MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Albornoz, Luedtke, Balcombe, and Katz are YIMBYs? Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha. Oh boy. That's funny. Ha. If only.

What YIMBY initiatives have they voted against? None? Oh, right. But if they’re not YIMBYs, the majority of the council isn’t YIMBY, so your original statement is a lie.

Still waiting for you to explain the impact that YIMBY policies have had on housing and the economy. If you’re not willing to own the outcomes, you should really stop making recommendations.

You seem to believe that YIMBY means policies you disagree with. Or maybe policies that result in plans to build stuff. Either way, I disagree with your belief.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Albornoz, Luedtke, Balcombe, and Katz are YIMBYs? Ha ha. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha ha. Oh boy. That's funny. Ha. If only.

What YIMBY initiatives have they voted against? None? Oh, right. But if they’re not YIMBYs, the majority of the council isn’t YIMBY, so your original statement is a lie.

Still waiting for you to explain the impact that YIMBY policies have had on housing and the economy. If you’re not willing to own the outcomes, you should really stop making recommendations.

You seem to believe that YIMBY means policies you disagree with. Or maybe policies that result in plans to build stuff. Either way, I disagree with your belief.

No, I specifically mean supporting the supply side housing policies (especially the tax breaks and other subsidies) that the chief YIMBYs have advocated. I actually did define it. You haven’t cited a single example of a YIMBY initiative that they voted against. You avoid the specifics because they never work in your favor. Kind of like the outcomes never show success.

Still waiting for you to explain the impact that YIMBY policies have had on housing and the economy. If you’re not willing to own the outcomes, you should really stop making recommendations.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.

Are you a parody account?

Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.

Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.

Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.

Renters get a place to live.

Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?

If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.

Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.

Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.

I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?

It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...

The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.

This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.

This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.

Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?

DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.

What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?

OK.

Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.

Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.

Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.

And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.

Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.

+100

Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member

People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.

Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?

Far more likely that the pro-development propaganda along with with the multi-layered approach, combining state and local legislation with changes to master plans, zoning text amendments and the like, has allowed each element of the latter to be enacted without the vast majority of folks realizing the likely impacts.

Option 1: the majority of voters are ok with the policies enacted by the officials they elected
Option 2: conspiracy fictions

So you're going with Option 2.

07:38/poster to whom you responded.

Option 1: There never have been development interests that have co-opted governmental/regulatory bodies for their own enrichment in a way that is to the disadvantage of residents.

Option 2: Reality.

See how that works? Each side could set up such unproductive arguments. However, anyone following this thread can see that the development interests are disproportionately using those.

So what's your explanation for the fact that a majority of voters in Montgomery County, consistently, for several elections now, have voted for candidates who support the policies you oppose?

It would help if you bother to read my 07:30 post on the previous page. There are more issues on which folks base their vote than housing. Representatives don't always defend the majority interest on every issue.

At minimum, folks don't hate it. Yes? Agreed? If they hated it, if it were that important to them, they wouldn't keep voting for candidates who support it.

Not agreed. Addressed, already. Go address some of the many points made regarding impacts on public facilities/infrastructure those pushing for these additional densities have sidestepped.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.

Are you a parody account?

Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.

Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.

Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.

Renters get a place to live.

Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?

If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.

Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.

Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.

I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?

It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...

The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.

This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.

This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.

Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?

DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.

What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?

OK.

Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.

Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.

Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.

And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.

Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.

+100

Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member

People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.

Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?

Far more likely that the pro-development propaganda along with with the multi-layered approach, combining state and local legislation with changes to master plans, zoning text amendments and the like, has allowed each element of the latter to be enacted without the vast majority of folks realizing the likely impacts.

Option 1: the majority of voters are ok with the policies enacted by the officials they elected
Option 2: conspiracy fictions

So you're going with Option 2.

07:38/poster to whom you responded.

Option 1: There never have been development interests that have co-opted governmental/regulatory bodies for their own enrichment in a way that is to the disadvantage of residents.

Option 2: Reality.

