MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

It has nothing to do with race or class and everything to do with density. Many areas cannot accommodate quadruple the population density and this policy does nothing to mitigate the costs imposed on residents or the county. They are even encouraging waivers of property taxes for these new plex units which will destroy the counties already strained finances. They are actively encouraging unfunded population growth and ignoring any possible consequences or infrastructure constraints that will harm county residents.

They are not ignoring it.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Yes they are ignoring it. Their only response is that these things will have “minimal impact”, so don’t worry about it. They didn’t include anything in their final report to suggest that they did a thorough analysis on impacts to school enrollment or traffic. A question and answer page where they dismiss resident concerns without any evidence or analysis to support their assertions is complete bs.

Because this is how they roll. It’s how they got the Downtown Bethesda Plan approved and it’s appalling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

It has nothing to do with race or class and everything to do with density. Many areas cannot accommodate quadruple the population density and this policy does nothing to mitigate the costs imposed on residents or the county. They are even encouraging waivers of property taxes for these new plex units which will destroy the counties already strained finances. They are actively encouraging unfunded population growth and ignoring any possible consequences or infrastructure constraints that will harm county residents.

They are not ignoring it.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/

Yes they are ignoring it. Their only response is that these things will have “minimal impact”, so don’t worry about it. They didn’t include anything in their final report to suggest that they did a thorough analysis on impacts to school enrollment or traffic. A question and answer page where they dismiss resident concerns without any evidence or analysis to support their assertions is complete bs.

It is because their answer is the Growth and Infrastructure policy, which they reference. The analysis is, and always has been, conducted at the time of development application.
"Mitigation comes in the form of Utilization Premium Payments (UPPs) that vary based on the School Impact Area, the type of development, the degree of projected overutilization, and the
estimated number of students to be generated by the development. The payments are in addition to the school impact tax, which developers must pay on new residential units regardless of the adequacy status of the schools serving the proposed project area. School impact taxes help pay for new construction or classroom additions to school facilities countywide. The tax rates are determined by School Impact Area and residential unit type (single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family low-rise, or multi-family high-rise) classifications."
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attachment-1-2024-GIP-Update-Public-Hearing-Draft_5-23-24.pdf

Yes , I have read the policy and you are being blatantly dishonest.

This report actually proposes reducing or eliminating the impact payments you are pointing mention that would help to mitigate school capacity and funding issues.
It proposes the following changes that will apply to many of these plex units
1) introduce a 50% discount for units under 1500sq feet (planning is recommending a maximum average unit size of 1500 sq feet for attainable housing development)
2)Any development with 25% of more MPDUs
Furthermore, the county already provides for the following
3)exemption for all MPDUs.
4)all developments located in opportunity zones
So this impact payment will not apply to most of these units and even when it does it will be a pittance in comparison to the actual cost per student to build new school facilities. Then county is also talking about 10+ property tax discounts to incentivize these new units. So there will be a completely inadequate impact payment structure for these units, because many if not most of the plex units will be exempt. They the county also wants worsen school funding issues defund by providing up to a 75% discount on annual property taxes for a decade or more. This policy is not beneficial for MOCO and YIMBYS are gaslighting county residents. The discounted impact payments and reduction in property taxes proposed eliminate any possibility that the county will be able to prevent this zoning change from harming our school system. Anyone who is a remotely reasonable person can see this.

The waiver of fees for MPDUs is wrong because the MPDUs are attracting higher need kids, straining already strained schools and police resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

You are ridiculous. This initiative will disproportionately harm middle class minority communities that live in single family homes because of lower average land prices in their neighborhoods. Don’t give me this moralistic BS because these progressive policies you are pushing actually harm the very people you claim to support while screeching “racism” and “equity” to everyone else. There is a very significant middle class Black and Hispanic population in MOCO and this policy will disproportionately destroy the wealth and communities that they worked hard to build. Rich white neighborhood’s are the most likely to have HOAs and/covenants. Even if they don’t have either of those the property prices in their neighborhood are likely high enough that it is more profitable for developers to build a multimillion dollar SFH on an existing lot than a plex unit. This policy will benefit wealthy developers while making racial inequality worse and disproportionately harming middle class minority households. This policy does not promote “equity” and it is a handout to developers/real estate lobby disguised as a social justice initiative.

