Maryland’s governor wants to tackle the state’s housing shortage

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i believe the soviet union tried this and you got this

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/what-is-it-like-living-in-soviet-era-housing-today/index.html

Not that I think it will look anything like those tower blocks (liberal govts are picky about the design, more so than conservative ones), but isn't this better than homeless tents on the streets?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i believe the soviet union tried this and you got this

https://www.cnn.com/style/article/what-is-it-like-living-in-soviet-era-housing-today/index.html

Not that I think it will look anything like those tower blocks (liberal govts are picky about the design, more so than conservative ones), but isn't this better than homeless tents on the streets?

Stalinka's were actually half decent looking.

History of "commie blocks" for those interested:

Stalinka's come up at 4:15.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing shortage in Maryland.

There is a road shortage in Maryland, caused by .gov having allowed many thousands of new homes and (frequently vacant) commercial properties to be built, without adding a millimeter of new road.

This eyewash is a dodge to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods, take over what remains of anything resembling a conservative area in Maryland, and generate more tax revenue to fund the endless fraud, waste and abuse in the State.

I do think that many of the missing middle measures are nothing but punitive nonsense designed to rid everyone of the idea that some places are just not affordable for everyone, OR they are part of some strange “place making” craziness that no one in the current neighborhoods actually want (because they would have moved elsewhere if that were the case).

However, this seems like it only involves public or non-profit land within a certain distance of rail. Not sure if the Purple Line would count…if so, it’s something to consider, I guess.

It’s actually probably less than what the MoCo will try to do in the future. They are setting it all up with the relaxing of parking requirements and the conceptualizing of these “town centers” designated within 1/4 of “mass transit,” which they are defining as the the new bus stations as part of the BRT.

In the end, be less afraid of the state level work and more wary of what happens locally. The state will do the minimum.

Of course it would. This is why the Washington-area development community jokingly referred to the very expensive Purple Line as the new "green line." Green, as creating very profitable opportunities for investors and developers anywhere near the line.

How nefarious of for-profit housing builders to plan to make a profit by building housing near transit.

Profiteering opportunities paid for by the taxpayers. It's the American way!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Great! They should do this in Crownsville, MD.

Is this ... a weird insane asylum joke?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing shortage in Maryland.

There is a road shortage in Maryland, caused by .gov having allowed many thousands of new homes and (frequently vacant) commercial properties to be built, without adding a millimeter of new road.

This eyewash is a dodge to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods, take over what remains of anything resembling a conservative area in Maryland, and generate more tax revenue to fund the endless fraud, waste and abuse in the State.

I do think that many of the missing middle measures are nothing but punitive nonsense designed to rid everyone of the idea that some places are just not affordable for everyone, OR they are part of some strange “place making” craziness that no one in the current neighborhoods actually want (because they would have moved elsewhere if that were the case).

However, this seems like it only involves public or non-profit land within a certain distance of rail. Not sure if the Purple Line would count…if so, it’s something to consider, I guess.

It’s actually probably less than what the MoCo will try to do in the future. They are setting it all up with the relaxing of parking requirements and the conceptualizing of these “town centers” designated within 1/4 of “mass transit,” which they are defining as the the new bus stations as part of the BRT.

In the end, be less afraid of the state level work and more wary of what happens locally. The state will do the minimum.

Chevy Chase Lake on the Purple Line. Luxurious vibrancy ... and so affordable!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no housing shortage in Maryland.

There is a road shortage in Maryland, caused by .gov having allowed many thousands of new homes and (frequently vacant) commercial properties to be built, without adding a millimeter of new road.

This eyewash is a dodge to destroy the character of existing neighborhoods, take over what remains of anything resembling a conservative area in Maryland, and generate more tax revenue to fund the endless fraud, waste and abuse in the State.

I do think that many of the missing middle measures are nothing but punitive nonsense designed to rid everyone of the idea that some places are just not affordable for everyone, OR they are part of some strange “place making” craziness that no one in the current neighborhoods actually want (because they would have moved elsewhere if that were the case).

However, this seems like it only involves public or non-profit land within a certain distance of rail. Not sure if the Purple Line would count…if so, it’s something to consider, I guess.

It’s actually probably less than what the MoCo will try to do in the future. They are setting it all up with the relaxing of parking requirements and the conceptualizing of these “town centers” designated within 1/4 of “mass transit,” which they are defining as the the new bus stations as part of the BRT.

In the end, be less afraid of the state level work and more wary of what happens locally. The state will do the minimum.

Of course it would. This is why the Washington-area development community jokingly referred to the very expensive Purple Line as the new "green line." Green, as creating very profitable opportunities for investors and developers anywhere near the line.

How nefarious of for-profit housing builders to plan to make a profit by building housing near transit.

Profiteering opportunities paid for by the taxpayers. It's the American way!

Is your residence accessible by road, and if so, who do you think paid for the road?

[Anonymous]

The housing shortage is getting much, much worse everyday.

[Anonymous]

Predictably the YIMBYs are complaining because the proposals seek to generate actual affordable housing. They were looking for the typical MoCo package that just helps developers make more money. They should remember that Housing Secretary Jake Day succeeded in growing housing when he was mayor of Salisbury, unlike Hans Riemer, who shamelessly lobbied for Day’s job but got passed over (wisely).

[Anonymous]

Why do you assume that affordable housing chases away affluent residents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


Why do you assume that affordable housing chases away affluent residents?

Because affordable housing chases away affluent residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unconstitutional..

The govt is trying to tell owners of private land who they can and cannot sell to. Why shouldn't owners be allowed to sell their properties to someone who is willing to pay over asking price while a renter would only want to pay asking price?

Typical for Dems - more govt control over everything.

Hate to break it to you but America has had property controls and restrictions on what you can and can't do with your land ever since the Pilgrims stepped off the Mayflower in 1620. Historians on planning and building controls have documented it.

But that said, the problem IS people paying more than asking price. They are creating artificial bubbles in real estate costs.

Wrong

This is the govt trying to control your ability to sell it to whomever you wish. This is even closer to communism. The govt can tell you what you can and can't do with your land. They have never tried before to control who you can and cannot sell your private property to. Eminent domain is not an apt comparison before you try to point to that.

Renters right if first refusal is not a new thing. Already exists in a bunch of places. It doesn't impact what a landowner can do with their land, as it only applies if you decide to sell it. If this upsets you, ordinary zoning laws must absolutely enrage you. After all, how dare the government tell you that you can't put a factory in a lot in a residential neighborhood. It's your land, right?

All these things do is disincentivize people from becoming landlords... and you have even more shortages.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The housing shortage is getting much, much worse everyday.

Maybe we should stop importing several million people a year to the U.S.?????

[Anonymous]

If MD wanted more housing supply, it needs to restructure Ag zones especially MoCos. But no one wants to have that conversation.

[Anonymous]

Moore should focus on his budget deficit. He's an empty suit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If MD wanted more housing supply, it needs to restructure Ag zones especially MoCos. But no one wants to have that conversation.

I bet we can think of places that would be more suitable for more housing than farmland. For example, places near transit!