See how that works? Each side could set up such unproductive arguments. However, anyone following this thread can see that the development interests are disproportionately using those.

So what's your explanation for the fact that a majority of voters in Montgomery County, consistently, for several elections now, have voted for candidates who support the policies you oppose?

It would help if you bother to read my 07:30 post on the previous page. There are more issues on which folks base their vote than housing. Representatives don't always defend the majority interest on every issue.

At minimum, folks don't hate it. Yes? Agreed? If they hated it, if it were that important to them, they wouldn't keep voting for candidates who support it.

Not agreed. Addressed, already. Go address some of the many points made regarding impacts on public facilities/infrastructure those pushing for these additional densities have sidestepped.

This is standard YIMBY technique, to try to gaslight you into agreeing.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-be-yourself/201801/how-recognize-5-core-tactics-gaslighting

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.

Are you a parody account?

Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.

Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.

Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.

Renters get a place to live.

Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?

If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.

Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.

Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.

I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?

It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...

The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.

This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.

This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.

Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?

DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.

What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?

OK.

Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.

Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.

Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.

And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.

Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.

+100

Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member

People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.

Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?

Far more likely that the pro-development propaganda along with with the multi-layered approach, combining state and local legislation with changes to master plans, zoning text amendments and the like, has allowed each element of the latter to be enacted without the vast majority of folks realizing the likely impacts.

Option 1: the majority of voters are ok with the policies enacted by the officials they elected
Option 2: conspiracy fictions

So you're going with Option 2.

07:38/poster to whom you responded.

Option 1: There never have been development interests that have co-opted governmental/regulatory bodies for their own enrichment in a way that is to the disadvantage of residents.

Option 2: Reality.

See how that works? Each side could set up such unproductive arguments. However, anyone following this thread can see that the development interests are disproportionately using those.

So what's your explanation for the fact that a majority of voters in Montgomery County, consistently, for several elections now, have voted for candidates who support the policies you oppose?

It would help if you bother to read my 07:30 post on the previous page. There are more issues on which folks base their vote than housing. Representatives don't always defend the majority interest on every issue.

At minimum, folks don't hate it. Yes? Agreed? If they hated it, if it were that important to them, they wouldn't keep voting for candidates who support it.

Not agreed. Addressed, already. Go address some of the many points made regarding impacts on public facilities/infrastructure those pushing for these additional densities have sidestepped.

The YIMBYs can’t even keep their story straight on whether local politicians do or don’t support YIMBY policies.

[Anonymous]

Can someone explain what upzoning will accomplish?

I just want someone to lay it all out, in detail, so we can all come back later and point out how it didn't do *any* of the things we were promised.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what upzoning will accomplish?

I just want someone to lay it all out, in detail, so we can all come back later and point out how it didn't do *any* of the things we were promised.

While we wait for that, the thing to do is to show up to Monday afternoon's meeting to voice opinion.

Monday, June 24
1:30 pm
3rd Floor Hearing Room
Planning Board to brief the County Council PHP Committee on the Attainable Housing Report

Late in the process as this is, by the time they get to the full Council meeting, the bow on this present to developers will be completely tied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what upzoning will accomplish?

I just want someone to lay it all out, in detail, so we can all come back later and point out how it didn't do *any* of the things we were promised.

hey upzoning a-holes, this question shouldnt be hard to answer. why the silence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what upzoning will accomplish?

I just want someone to lay it all out, in detail, so we can all come back later and point out how it didn't do *any* of the things we were promised.

Allow property owners to build two-unit, three-unit, or four-unit residential buildings, by right, in addition to one-unit residential buildings, in certain areas of Montgomery County where currently only one-unit residential buildings may be built by right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what upzoning will accomplish?

I just want someone to lay it all out, in detail, so we can all come back later and point out how it didn't do *any* of the things we were promised.

Allow property owners to build two-unit, three-unit, or four-unit residential buildings, by right, in addition to one-unit residential buildings, in certain areas of Montgomery County where currently only one-unit residential buildings may be built by right.

