Listening Sessions - Montgomery County Attainable Housing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

And yet houses in walkable neighborhoods sell for more than houses in non-walkable neighborhoods and usually have multiple offers. Go figure.

Can you show us examples of equivalent houses in equivalent locations, one with only detached SFHs surrounding it and another with a quadriplex or apartment building next to it, where the second house sold for more than the first within a month or two of each other?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

Literally the design used by almost every county in the country. It is completely the norm.

Do the YIMBYs EVER stop lying?

There are but a handful of jurisdictions that have done this at this scale. Stop making it seem like that are simply changing fence height requirements or something.

Can you point to a jurisdiction where a zoning change like this has been put to a popular vote?

Wasn't it in Arlington?

Capped and not including 19-plex apartment buildings. Not even close to being as sweeping as what MoCo is gunning for.

[Anonymous]

No one want this to happen except a few demented MoCo officials. We have a serious democracy problem.

This needs to be put to a vote or killed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

And yet houses in walkable neighborhoods sell for more than houses in non-walkable neighborhoods and usually have multiple offers. Go figure.

Can you show us examples of equivalent houses in equivalent locations, one with only detached SFHs surrounding it and another with a quadriplex or apartment building next to it, where the second house sold for more than the first within a month or two of each other?

No, because they’re currently illegal, but a lot of people can see high-rise apartments from their front or back porches in East Bethesda and their property values are doing just fine. Just using logic, at the very least, your land will appreciate because its development potential will increase, probably at a faster pace than the structure depreciates.

In addition, potential litigants are going to be challenged to show harm resulting from the zoning change because the tight sales market will continue to push sales prices up, especially as interest rates fall. Almost every land use policy that the county has made during the last decade or so has benefited land owners financially, with the exception of the 15 percent ADU requirement, which ironically has helped fuel market rate shortages and price increases. The zoning change will benefit landowners as well, at the expense of people who don’t own land.

[Anonymous]

Everyone wants to live in SFHs and not crappy apartments or condos.

Apartments and Condos SUCK.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

And yet houses in walkable neighborhoods sell for more than houses in non-walkable neighborhoods and usually have multiple offers. Go figure.

Can you show us examples of equivalent houses in equivalent locations, one with only detached SFHs surrounding it and another with a quadriplex or apartment building next to it, where the second house sold for more than the first within a month or two of each other?

No, because they’re currently illegal, but a lot of people can see high-rise apartments from their front or back porches in East Bethesda and their property values are doing just fine. Just using logic, at the very least, your land will appreciate because its development potential will increase, probably at a faster pace than the structure depreciates.

In addition, potential litigants are going to be challenged to show harm resulting from the zoning change because the tight sales market will continue to push sales prices up, especially as interest rates fall. Almost every land use policy that the county has made during the last decade or so has benefited land owners financially, with the exception of the 15 percent ADU requirement, which ironically has helped fuel market rate shortages and price increases. The zoning change will benefit landowners as well, at the expense of people who don’t own land.

Huh. Will it benefit quality of life? As we all become pods in the smart growth Matrix?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

Literally the design used by almost every county in the country. It is completely the norm.

Do the YIMBYs EVER stop lying?

There are but a handful of jurisdictions that have done this at this scale. Stop making it seem like that are simply changing fence height requirements or something.

Can you point to a jurisdiction where a zoning change like this has been put to a popular vote?

Kansas does this for many zoning decisions.

I don't think that is accurate.

https://www.kcur.org/politics-elections-and-government/2024-03-09/johnson-county-cities-fight-kansas-bills-that-threaten-local-control-over-zoning-laws

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

And yet houses in walkable neighborhoods sell for more than houses in non-walkable neighborhoods and usually have multiple offers. Go figure.

Can you show us examples of equivalent houses in equivalent locations, one with only detached SFHs surrounding it and another with a quadriplex or apartment building next to it, where the second house sold for more than the first within a month or two of each other?

No, because they’re currently illegal, but a lot of people can see high-rise apartments from their front or back porches in East Bethesda and their property values are doing just fine. Just using logic, at the very least, your land will appreciate because its development potential will increase, probably at a faster pace than the structure depreciates.

In addition, potential litigants are going to be challenged to show harm resulting from the zoning change because the tight sales market will continue to push sales prices up, especially as interest rates fall. Almost every land use policy that the county has made during the last decade or so has benefited land owners financially, with the exception of the 15 percent ADU requirement, which ironically has helped fuel market rate shortages and price increases. The zoning change will benefit landowners as well, at the expense of people who don’t own land.

