MoCo Council Vote Today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers.

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.

Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win.

The purple line was tremendously delayed.

And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension.

There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county.

None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council.

The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’ refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse.

The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls, and some sprawl mostly up 270.

Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes.

I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth.

To a certain extent, I agree. There's been too much of a focus on large-scale, high density projects which, as you've noted, tend to be rentals. Zoning and regulations have been set up to encourage that, too. We need to be doing more to facilitate and encourage construction of things like townhomes and duplexes, which are more likely to be occupant-owned.

I don't think rentals are bad- there are a lot of situations where that is going to be the right choice. But we should have more opportunities for affordable home ownership, too.

That's what I liked about the earlier AHS proposal. It would have made it easier to build moderate density housing without them having to be part of large-scale projects in limited parts of the county. That's the only path for creating more owner-occupied housing stock without sprawl.

The problem is that the focus of the AHS, and the ZTA that aimed to begin that by down-scoping the initial effort to parcels that affected fewer neighbors (though more greatly so) in order to reduce the outcry to politically manageable levels, was infill and replacement of existing approachable properties.

If the county wants to create more ownership opportunities in the SFH space, that is better done in greenfield development, where it can be planned at a large scale with associated infrastructure. If it wants to create more housing, mixed-use high density in the one-third- to half-mile vicinity of truly efficient public transportation, like off-street rail (i.e., not the Purple Line and not BRT until and unless it gets much, much better), is the way to go.

The former is farther out, so the county would need to focus on attracting jobs to those areas, again in mixed-use proximity to highly efficient transport, to reduce the need to commute. It would also need to sacrifice portions of the sacred cow that is the ag reserve -- we should have a study of the relative benefits of that and to whom those benefits principally accrue (e.g., boutique ag catering to the wealthy, non-ag estate owners, etc.; not that there aren't recreational/other benefits, but accruing to relatively few, and with the broad span of the reserve not neceasary to accomplish that).

The latter, smart-growth option does not appeal to the development/RE lobby's vested interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers.

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.

Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win.

The purple line was tremendously delayed.

And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension.

There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county.

None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council.

The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’ refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse.

The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls, and some sprawl mostly up 270.

Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes.

I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth.

To a certain extent, I agree. There's been too much of a focus on large-scale, high density projects which, as you've noted, tend to be rentals. Zoning and regulations have been set up to encourage that, too. We need to be doing more to facilitate and encourage construction of things like townhomes and duplexes, which are more likely to be occupant-owned.

I don't think rentals are bad- there are a lot of situations where that is going to be the right choice. But we should have more opportunities for affordable home ownership, too.

That's what I liked about the earlier AHS proposal. It would have made it easier to build moderate density housing without them having to be part of large-scale projects in limited parts of the county. That's the only path for creating more owner-occupied housing stock without sprawl.

The vast majority of people would rather own. Policy should enable that. The AHS is more likely to be more rentals, probably more than half of anything that gets built.

Even if the estimate of half is correct, that's still more owner-occupied homes than you get with single family homes.

That is definitely not true. Way less than half will be owner occupied. Most plex units will be rentals because it is difficult for developers to get financing for non-rental plex units and it the ownership structure of plex units without an HOA makes it more difficult for banks approve financing. Plex units HOAs are very costly per person and they typically don’t function well. A more targeted zoning reform limited to townhouses within walking distance of the metro would have expanded supply and promoted ownership opportunities. Zoning to for plex units and apartments, favors investors/developers rather than promoting ownership opportunities. MOCO should have considered something with development standards similar to the Fall Church City T-zone rezoning instead. They allowed higher density townhouses developments and limited the average square footage to 1500 sq ft while only requiring one parking spot per unit. This would be a perfectly reasonable way to promote more accessible homeownership opportunities where people can walk to the metro, but have space for a car and room for multiple stages of their life. 1500 sq ft with one parking spot can work for well for young professionals, families with 1 or 2 kids or retirees looking to downsize.