Pass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what upzoning will accomplish?

I just want someone to lay it all out, in detail, so we can all come back later and point out how it didn't do *any* of the things we were promised.

Allow property owners to build two-unit, three-unit, or four-unit residential buildings, by right, in addition to one-unit residential buildings, in certain areas of Montgomery County where currently only one-unit residential buildings may be built by right.

Pass.

Are you on the County Council?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what upzoning will accomplish?

I just want someone to lay it all out, in detail, so we can all come back later and point out how it didn't do *any* of the things we were promised.

Allow property owners to build two-unit, three-unit, or four-unit residential buildings, by right, in addition to one-unit residential buildings, in certain areas of Montgomery County where currently only one-unit residential buildings may be built by right.

By right also means the county will lose out on impact fees.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain what upzoning will accomplish?

I just want someone to lay it all out, in detail, so we can all come back later and point out how it didn't do *any* of the things we were promised.

Allow property owners to build two-unit, three-unit, or four-unit residential buildings, by right, in addition to one-unit residential buildings, in certain areas of Montgomery County where currently only one-unit residential buildings may be built by right.

There you go again focusing on process instead of outcomes. One reason YIMBYism has failed to deliver housing affordability is that YIMBYs are too focused on rules and plan approvals instead of actual housing production.

The YIMBY approach is especially ineffective and harmful in the Montgomery County market where we have a lot of approved plans but not enough construction. There are other drivers of the county’s poor housing growth that are much more important than land use regulation. The first is that developers view MoCo as a riskier submarket than DC or Fairfax because job growth in the county is so weak. Not only can developers reliably make more money in Fairfax and DC now, but a building boom in either of those places (or Loudoun or Prince William) would gut the MoCo market. The other reason is that it’s cost prohibitive to add SFH (attached or detached) on the little land where adding SFH is actually allowed because the YIMBYs have put in place punitive fees in those areas. Sure, a lot of land only allows SFH, but there’s already SFH in those places, so if one gets torn down and rebuilt, you’re not adding any SFH. Prices for SFH have risen faster than for any other housing type, which sends a clear signal about what customers demand. Adding SFH would relieve upward price pressure across the housing market but YIMBYs can’t bring themselves to support SFH construction.

YIMBYs like to claim the pro-growth high ground, but if you look at their track record in MoCo they’ve produced anti-growth outcomes. The only thing that’s grown is developers’ profits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People move to SFH neighborhoods specifically to have space. They are going to ruin the entire county until it is paved concrete jungle like Tokyo and we all get to live in sh!tty 400 sqft apts.

But hey, at least the crappy chipotle down the street is walkable. I can’t wait until this stupendously backfires and everyone with means (by and large part home owners) flees because all of the upzoning imports tons of poverty and trashy people into the county. Gee, you mean it sucks when your neighborhood street has 30000 cars parked all over because each triplex houses 20 people all with their own cars?

R.I.P. MoCo. Howard and AA Counties looking more attractive by the day.

This is so off-base. Everyone moving into these upzoned pod apartments will walk and bicycle everywhere! lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People move to SFH neighborhoods specifically to have space. They are going to ruin the entire county until it is paved concrete jungle like Tokyo and we all get to live in sh!tty 400 sqft apts.

But hey, at least the crappy chipotle down the street is walkable. I can’t wait until this stupendously backfires and everyone with means (by and large part home owners) flees because all of the upzoning imports tons of poverty and trashy people into the county. Gee, you mean it sucks when your neighborhood street has 30000 cars parked all over because each triplex houses 20 people all with their own cars?

R.I.P. MoCo. Howard and AA Counties looking more attractive by the day.

This is so off-base. Everyone moving into these upzoned pod apartments will walk and bicycle everywhere! lol

Are they pod apartments, or are they luxury apartments? Or maybe they are luxury pod apartments?

If you want to move to Howard County or Anne Arundel County, you are free to do so.