MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

Why do residents vote for the same people for the county council? This is what you get. Friedson did not have an opponent during the last election but even if he did people would still be voting for him. Why? You get what you vote for. Wake up, people.

[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.

Oh, we are doing hyperbolic posts like this already? Cool. My turn:

It will enhance the quality of life in all neighborhoods and increase home values everywhere. The density around transit corridors will bring vibrant walkable destinations and resident-serving businesses that increase tax revenue to the county, thereby increasing the quality and quality of all county services for everyone. Within 10 years we will have the ideal mix of different housing types for all types with stable property values for all.

In ten years the area developed as planned will be either a slum or an elite neighborhood. Either way, the proposed walkable sustainable paradise will not happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

However, if you have invested a significant amount of money into your home and are in the top 50% of home values in your neighborhood this will significantly slow or reverse your home’s appreciation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

The idea behind it is to make it affordable, not unaffordable. The County Council is planning to add more unaffordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't care about the profit of my house. I care about the quality of my neighborhood. I would just move to Potomac if my Bethesda neighborhood starts to get populated with quadplexes.

[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.

Not necessarily. Even Washington state did not try to nullify existing covenants that ban multifamily housing. There are constitutional questions about retroactively nullifying covenants that were legal when established. The YIMBYs decided to only ban new covenants enforcing single family zoning (in Washington) because that is probably legal. Racial covenants were determined to be unconstitutional by SCOTUS in 1948, so laws ban them or allow removal are presumptively permissible. However, the same cannot be said for covenants enforcing lot sizes, number of units. etc. There are legitimate reasons for these rules that are completely untreated to protected groups. to exist and the courts and not likely to rule in favor of invalidating them completely. A conservative SCOTUS will almost certainly rule in favor of plantiff's defending their covenants because they will not find a disparate impact argument compelling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure I understand the document. They are proposing to rezone single family lots into lots that could accommodate duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes — have I got that right?

And the rezoning would occur in these buffer zones that straddle the existing “growth corridors”?

And they want to expand that area around the growth corridors to include anything within a mile of a Metro station or a MARC station?

Now I understand why neighborhoods along River Road fought so hard (and unsuccessfully) to oppose the designation of the stretch of River from the Beltway to DC as a growth corridor.

There really isn’t much buildable space along that stretch unless you tear down existing single family homes and replace them with denser housing. A little bit of that kind of development might be ok but not along that whole stretch of a major road. It will totally change the look and feel of the area, to say nothing of the traffic.

Tell your neighbors and everyone you know in MOCO. There is still a chance to stop the madness with enough resident backlash.

The problem that Arlington encountered is that people think this will make housing affordable (and the developers hammer that message), when it is not true. The Missing Middle townhouses in Arlington will cost $1.5 million or more because the developers are not in the business of being charitable and forgoing profits, but many people naively believed differently. So it's difficult to counter the misinformation, but I agree it's necessary to try.

Where is Elrich in all of this? Does he actually support it?

Look at Bethesda - they are squeezing out the middle class for upper class and MPDU housing. That trend will only be accelerated with these proposals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. For instance, in Bethesda and Chevy Chase, old houses get sold as tear downs. New, bigger houses go up in their place. Affordability declines but the neighborhood, by some measures, gets "nicer".

Do the changes discussed in the report mean that more of these tear downs are going to be rebuilt as duplexes, triplexes and small apartment buildings? In the middle of what otherwise are suburban single family neighborhoods? If so, how can we tell if our house, street falls into such a (re) zone?

Yes, so the developer who buys the older house will either build a giant one that he can sell for $3M+ in these nicer neighborhoods or a fourplex he can sell for $1M+ per unit, making the neighborhood now more “attainable” because a family can buy in at $1M vs $3M. But none of it is affordable.

Actually, those new developments will include MPDUs, Section 8 or “workforce” housing. They are wiping out “Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. For instance, in Bethesda and Chevy Chase, old houses get sold as tear downs. New, bigger houses go up in their place. Affordability declines but the neighborhood, by some measures, gets "nicer".

Do the changes discussed in the report mean that more of these tear downs are going to be rebuilt as duplexes, triplexes and small apartment buildings? In the middle of what otherwise are suburban single family neighborhoods? If so, how can we tell if our house, street falls into such a (re) zone?

Yes, that's exactly what it means. And if it doesn't matter if your house is in a zone that's being targeted, because once they start down this path, they will not stop.

Well, that’s silly. It certainly matters to ME whether my house is in a zone that’s being targeted. Just as I am less concerned about school redistricting that doesn’t affect my street or neighborhood. Otherwise everyone would be up in arms about everything.

OK, whatever. There's a map on page 5 of the powerpoint. If you're south of Rockville, you will be affected. As it turns out, the poor people who purportedly need this "attainable" housing wouldn't deign to live in the northern part of the county.

Exactly! My husband keeps asking why they want poorer people in Bethesda, where gas is so expensive, food …everything is more expensive than in Rockville.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

Because the crime, schools and expenses are worse in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is awful.
And truly, a lot of us are betting on our homes to be where we retire and it’s value to allow us to sustain a decent standard of living at old age if we sell, transfer to children, etc.
None of this walkability stuff is true, it’s an imposition.
And we can already feel the results of these measures. In two years, our beloved elementary school of Westbrook has gone from a ranking of 9 to 7 as they turned it into a Title 1 school. There has been incidents of Anti Semitism, alcohol in a 4th grade bathroom, increased behavior issues. This is overwhelming and there is no place or good reason to disrupt perfectly fine neighborhoods.

Where are the troublesome kids coming from? The taxpayer subsidized apartments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

Because the crime, schools and expenses are worse in DC.

Taxes in DC are actually lower than MoCo when you consider sales, income and property. DC property taxes are quite low.

It was ranked as the 2nd lowest tax area after Arlington, VA in the DMV.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It’s like the Council wants to destroy wealth and prosperity in the name of “attainable” housing. A better use of efforts and funding would be to improve and add this construction in areas that have lots ready for development, like White Flint. Improve safety and schools in areas like Wheaton and Silver Spring. But, no, the Council wants to destroy long established neighborhoods. Completely and utterly irresponsible.
Fix River Road, make sure Friendship Heights improvements are one and done, and leave us alone!

Exactly. They should be more concerned about the high income earners leaving the state.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that this proposal won't help make housing more affordable, it will just make developers rich!

And the affordable housing people are so myopic they don't look or give a hoot about infrastructure (schools, traffic, police, fire, libraries, community centers and so on). Wish someone, anyone woth any power, was looking at the big picture

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Property tax cuts wont be enough of a motivator unless you have very high property taxes likely in close in areas.

That is the point!