Huh. Will it benefit quality of life? As we all become pods in the smart growth Matrix?

It really depends on what you value. If you value walkable communities with jobs and services nearby, then, yes it will benefit quality of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

And yet houses in walkable neighborhoods sell for more than houses in non-walkable neighborhoods and usually have multiple offers. Go figure.

Can you show us examples of equivalent houses in equivalent locations, one with only detached SFHs surrounding it and another with a quadriplex or apartment building next to it, where the second house sold for more than the first within a month or two of each other?

No, because they’re currently illegal, but a lot of people can see high-rise apartments from their front or back porches in East Bethesda and their property values are doing just fine. Just using logic, at the very least, your land will appreciate because its development potential will increase, probably at a faster pace than the structure depreciates.

In addition, potential litigants are going to be challenged to show harm resulting from the zoning change because the tight sales market will continue to push sales prices up, especially as interest rates fall. Almost every land use policy that the county has made during the last decade or so has benefited land owners financially, with the exception of the 15 percent ADU requirement, which ironically has helped fuel market rate shortages and price increases. The zoning change will benefit landowners as well, at the expense of people who don’t own land.

Huh. Will it benefit quality of life? As we all become pods in the smart growth Matrix?

It really depends on what you value. If you value walkable communities with jobs and services nearby, then, yes it will benefit quality of life.

You are living in a fantasy world. MoCo goes out of its way to kill businesses and make the county a hostile place to open up shop. MoCo's economy is anemic. Where are all of these walkable jobs going to be when the county does a fantastic job killing businesses? You'll just end up with a bunch of half filled luxury apartments and neighborhoods ruined with multiplexes that park 2000 cars in the street every day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the governance design that allows this kind of sweeping policy change without putting it to a community vote?

There are plenty of examples from back in the USSR! You will live in a pyatietazhka and you will like it.

Yes, allowing private property owners to choose what to do with their land, that is exactly what the USSR was about.

Great! I always wanted to develop a lucrative industrial incinerator on land I own next to a preschool.

Clearly, from what you are saying, I should be able to do so. Because, you know, it wouldn't be the preschool's land or anything -- they wouldn't be forced to put an incinerator on their property, and, you know, they could always move if they didn't like it, and, you know, we need waste disposal of this type...

You're comparing multi-family housing to an industrial incinerator. If I were trying to persuade people to share my point of view, I wouldn't do that.

The other common comparison opponens use is to a toxic waste dump - which, again, seems unstrategic if your goal is to persuade people to share your point of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants to live in SFHs and not crappy apartments or condos.

Apartments and Condos SUCK.

This is the Everyone Wants What I Want And Doesn't Want What I Don't Want rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants to live in SFHs and not crappy apartments or condos.

Apartments and Condos SUCK.

This is the Everyone Wants What I Want And Doesn't Want What I Don't Want rule.

That's why SFH appreciate in value while condos barely break even.

Nomone wants to live in sh!tty apartments and condos that are hot boxes for roach and bed bug infestations. Have fun buying a condo next door to a neighbor who constantly smokes weed 24/7 365 and the vapors penetrate your walls and the hallways. Absolutely miserable existence. The markets speak for itself. SFH are way more valuable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moco govt doing everything they can to ruin the county and drive out high income earners who pay the most tax. Should go swimmingly.

Exactly!! Maybe the plan is to turn Potomac into Germantown with high density housing on all those multiple acre lots?

"High density housing"? In Germantown? Have you ever been to Germantown? It's true that there are big complexes, but they are very sprawly, like everything else in Germantown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants to live in SFHs and not crappy apartments or condos.

Apartments and Condos SUCK.

This is the Everyone Wants What I Want And Doesn't Want What I Don't Want rule.

That's why SFH appreciate in value while condos barely break even.

Nomone wants to live in sh!tty apartments and condos that are hot boxes for roach and bed bug infestations. Have fun buying a condo next door to a neighbor who constantly smokes weed 24/7 365 and the vapors penetrate your walls and the hallways. Absolutely miserable existence. The markets speak for itself. SFH are way more valuable.

Your post says a lot about you, but not a lot about housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But wait, I thought this was a done deal that was getting crammed down our throats with no opportunity for community input?

Don’t worry, it will be crammed down our throats.

So, why bother going? Might as well stay home.