This is correct. The Friedson ZTA and other bills he’s done previously heavily favor rentals, which also qualify for tax abatements that aren’t available to homes for purchase. What gets built will be rental apartments or duplexes, which don’t have IZ requirements and are likely to be 1.5x-3x as expensive as the homes they’re replacing. MoCo is set up for rentals, not ownership opportunities. I don’t think the council wants to cut people off from ownership but the only people they listen to are landlords.

Tax abatements are for projects that commit to offering below-market-rate housing. What do you want to do? Offer abatements to owner-occupied homes that include accessory units that are locked into the MPDU program?

I think there are better ways to tackle affordability for homeowners and renters, though.

Opening up SFH zones to townhomes would be one example. And yes, they may not be immediately more affordable than the home they replace, but they're going to be a lot cheaper than what you'd get by waiting for that SFH to be redeveloped after a teardown or major renovation. And longer term, that's the path they'd otherwise go down. Plus you end up with homes for ~3 families instead of just 1.

Some are and some aren’t. We have tax abatements for apartments near metro stations, tax abatements for townhouses with elevators, tax abatements for office conversions, and more! All but one of those tax abatements is only available for rental units.

We could do more condos (maybe tax abatements only for condos instead of rentals? Ownership does not have to mean a SFH only. But the developers don’t want to sell and why should they with the county excusing them from a big cost of ownership?

And we have programs for first time homeowners that aren't available to renters. And tax credits for homeowners that renters can't get. I'm not sure why you think tax abatements are the best tool here.

A lot of these things could be structure different ways. We could, for instance, expand subsidies to make up more of the difference between market-rate and MPDU housing, but a tax abatement ends up being easier and cleaner.

Is there pent up demand for condos in Montgomery County? My understanding is that demand for them is soft compared to townhomes and single family homes. While price affects that, there's also the issue of people not necessarily wanting to locked into a condo for the long-term (or eat the cost of purchase/sale fees).

And by the way, the tax abatements aren't tied to projects that are exclusively rentals. You can have a mix of rentals and condos and get those abatements.

And there are MPDU homes that are made available for sale. They work differently, though, and it is probably fair to say they're not incentivized as much as rentals. At least, not through tax policy. I'm not convinced they make much sense, though, compared to more direct and immediate tax credits or subsidies to first-time homeowners. Maybe there's a need to incentivize production, but incentivizing production of below-market-rate homes doesn't seem likely to work well in the long-term.

Here’s the problem: People want to buy homes. In nearly every poll of current renters, more than three quarters say they want to buy. Politicians say they’re doing this bill or that bill so that there are homes for people to buy in their price range. But that hasn’t been what the initiatives have done. Worse, they’ve often done the opposite. This county is on pace to add maybe 100 SFH to its inventory this year. That’s not nearly enough. At some point, policy needs to deliver or you get a revolt. A lot of places have already revolted and you get what you have in the White House now. I’m sure it’s fun to glad hand all the real estate developers and talk big thoughts about all the latest market urbanism memes, but at some point we need something that works.

Also, the More Housing Now PILOT is only for rentals. Go read the bill. It’s amazing how little YIMBYs know about what’s actually in these bills they fervently support.

Who are all these that you think are forced to rent because they can't find a home to buy in the county? Sure, there are people that don't have the down payment or credit for a mortgage, but expanding the number of homes for purchase isn't going to help them. You'd be hard pressed to find a multi-bedroom apartment for rent at a lower rate than the mortgage on a townhome or small single family home somewhere in the county.

Except for the people that simply aren't in a position to buy at any plausible price, the people renting are doing so because they've decided it makes more sense for the situation. Perhaps they're expecting to need to move in a few years. Or maybe they value a shorter commute or easier access to amenities more than home ownership. Because while most people would prefer to own than rent, all other things being equal, all other things aren't equal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers.

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.

Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win.

The purple line was tremendously delayed.

And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension.

There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county.

None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council.

The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’ refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse.

The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls, and some sprawl mostly up 270.

Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes.

I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth.

I don't even believe there are YIMBY people who do not have a financial stake in the game. I know a few big real estate developers and they live in big custom homes in upper MoCo, Great Falls, Potomac or even in DC. They aren't sitting next to you at the BCC back to school night. They may own land/homes in your area, but that's for the full purpose of resell and development. It's a cover and a farce. They really do not care about the long term livability of a neighborhood. They have plan B & C.

