MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are so many Potomac properties like this one, that have high values despite very old and unappealing houses, because they are located in appealing areas (and the linked one below is on a large plot of land). It makes sense to me that these would be extremely valuable for developers to buy up and convert, and it could dramatically transform parts of the Potomac. Any thoughts on that?

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Rockville/13008-Foxden-Dr-20850/home/10504472

Zoning is RE-1 (residential estate). Not part of the proposed changes (R-40, R-60, R-90, R-200, but not where a municipality like Rockville has its own zoning authority). Many of the wealthiest areas are not affected, whether by alternate zoning, by historic designation or by covenant, which is among the reasons this would be typical of bad policy -- protection for those at the top, squeeze the middle and call it just because it might help the bottom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many Potomac properties like this one, that have high values despite very old and unappealing houses, because they are located in appealing areas (and the linked one below is on a large plot of land). It makes sense to me that these would be extremely valuable for developers to buy up and convert, and it could dramatically transform parts of the Potomac. Any thoughts on that?

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Rockville/13008-Foxden-Dr-20850/home/10504472

Zoning is RE-1 (residential estate). Not part of the proposed changes (R-40, R-60, R-90, R-200, but not where a municipality like Rockville has its own zoning authority). Many of the wealthiest areas are not affected, whether by alternate zoning, by historic designation or by covenant, which is among the reasons this would be typical of bad policy -- protection for those at the top, squeeze the middle and call it just because it might help the bottom.

Technically, it does impact Residential Estate zones areas because they are doing to change the definition allowable housing types to include small multifamily units. However, practically speaking you won’t see many plex units built in RE zones areas because they don’t have public sewer or it is more profitable to build a new SFH.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many Potomac properties like this one, that have high values despite very old and unappealing houses, because they are located in appealing areas (and the linked one below is on a large plot of land). It makes sense to me that these would be extremely valuable for developers to buy up and convert, and it could dramatically transform parts of the Potomac. Any thoughts on that?

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Rockville/13008-Foxden-Dr-20850/home/10504472

WTF? That house has beautiful bones and will make a lovely family home with a spruce up. We bought a very similar one recently and will live here till the end of our days.

Agree. This reminds me of our first home together. I’d kill to have that house today and be able to update it a bit. Perfect house for aging in place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many Potomac properties like this one, that have high values despite very old and unappealing houses, because they are located in appealing areas (and the linked one below is on a large plot of land). It makes sense to me that these would be extremely valuable for developers to buy up and convert, and it could dramatically transform parts of the Potomac. Any thoughts on that?

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Rockville/13008-Foxden-Dr-20850/home/10504472

Zoning is RE-1 (residential estate). Not part of the proposed changes (R-40, R-60, R-90, R-200, but not where a municipality like Rockville has its own zoning authority). Many of the wealthiest areas are not affected, whether by alternate zoning, by historic designation or by covenant, which is among the reasons this would be typical of bad policy -- protection for those at the top, squeeze the middle and call it just because it might help the bottom.

Technically, it does impact Residential Estate zones areas because they are doing to change the definition allowable housing types to include small multifamily units. However, practically speaking you won’t see many plex units built in RE zones areas because they don’t have public sewer or it is more profitable to build a new SFH.

No, the Attainable Housing proposed changes to zoning definition do not include RE-1 zoning, only R-40, R-60, R-90 and R-200. This property, and those similarly zoned, are excluded, tending to protect the wealthiest, as noted, along with the plan's lack of effect where municipal zoning, historic designation or covenants exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are so many Potomac properties like this one, that have high values despite very old and unappealing houses, because they are located in appealing areas (and the linked one below is on a large plot of land). It makes sense to me that these would be extremely valuable for developers to buy up and convert, and it could dramatically transform parts of the Potomac. Any thoughts on that?

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Rockville/13008-Foxden-Dr-20850/home/10504472

Zoning is RE-1 (residential estate). Not part of the proposed changes (R-40, R-60, R-90, R-200, but not where a municipality like Rockville has its own zoning authority). Many of the wealthiest areas are not affected, whether by alternate zoning, by historic designation or by covenant, which is among the reasons this would be typical of bad policy -- protection for those at the top, squeeze the middle and call it just because it might help the bottom.

Technically, it does impact Residential Estate zones areas because they are doing to change the definition allowable housing types to include small multifamily units. However, practically speaking you won’t see many plex units built in RE zones areas because they don’t have public sewer or it is more profitable to build a new SFH.

