MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

[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:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential.

[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:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential.

Are we talking about generational wealth, or are we not talking about generational wealth?

I don't know about you, but 1968 was in my lifetime. There are plenty of people who themselves were alive and in the US in 1968, or had parents or grandparents who were.

[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:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential.

Why do you think you need an HOA for townhomes?

[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:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential.

It sounds like you agree that townhomes and other higher-density homes are a good way to create more affordable housing.

[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:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential.

It sounds like you agree that townhomes and other higher-density homes are a good way to create more affordable housing.

lol…YIMBY deep thoughts.

[Anonymous]

No seriously- what areas would be exempt from this? Incorporated cities? HOAs? A previous poster mentioned living in an area that is unaffected by this proposal. I am the poster that was wondering about our spacious lots in Potomac. I know how much you guys all hate that we worked hard and made a conscious choice to live in an area like this, but I would like to keep it this way to preserve our property values and our investment. Like I said, many of our community resources like public schools are already stretched thin. How do we ensure that we would be unaffected by these changes? It’s really important to retain the beautiful character of this area for everyone to enjoy when they come out to visit wine country, and farming areas and things like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No seriously- what areas would be exempt from this? Incorporated cities? HOAs? A previous poster mentioned living in an area that is unaffected by this proposal. I am the poster that was wondering about our spacious lots in Potomac. I know how much you guys all hate that we worked hard and made a conscious choice to live in an area like this, but I would like to keep it this way to preserve our property values and our investment. Like I said, many of our community resources like public schools are already stretched thin. How do we ensure that we would be unaffected by these changes? It’s really important to retain the beautiful character of this area for everyone to enjoy when they come out to visit wine country, and farming areas and things like that.

No one wants to build townhomes in the *vast* majority of Potomac, so it doesn't even matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No seriously- what areas would be exempt from this? Incorporated cities? HOAs? A previous poster mentioned living in an area that is unaffected by this proposal. I am the poster that was wondering about our spacious lots in Potomac. I know how much you guys all hate that we worked hard and made a conscious choice to live in an area like this, but I would like to keep it this way to preserve our property values and our investment. Like I said, many of our community resources like public schools are already stretched thin. How do we ensure that we would be unaffected by these changes? It’s really important to retain the beautiful character of this area for everyone to enjoy when they come out to visit wine country, and farming areas and things like that.

No one wants to build townhomes in the *vast* majority of Potomac, so it doesn't even matter.

That will soon change. We can’t have half of MoCo be owned by private multi-acre estates and expect housing affordability to improve. The needs of the many outweigh the preferences of the relatively fewer wealthy Potomac landowners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No seriously- what areas would be exempt from this? Incorporated cities? HOAs? A previous poster mentioned living in an area that is unaffected by this proposal. I am the poster that was wondering about our spacious lots in Potomac. I know how much you guys all hate that we worked hard and made a conscious choice to live in an area like this, but I would like to keep it this way to preserve our property values and our investment. Like I said, many of our community resources like public schools are already stretched thin. How do we ensure that we would be unaffected by these changes? It’s really important to retain the beautiful character of this area for everyone to enjoy when they come out to visit wine country, and farming areas and things like that.

No one wants to build townhomes in the *vast* majority of Potomac, so it doesn't even matter.

That will soon change. We can’t have half of MoCo be owned by private multi-acre estates and expect housing affordability to improve. The needs of the many outweigh the preferences of the relatively fewer wealthy Potomac landowners.

They already have HOAs and covenants, so it doesn’t matter what you want. Those areas will stay that way. Unless you change constitutional precedents for contract law and property rights there is nothing you can do.

[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:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential.

Why do you think you need an HOA for townhomes?

There are shared walls, common areas, shared roads. There has to be a legal structure to fund shared liabilities. Anyone who has the slightest bit of knowledge about real estate development or legal considerations involved with townhouses would know this is a completely absurd question. 99%+ of new townhome communities have HOAs or maintenance agreements attached to the property deeds. Most localities will not even issue building permits for a development until you can prove that shared maintenance liabilities are covered by the HOA or property agreements.

[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:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential.

It sounds like you agree that townhomes and other higher-density homes are a good way to create more affordable housing.

I agree that is an excellent way to prevent POC from establishing generational wealth and push them to be permanent renters. It’s great for Hedge funds, but it does not benefit hardworking middle class families trying to build a better future for their children.

[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:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential.

It sounds like you agree that townhomes and other higher-density homes are a good way to create more affordable housing.

I agree that is an excellent way to prevent POC from establishing generational wealth and push them to be permanent renters. It’s great for Hedge funds, but it does not benefit hardworking middle class families trying to build a better future for their children.

You don't think people buy townhomes? Weird.

[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:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential.

Why do you think you need an HOA for townhomes?