Hmm, I'm a YIMBY homeowner. I guess I'm a shill because I want more neighbors to experience our great city?

You might come to regret your support for this one day when the MOCOs poorly thought out land use reforms result in a dispensary right next to your house.

"Let's build a small apartment building in a handful of areas"

"YOU ARE TuRnIn MY HoUse INTO A MetH LAB!!!!!"

"Let's keep the detached SFH zoning upon which residents relied when making their highly consequential and difficult from which to extricate life decisions. Incentivised increased construction rates and crowding present burdens to current residents, and infill at increased densities without adequate infrastructure presents burdens for new and old, alike. And it's not like we're compensating any of those in the 'handful of areas' who will bear the brunt."

"YOU ARE FEARMONGERING RACISTS WHO DON'T DESERVE ANY CONSIDERATION! WHAT ABOUT THE POOR, POOR NURSES AND TEACHERS??!!" (...whom this won't really help, but pay no attention to that!)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers.

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.

...because everyone should want at-grade, noisy, traffic-snarling transport needing a decade of disruptive construction in their immediate vicinity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Just admit that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the proportion of "naturally occuring affordable housing" in those 2500 lots greater than that elsewhere in the targeted neighborhoods? Yes? Oops...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shuttle BRT on newly-built (or expanded) roads in greenfield development that connect to rail. Underground light rail, preferably. And job centers in the greenfield areas. That kind of "15-minute city."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers.

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.

Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win.

The purple line was tremendously delayed.

And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension.

There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county.

None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council.

The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’ refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse.

The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls, and some sprawl mostly up 270.

Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes.

I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth.

To a certain extent, I agree. There's been too much of a focus on large-scale, high density projects which, as you've noted, tend to be rentals. Zoning and regulations have been set up to encourage that, too. We need to be doing more to facilitate and encourage construction of things like townhomes and duplexes, which are more likely to be occupant-owned.

I don't think rentals are bad- there are a lot of situations where that is going to be the right choice. But we should have more opportunities for affordable home ownership, too.

That's what I liked about the earlier AHS proposal. It would have made it easier to build moderate density housing without them having to be part of large-scale projects in limited parts of the county. That's the only path for creating more owner-occupied housing stock without sprawl.

The problem is that the focus of the AHS, and the ZTA that aimed to begin that by down-scoping the initial effort to parcels that affected fewer neighbors (though more greatly so) in order to reduce the outcry to politically manageable levels, was infill and replacement of existing approachable properties.

If the county wants to create more ownership opportunities in the SFH space, that is better done in greenfield development, where it can be planned at a large scale with associated infrastructure. If it wants to create more housing, mixed-use high density in the one-third- to half-mile vicinity of truly efficient public transportation, like off-street rail (i.e., not the Purple Line and not BRT until and unless it gets much, much better), is the way to go.

The former is farther out, so the county would need to focus on attracting jobs to those areas, again in mixed-use proximity to highly efficient transport, to reduce the need to commute. It would also need to sacrifice portions of the sacred cow that is the ag reserve -- we should have a study of the relative benefits of that and to whom those benefits principally accrue (e.g., boutique ag catering to the wealthy, non-ag estate owners, etc.; not that there aren't recreational/other benefits, but accruing to relatively few, and with the broad span of the reserve not neceasary to accomplish that).

The latter, smart-growth option does not appeal to the development/RE lobby's vested interests.

I'm certainly not against development in thr ag reserve, that doesn't address the real problem. If someone wants to buy a single family home in Gaithersburg, Olney, or Damascus, they going to be able to find one. The scarcity isn't in houses, it's in lots. People care where they live. You can't create more housing where there's demand without increasing density.

Some of that should be high-density housing near transit. And as you, or perhaps a different poster in this thread, have noted, that's been much of what has been done in recent years.

But that doesn't create home ownership opportunities you claim to want to facilitate. High rise construction near next to metro will necessarily be expensive due to property values and construction costs. They will generally be smaller. Within that demographic, many people would opt to rent in case they want to move for work or for more space.