No, the Attainable Housing proposed changes to zoning definition do not include RE-1 zoning, only R-40, R-60, R-90 and R-200. This property, and those similarly zoned, are excluded, tending to protect the wealthiest, as noted, along with the plan's lack of effect where municipal zoning, historic designation or covenants exist.

Do you have a handy link to these RE1 zones in a map?

[Anonymous]

Another stupid bill passed by the County Council

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Another stupid bill passed by the County Council

Did this pass? I didn’t think they had even planned to have a vote anytime soon. Or am I thinking of a different plan?

[Anonymous]

It has not passed and they are engaging neighbors until September, but have been working behind the scenes with no information to constituents.
PLEASE ENGAGE!

[Anonymous]

Please consider signing this petition to protect our neighborhoods:
https://chng.it/Y6LBL4CWQL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It will ruin neighborhoods and reduce properties values in some neighborhoods without protections from excessive density. Neighborhoods with protective covenants and HOA's that prevent multifamily housing will become more valuable. Some properties close in that have higher redevelopment potential will increase in value due to higher land prices. Many of the others will lose value and resident quality of life will go down hill. Single family communities close to high quality private schools with strong HOA/Covenants to protect thew neighborhood are likely safe. However, many middle class homeowners in desirable school attendance zones will be financially destroyed if this passes.

Federal state and local laws overrule covenants. That’s why covenants like not being able to not sell to certain third of people are outlawed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will ruin neighborhoods and reduce properties values in some neighborhoods without protections from excessive density. Neighborhoods with protective covenants and HOA's that prevent multifamily housing will become more valuable. Some properties close in that have higher redevelopment potential will increase in value due to higher land prices. Many of the others will lose value and resident quality of life will go down hill. Single family communities close to high quality private schools with strong HOA/Covenants to protect thew neighborhood are likely safe. However, many middle class homeowners in desirable school attendance zones will be financially destroyed if this passes.

Federal state and local laws overrule covenants. That’s why covenants like not being able to not sell to certain third of people are outlawed.

I don’t think that opposition to this initiative is about that. Opposition is about disruption in communities that cannot withstand additional density, pressure to infrastructure and schools, increased traffic and the risk that comes with it….and the benefit only to developers who want the business and leave the communities to deal with the mess they create. This is not of benefit to anyone but to developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will ruin neighborhoods and reduce properties values in some neighborhoods without protections from excessive density. Neighborhoods with protective covenants and HOA's that prevent multifamily housing will become more valuable. Some properties close in that have higher redevelopment potential will increase in value due to higher land prices. Many of the others will lose value and resident quality of life will go down hill. Single family communities close to high quality private schools with strong HOA/Covenants to protect thew neighborhood are likely safe. However, many middle class homeowners in desirable school attendance zones will be financially destroyed if this passes.

Federal state and local laws overrule covenants. That’s why covenants like not being able to not sell to certain third of people are outlawed.

I don’t think that opposition to this initiative is about that. Opposition is about disruption in communities that cannot withstand additional density, pressure to infrastructure and schools, increased traffic and the risk that comes with it….and the benefit only to developers who want the business and leave the communities to deal with the mess they create. This is not of benefit to anyone but to developers.

covenants are fine. Wood Acres in bethesda has them specifically about what can be built in the neighborhood. Their covenants used to cover excluding blacks, and other races but thats long been since removed. your covenants cant exclude protected groups but specifying the look and feel of the properties isnt illegal. Its really no different than what the new version of these(HOA's), do.

thats why neighborhoods are creating covenants or updating them before this is passed b/c its obvious that Moco(may have to go to the state), will try to outlaw covenants. they will probably argue they discriminate off bases of class(not sure how HOA's are different), so get those covenants in now!!!

[Anonymous]

There is a petition opposing AHSI at https://www.change.org/p/protect-single-family-zoning-in-montgomery-county?utm_medium=custom_url&utm_source=share_petition&recruited_by_id=d45fc6a0-e495-11ed-9bef-8906207a502c

[Anonymous]

This bill uses the word “Attainable” housing - not affordable. This indeed means that developers will be the profiteers. County claims were losing the middle. This simply isn’t true throughout Moco. Follow the money….

[Anonymous]

Home owners will profit too. Developers will bid up the price of houses in these neighborhoods. Also, if you own a smaller house in poor condition on a large lot, you can be sure that a developer will be willing to buy it for top dollar and then both you and the developer will profit from it.