There are shared walls, common areas, shared roads. There has to be a legal structure to fund shared liabilities. Anyone who has the slightest bit of knowledge about real estate development or legal considerations involved with townhouses would know this is a completely absurd question. 99%+ of new townhome communities have HOAs or maintenance agreements attached to the property deeds. Most localities will not even issue building permits for a development until you can prove that shared maintenance liabilities are covered by the HOA or property agreements.

HOAs are a way to push common services away from municipalities. So yes, they're very common, regardless of whether you're talking about townhomes or SFHs. But lots of townhomes with HOAs are still the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain.

Did you really not know that?

[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:I find it extremely rich the county rolls out the red carpet for massive amounts of undocumented migration and then complains later on about a 'housing crisis!'. Why exactly should American citizens upend our way of life and our housing we worked extremely hard to own because there are thousands upon thousands of affordable housing units that already exist but are gobbled up by undocumented migrants? You can't manufacture a crisis then demand our citizens ruin their way of life because foreign nationals are here illegally and consuming massive quantities of housing.

How about removing people here illegally first, then evaluating the housing stock once huge quantities are freed up for our actually citizens?

The county continually makes problems and comes up with solutions that make everything worse. Rinse and repeat until we are all equally in the gutter. I'm so glad we are moving at breakneck speed to be a county entirely of renters beholden to our corporate landlords. The only progress progressives are making is hitting the middle class and making us all slaves to landlords and investors.

Our population growth rate now is lower than when a 1960 suburb was built. If we absorbed that, we can absorb today. In fact, we should absorb more, for strategic and economic reasons.

Certainly, in a well planned manner in areas zoned for it.

For example, why are we wasting valuable time fighting about this ridiculous want for upzoning residential when the county could be zoning the Sears complex in White Oak for residential/commercial? Instead of finding a new anchor, they should bulldoze it and build.

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

This was an idyllic post-slavery rural county that greedy developers turned into little SFH enclaves (with racially restrictive covenants). And greedy developers will turn it into something else next.

What is so shocking about that?

If you don't know what is so shocking about the assertion that Montgomery County was "an idyllic post-slavery rural county" until the greedy developers showed up, I certainly won't be able to explain it to you.

Maybe you don't realize that it's critical of nostalgia. Something like 40% of the county was enslaved. This was a rural county run by the landowning (former slaveowning) interests until the suburbs came.

That was 160 years ago and it is completely irrelevant to the discussion about single family zoning today. People from all races and ethnicities live in single family neighborhoods, and this proposal to eliminate single family zoning will disproportionately impact the SF neighborhoods with higher % of POC. Stop trying to use a fallacious social justice oriented argument to support your agenda when this policy will actually worsen racial inequality. This is the opposite of social justice, it is pulling up the ladder and reducing opportunities for POC to create generation wealth for their families.

The county changed thanks to development bringing in more people to the suburbs. At the time the changes started, those developments had racially restrictive covenants, reducing opportunities for POC to create generational wealth for their families.

DP. Even for the ones that didn't have restrictive covenants, which were illegal after 1948, there was a whole collection of laws and programs that enabled white people to buy houses in the suburbs but made it very difficult for black people to do so. This explains why the population of Montgomery County became much more white during the post World War II suburban boom years.

Slight correction, they were unenforceable after '48, but only illegal after the Fair Housing Act in '68. So they did continue to be used.

They have not been enforceable for 76 years. WW2 was 80 years ago. Someone that was prevented from buying a house due to covenants would have to be at least 98 years old. There is almost no one alive today that has experienced this problem in the US. Stop making this discussion about something it is not. The reality is that your policy will have the opposite impact and worsen racial disparities for homeownership
. Most of these units will be rentals because HOAs are not economically efficient for quadplex and triplex units. When a SFH (in a relatively affordable neighborhood) home is replaced with a quadplex, it eliminates ownership opportunities for POC and pushes people towards renting. Even when these units are owner occupied, townhomes and condos appreciate at a much slower rate than SF houses. This policy will increase the gap in homeownership rates and also increase the disparity in home appreciation rates by pushing middle class POC into housing types with less appreciation potential.

Why do you think you need an HOA for townhomes?

There are shared walls, common areas, shared roads. There has to be a legal structure to fund shared liabilities. Anyone who has the slightest bit of knowledge about real estate development or legal considerations involved with townhouses would know this is a completely absurd question. 99%+ of new townhome communities have HOAs or maintenance agreements attached to the property deeds. Most localities will not even issue building permits for a development until you can prove that shared maintenance liabilities are covered by the HOA or property agreements.

HOAs are a way to push common services away from municipalities. So yes, they're very common, regardless of whether you're talking about townhomes or SFHs. But lots of townhomes with HOAs are still the responsibility of the homeowner to maintain.

Did you really not know that?

Don't give me this BS, Do you really think people buying affordable townhome units will be able to afford an unexpected bill for 20k in repairs. Most of these residents will not be able to do that and without a neighbors will be suing each other to pay for shared expenses. You are completely unserious and are trying to destroy middle class households with poorly designed housing policies.