Low-rise apartments in less expensive areas can help with rents. Townhomes create more opportunities for home ownership while, over time, reducing costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers.

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.

...because everyone should want at-grade, noisy, traffic-snarling transport needing a decade of disruptive construction in their immediate vicinity

You're demonstrating the problem with encouraging sprawl.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Just admit that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the proportion of "naturally occuring affordable housing" in those 2500 lots greater than that elsewhere in the targeted neighborhoods? Yes? Oops...

One of two things will happen in those areas.

1) We allow or perhaps even incentive moderate density redevelopment, likely resulting in the cheapest properties being redeveloped first. The redeveloped properties will almost certainly be more expensive than the homes they replace, but we know over time things like townhomes are cheaper than surrounding single family homes.

2) We maintain SFH-only zoning in those areas. Over time, those homes will be remodeled, expanded, or rebuilt, significantly increasing their values and costs.

Which one ultimately results in more affordable housing for more people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shuttle BRT on newly-built (or expanded) roads in greenfield development that connect to rail. Underground light rail, preferably. And job centers in the greenfield areas. That kind of "15-minute city."

How are you going to get people to agree to the disruption and billions in dollars in costs involved with expanding/building roads and underground rail? Again, look at how much people fought the Purple line.

And what's your plan for making Brookville or Barnestown a center for high-paying jobs?

The only greenfield location that might work would be around Poolesville with a new bridge or two across the Potomac. Good luck with that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers.

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.

Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win.

The purple line was tremendously delayed.

And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension.

There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county.

None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council.

The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’ refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse.

The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls, and some sprawl mostly up 270.

Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes.

I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth.

I don't even believe there are YIMBY people who do not have a financial stake in the game. I know a few big real estate developers and they live in big custom homes in upper MoCo, Great Falls, Potomac or even in DC. They aren't sitting next to you at the BCC back to school night. They may own land/homes in your area, but that's for the full purpose of resell and development. It's a cover and a farce. They really do not care about the long term livability of a neighborhood. They have plan B & C.

Hmm, I'm a YIMBY homeowner. I guess I'm a shill because I want more neighbors to experience our great city?

You might come to regret your support for this one day when the MOCOs poorly thought out land use reforms result in a dispensary right next to your house.

"Let's build a small apartment building in a handful of areas"

"YOU ARE TuRnIn MY HoUse INTO A MetH LAB!!!!!"

"Let's keep the detached SFH zoning upon which residents relied when making their highly consequential and difficult from which to extricate life decisions. Incentivised increased construction rates and crowding present burdens to current residents, and infill at increased densities without adequate infrastructure presents burdens for new and old, alike. And it's not like we're compensating any of those in the 'handful of areas' who will bear the brunt."

"YOU ARE FEARMONGERING RACISTS WHO DON'T DESERVE ANY CONSIDERATION! WHAT ABOUT THE POOR, POOR NURSES AND TEACHERS??!!" (...whom this won't really help, but pay no attention to that!)

You people keep yapping about "infrastructure". You do realize we know how to build things in this country, right?

Jesus, get over it. More sewer/power/dog catchers are possible, stop worrying about tit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers.

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.

Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win.

The purple line was tremendously delayed.

And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension.

There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county.

None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council.

The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’ refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse.

The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls, and some sprawl mostly up 270.

Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes.

I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth.

I don't even believe there are YIMBY people who do not have a financial stake in the game. I know a few big real estate developers and they live in big custom homes in upper MoCo, Great Falls, Potomac or even in DC. They aren't sitting next to you at the BCC back to school night. They may own land/homes in your area, but that's for the full purpose of resell and development. It's a cover and a farce. They really do not care about the long term livability of a neighborhood. They have plan B & C.

Hmm, I'm a YIMBY homeowner. I guess I'm a shill because I want more neighbors to experience our great city?

You might come to regret your support for this one day when the MOCOs poorly thought out land use reforms result in a dispensary right next to your house.

"Let's build a small apartment building in a handful of areas"

"YOU ARE TuRnIn MY HoUse INTO A MetH LAB!!!!!"

