Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[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:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Or more townhome/duplex developments. They want to change the zoning so that SFHs can be torn down to build them but seems like whenever there is an open plot of land up goes another apartment/condo building. The plot near the Forest Glen metro comes to mind here- was a small townhome complex even considered? There seems to be a disconnect between what is being built and what people want.

Why would it make sense to build townhouses next to a Metro station? So that fewer people can live within walking distance of a Metro station, instead of more?

Are families with kids not deserving of living near metro stations too? Not sure why we should only build metro accessible apartments for singles, DINKs, and retirees.

Apartments have 2 and 3 bedroom options.

The thing is, 2-3BR apts next to a metro station tend to be expensive. I doubt that most families who can afford those units view apt living as a long term plan. If you don’t build housing that young families want, they will move elsewhere. I’m not against building more housing, it’s just that a lot of it seems rather thoughtless and developer-driven.

It’s not thoughtless. The main goal of the county’s land use and tax policies is to make development more profitable. That has worked.

Bingo!

[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:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Or more townhome/duplex developments. They want to change the zoning so that SFHs can be torn down to build them but seems like whenever there is an open plot of land up goes another apartment/condo building. The plot near the Forest Glen metro comes to mind here- was a small townhome complex even considered? There seems to be a disconnect between what is being built and what people want.

Why would it make sense to build townhouses next to a Metro station? So that fewer people can live within walking distance of a Metro station, instead of more?

Are families with kids not deserving of living near metro stations too? Not sure why we should only build metro accessible apartments for singles, DINKs, and retirees.

Apartments have 2 and 3 bedroom options.

The thing is, 2-3BR apts next to a metro station tend to be expensive. I doubt that most families who can afford those units view apt living as a long term plan. If you don’t build housing that young families want, they will move elsewhere. I’m not against building more housing, it’s just that a lot of it seems rather thoughtless and developer-driven.

Townhouses next to a Metro station would be even more expensive. Detached houses next to a Metro station would be even even more more expensive.

Which of these options generates the most property tax revenue per sq ft of land?

A tall building with lots of units.

then that's what they should incentivize

[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:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Or more townhome/duplex developments. They want to change the zoning so that SFHs can be torn down to build them but seems like whenever there is an open plot of land up goes another apartment/condo building. The plot near the Forest Glen metro comes to mind here- was a small townhome complex even considered? There seems to be a disconnect between what is being built and what people want.

Why would it make sense to build townhouses next to a Metro station? So that fewer people can live within walking distance of a Metro station, instead of more?

Are families with kids not deserving of living near metro stations too? Not sure why we should only build metro accessible apartments for singles, DINKs, and retirees.

Apartments have 2 and 3 bedroom options.

The thing is, 2-3BR apts next to a metro station tend to be expensive. I doubt that most families who can afford those units view apt living as a long term plan. If you don’t build housing that young families want, they will move elsewhere. I’m not against building more housing, it’s just that a lot of it seems rather thoughtless and developer-driven.

It’s not thoughtless. The main goal of the county’s land use and tax policies is to make development more profitable for the developer at the taxpayer's expense.

Fixed that for you!

[Anonymous]

Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

That would be great! The AMC theater nearest me is not that convenient.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

Great news, thank you for letting us know! I think it's high time we update the zoning that bans everything except uniplexes in most parts of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

Great news, thank you for letting us know! I think it's high time we update the zoning that bans everything except uniplexes in most parts of the county.

Indeed. This is *long* overdue. The housing crisis will continue to get worse unless we dramatically increase the supply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

Great news, thank you for letting us know! I think it's high time we update the zoning that bans everything except uniplexes in most parts of the county.

Indeed. This is *long* overdue. The housing crisis will continue to get worse unless we dramatically increase the supply.

Love the overcrowded schools!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

Great news, thank you for letting us know! I think it's high time we update the zoning that bans everything except uniplexes in most parts of the county.

Indeed. This is *long* overdue. The housing crisis will continue to get worse unless we dramatically increase the supply.

Sure. NYC is the epitome of high density housing and there are no issues there with affordable housing.

As long as Montgomery County continues to build as many housing units as possible (without consideration for schools and infrastructure), the County will be able to solve all its issues!

Keep building!! Yay for developers!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

Great news, thank you for letting us know! I think it's high time we update the zoning that bans everything except uniplexes in most parts of the county.

Indeed. This is *long* overdue. The housing crisis will continue to get worse unless we dramatically increase the supply.

Why do you think it's a lack of supply? I guess flooding the market will devalue existing housing. Seems like housing today is just more expensive relative to income than 30 years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

Great news, thank you for letting us know! I think it's high time we update the zoning that bans everything except uniplexes in most parts of the county.

Indeed. This is *long* overdue. The housing crisis will continue to get worse unless we dramatically increase the supply.

Sure. NYC is the epitome of high density housing and there are no issues there with affordable housing.

As long as Montgomery County continues to build as many housing units as possible (without consideration for schools and infrastructure), the County will be able to solve all its issues!

Keep building!! Yay for developers!

That's because NYC hasn't built enough housing.

This link is from 2018: https://furmancenter.org/thestoop/entry/report-growth-in-nycs-housing-stock-is-outpaced-by-growth-in-adult-populati The report from 2017 found that 64% of housing stock in NYC was built before 1960, and only 8% of housing stock was built after 2000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

Great news, thank you for letting us know! I think it's high time we update the zoning that bans everything except uniplexes in most parts of the county.

Indeed. This is *long* overdue. The housing crisis will continue to get worse unless we dramatically increase the supply.

Why do you think it's a lack of supply? I guess flooding the market will devalue existing housing. Seems like housing today is just more expensive relative to income than 30 years ago.

And why is this so? Because of lack of supply, relative to demand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

Great news, thank you for letting us know! I think it's high time we update the zoning that bans everything except uniplexes in most parts of the county.

Indeed. This is *long* overdue. The housing crisis will continue to get worse unless we dramatically increase the supply.

Love the overcrowded schools!

There’s plenty of schools that are not overcrowded. There might need to be sone redistribution but they will be fine. We are talking about kids with nowhere to live- would you rather they be on the streets? They will perform better in school if they have stable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

Great news, thank you for letting us know! I think it's high time we update the zoning that bans everything except uniplexes in most parts of the county.

Indeed. This is *long* overdue. The housing crisis will continue to get worse unless we dramatically increase the supply.

Why do you think it's a lack of supply? I guess flooding the market will devalue existing housing. Seems like housing today is just more expensive relative to income than 30 years ago.

And why is this so? Because of lack of supply, relative to demand.

Also overpopulation. There are too many people in this earth. Why are families still having 4-5 kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't look now, but Montgomery Planning is holding a hearing today on changes to zoning that would allow multiplexes just about everywhere inside the Beltway (along with other transport corrider areas).

Thread in local politics forum, here:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page

Great news, thank you for letting us know! I think it's high time we update the zoning that bans everything except uniplexes in most parts of the county.

Indeed. This is *long* overdue. The housing crisis will continue to get worse unless we dramatically increase the supply.

Is there anything to address all the existing empty units that landlords are hoarding? That could make an immediate impact but no one seems to be talking about it. I’m fine with upcoming overall but that will have more long term impacts. There are people who need housing now and there is underutilized supply.