jobs. Their only tax revenue at this point is primarily high earning home owners. They driving them out now.

The collapse is going to be epic.

No, I think we in MoCo will be good too, but thanks for your concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just do it already.

They'll get what they asked for and wonder why their tax base imploded.

The first multiplex that goes up on our street we are taking our fat income and ditching MoCo. Have fun trying to make up the tax revenue.

That will be a win-win. More housing for Montgomery County, and you'll be happier, too.

Nope. It'll be a win loss. Win for us ditching MoCo, loss for MoCo losing tax revenue. It's going to be so funny when the county blows up its finances because they imported a ton of poverty and lose a huge number of their highest paying taxpayers.

Remember, the county has had anemic economic growth for decades because they're terrible at making jobs. Their only tax revenue at this point is primarily high earning home owners. They driving them out now.

The collapse is going to be epic.

No, I think we in MoCo will be good too, but thanks for your concern.

Nope. Clearly you missed the demographics report for the county.

The collapse is imminent. This is going to add gas to the fire.

[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.

We don’t want more people to come, that’s the point. We want our neighborhoods which we purchased into as SFH to remain as such.

Yes, it's clear that you don't want change. Change will happen anyway, though, no matter what the County Council does or doesn't do.

One point of disagreement: You purchased a house. You purchased a property. You did not purchase, or purchase into, a neighborhood.

Go back to your rental hole and stop being bitter other people are more successful than you and worked harder than you to own a home.

+1

[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?

PP - spot on and so well said. Question, are you attending listening sessions? Are you writing council members? It is helpful to post on this thread, but those of us who realize what a crap proposal this is need to speak up and make sure our council understands our POV. They are hoping to slide this proposal by. Don’t let them.

[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.

If you are trying to consider the 1948 developers who developed the 20 acres of my neighborhood to the parasites who will build quadplexes in these small scale neighborhoods, try again.

In 1948 the homes were built on open land, no one’s homes negatively affected. Totally different scenario. Which of course you know, but need to be obtuse in order to further gaslight.

[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.

If you are trying to consider the 1948 developers who developed the 20 acres of my neighborhood to the parasites who will build quadplexes in these small scale neighborhoods, try again.

In 1948 the homes were built on open land, no one’s homes negatively affected. Totally different scenario. Which of course you know, but need to be obtuse in order to further gaslight.

Um. So. Wherever your 20 acres of neighborhood might happen to be, in Montgomery County? There actually were people living there in 1948. And there's a good chance these people weren't so happy about the developers and the development.