"Let's keep the detached SFH zoning upon which residents relied when making their highly consequential and difficult from which to extricate life decisions. Incentivised increased construction rates and crowding present burdens to current residents, and infill at increased densities without adequate infrastructure presents burdens for new and old, alike. And it's not like we're compensating any of those in the 'handful of areas' who will bear the brunt."

"YOU ARE FEARMONGERING RACISTS WHO DON'T DESERVE ANY CONSIDERATION! WHAT ABOUT THE POOR, POOR NURSES AND TEACHERS??!!" (...whom this won't really help, but pay no attention to that!)

The "I got mine" attitude in this is striking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers.

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.

Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win.

The purple line was tremendously delayed.

And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension.

There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county.

None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council.

The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’ refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse.

The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls, and some sprawl mostly up 270.

Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes.

I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth.

To a certain extent, I agree. There's been too much of a focus on large-scale, high density projects which, as you've noted, tend to be rentals. Zoning and regulations have been set up to encourage that, too. We need to be doing more to facilitate and encourage construction of things like townhomes and duplexes, which are more likely to be occupant-owned.

I don't think rentals are bad- there are a lot of situations where that is going to be the right choice. But we should have more opportunities for affordable home ownership, too.

That's what I liked about the earlier AHS proposal. It would have made it easier to build moderate density housing without them having to be part of large-scale projects in limited parts of the county. That's the only path for creating more owner-occupied housing stock without sprawl.

The problem is that the focus of the AHS, and the ZTA that aimed to begin that by down-scoping the initial effort to parcels that affected fewer neighbors (though more greatly so) in order to reduce the outcry to politically manageable levels, was infill and replacement of existing approachable properties.

If the county wants to create more ownership opportunities in the SFH space, that is better done in greenfield development, where it can be planned at a large scale with associated infrastructure. If it wants to create more housing, mixed-use high density in the one-third- to half-mile vicinity of truly efficient public transportation, like off-street rail (i.e., not the Purple Line and not BRT until and unless it gets much, much better), is the way to go.

The former is farther out, so the county would need to focus on attracting jobs to those areas, again in mixed-use proximity to highly efficient transport, to reduce the need to commute. It would also need to sacrifice portions of the sacred cow that is the ag reserve -- we should have a study of the relative benefits of that and to whom those benefits principally accrue (e.g., boutique ag catering to the wealthy, non-ag estate owners, etc.; not that there aren't recreational/other benefits, but accruing to relatively few, and with the broad span of the reserve not neceasary to accomplish that).

The latter, smart-growth option does not appeal to the development/RE lobby's vested interests.

I'm certainly not against development in thr ag reserve, that doesn't address the real problem. If someone wants to buy a single family home in Gaithersburg, Olney, or Damascus, they going to be able to find one. The scarcity isn't in houses, it's in lots. People care where they live. You can't create more housing where there's demand without increasing density.

Some of that should be high-density housing near transit. And as you, or perhaps a different poster in this thread, have noted, that's been much of what has been done in recent years.

But that doesn't create home ownership opportunities you claim to want to facilitate. High rise construction near next to metro will necessarily be expensive due to property values and construction costs. They will generally be smaller. Within that demographic, many people would opt to rent in case they want to move for work or for more space.

Low-rise apartments in less expensive areas can help with rents. Townhomes create more opportunities for home ownership while, over time, reducing costs.

When lots in DC got scarce the Chevy Chase Land Company (for all its faults) built a trolley line. And then whole urban areas formed north of Chevy Chase. It is possible to build infrastructure!

Low-rise apartments won’t help with rents. They’ll substitute for high-rise apartments. Developers build what they think the market will absorb and low-rise apartments don’t change demand fundamentals.

Make no mistake these will be mostly rentals. The developers don’t want to subdivide existing lots. They want to combine them, and Friedson thinks they should be able to combine up to three lots so they can build fairly large apartment buildings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers.

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.

Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win.

The purple line was tremendously delayed.

And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension.

There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county.

None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council.

The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’ refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse.

The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls, and some sprawl mostly up 270.

Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes.

I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth.

To a certain extent, I agree. There's been too much of a focus on large-scale, high density projects which, as you've noted, tend to be rentals. Zoning and regulations have been set up to encourage that, too. We need to be doing more to facilitate and encourage construction of things like townhomes and duplexes, which are more likely to be occupant-owned.

I don't think rentals are bad- there are a lot of situations where that is going to be the right choice. But we should have more opportunities for affordable home ownership, too.

That's what I liked about the earlier AHS proposal. It would have made it easier to build moderate density housing without them having to be part of large-scale projects in limited parts of the county. That's the only path for creating more owner-occupied housing stock without sprawl.

The problem is that the focus of the AHS, and the ZTA that aimed to begin that by down-scoping the initial effort to parcels that affected fewer neighbors (though more greatly so) in order to reduce the outcry to politically manageable levels, was infill and replacement of existing approachable properties.

If the county wants to create more ownership opportunities in the SFH space, that is better done in greenfield development, where it can be planned at a large scale with associated infrastructure. If it wants to create more housing, mixed-use high density in the one-third- to half-mile vicinity of truly efficient public transportation, like off-street rail (i.e., not the Purple Line and not BRT until and unless it gets much, much better), is the way to go.

The former is farther out, so the county would need to focus on attracting jobs to those areas, again in mixed-use proximity to highly efficient transport, to reduce the need to commute. It would also need to sacrifice portions of the sacred cow that is the ag reserve -- we should have a study of the relative benefits of that and to whom those benefits principally accrue (e.g., boutique ag catering to the wealthy, non-ag estate owners, etc.; not that there aren't recreational/other benefits, but accruing to relatively few, and with the broad span of the reserve not neceasary to accomplish that).

The latter, smart-growth option does not appeal to the development/RE lobby's vested interests.

I'm certainly not against development in thr ag reserve, that doesn't address the real problem. If someone wants to buy a single family home in Gaithersburg, Olney, or Damascus, they going to be able to find one. The scarcity isn't in houses, it's in lots. People care where they live. You can't create more housing where there's demand without increasing density.

Some of that should be high-density housing near transit. And as you, or perhaps a different poster in this thread, have noted, that's been much of what has been done in recent years.

But that doesn't create home ownership opportunities you claim to want to facilitate. High rise construction near next to metro will necessarily be expensive due to property values and construction costs. They will generally be smaller. Within that demographic, many people would opt to rent in case they want to move for work or for more space.

Low-rise apartments in less expensive areas can help with rents. Townhomes create more opportunities for home ownership while, over time, reducing costs.

When lots in DC got scarce the Chevy Chase Land Company (for all its faults) built a trolley line. And then whole urban areas formed north of Chevy Chase. It is possible to build infrastructure!

Low-rise apartments won’t help with rents. They’ll substitute for high-rise apartments. Developers build what they think the market will absorb and low-rise apartments don’t change demand fundamentals.

Make no mistake these will be mostly rentals. The developers don’t want to subdivide existing lots. They want to combine them, and Friedson thinks they should be able to combine up to three lots so they can build fairly large apartment buildings.

Three lots isn't a large apartment building.

Setting aside whether the NIMBYs would both allow a rail lines to be built through their neighborhoods and pay for them, you can't change the distances involved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Just admit that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is the proportion of "naturally occuring affordable housing" in those 2500 lots greater than that elsewhere in the targeted neighborhoods? Yes? Oops...

One of two things will happen in those areas.

1) We allow or perhaps even incentive moderate density redevelopment, likely resulting in the cheapest properties being redeveloped first. The redeveloped properties will almost certainly be more expensive than the homes they replace, but we know over time things like townhomes are cheaper than surrounding single family homes.

2) We maintain SFH-only zoning in those areas. Over time, those homes will be remodeled, expanded, or rebuilt, significantly increasing their values and costs.

Which one ultimately results in more affordable housing for more people?

False choice, there. Option 3 mentioned earlier. Greenfield development and very close to Metro high density provides for new housing, leaving the naturally occuring affordable SFHs where they are. All three contribute more affordable housing for more people.