Boom. Do not forget all the senior citizens living in the small 1500 sq ft homes throughout Bethesda and Silver Spring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I did not say taxes…I said expenses. It is more expensive to buy or rent in DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

You are ridiculous. This initiative will disproportionately harm middle class minority communities that live in single family homes because of lower average land prices in their neighborhoods. Don’t give me this moralistic BS because these progressive policies you are pushing actually harm the very people you claim to support while screeching “racism” and “equity” to everyone else. There is a very significant middle class Black and Hispanic population in MOCO and this policy will disproportionately destroy the wealth and communities that they worked hard to build. Rich white neighborhood’s are the most likely to have HOAs and/covenants. Even if they don’t have either of those the property prices in their neighborhood are likely high enough that it is more profitable for developers to build a multimillion dollar SFH on an existing lot than a plex unit. This policy will benefit wealthy developers while making racial inequality worse and disproportionately harming middle class minority households. This policy does not promote “equity” and it is a handout to developers/real estate lobby disguised as a social justice initiative.

Boom. Do not forget all the senior citizens living in the small 1500 sq ft homes throughout Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Yes, and all the senior citizens that will be priced out of the affordable smaller homes to due to increasing property taxes from this zoning change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

You are ridiculous. This initiative will disproportionately harm middle class minority communities that live in single family homes because of lower average land prices in their neighborhoods. Don’t give me this moralistic BS because these progressive policies you are pushing actually harm the very people you claim to support while screeching “racism” and “equity” to everyone else. There is a very significant middle class Black and Hispanic population in MOCO and this policy will disproportionately destroy the wealth and communities that they worked hard to build. Rich white neighborhood’s are the most likely to have HOAs and/covenants. Even if they don’t have either of those the property prices in their neighborhood are likely high enough that it is more profitable for developers to build a multimillion dollar SFH on an existing lot than a plex unit. This policy will benefit wealthy developers while making racial inequality worse and disproportionately harming middle class minority households. This policy does not promote “equity” and it is a handout to developers/real estate lobby disguised as a social justice initiative.

Boom. Do not forget all the senior citizens living in the small 1500 sq ft homes throughout Bethesda and Silver Spring.

Yes, and all the senior citizens that will be priced out of the affordable smaller homes to due to increasing property taxes from this zoning change.

Yes, sadly, this has been happening for a while now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

I did not say taxes…I said expenses. It is more expensive to buy or rent in DC.

Not compared to CC, MD or Bethesda, MD.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

yes they can only ban new covenants and would have to go to court to try and retroactively invalidate covenants that already exists. as you mention, you can use race or other illegal items in the covenants but covenants on how the neighborhood looks and feels is legal. its no different than an HOA in many cases.

neighborhoods have bethesda have long existing architectural covenants about how the houses look, no tear downs...etc which has been legal for decades. I suspect every impacted neighborhood will have one before this goes into effect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

because rich people are the boogeyman and they want to create equity. Bring down to a single common denominator..just like MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

because rich people are the boogeyman and they want to create equity. Bring down to a single common denominator..just like MCPS.

it is about equity. The council wants the last bastion of MCPS highly ranked schools to get destroyed so somehow the county is now equitable. something about a mostly white enclave in southern part of the county and close to VA irks them really bad. Especially the western part when they have a much harder time to implement their nonsense b/c it borders VA.

when this attainable housing passes(and it will pass), and they see very little of these alternative homes being built(due to cost, covenants and other push back), it will be time for mandates and much higher taxes in the W cluster. The county is already wants to set tax rates locally from the state.

if its left to the county council, Moco taxes will rival northern NJ and westchester NY. but it will all be in the name of equity...

[Anonymous]

You seem fixated on equity. Feeling guilty?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You seem fixated on equity. Feeling guilty?

no the county council is fixated on equity. ask them why....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You seem fixated on equity. Feeling guilty?

no the county council is fixated on equity. ask them why....

yep, they are mandated to submit a racial equity and social justice impact statement for every initiative

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

because rich people are the boogeyman and they want to create equity. Bring down to a single common denominator..just like MCPS.

it is about equity. The council wants the last bastion of MCPS highly ranked schools to get destroyed so somehow the county is now equitable. something about a mostly white enclave in southern part of the county and close to VA irks them really bad. Especially the western part when they have a much harder time to implement their nonsense b/c it borders VA.

when this attainable housing passes(and it will pass), and they see very little of these alternative homes being built(due to cost, covenants and other push back), it will be time for mandates and much higher taxes in the W cluster. The county is already wants to set tax rates locally from the state.

if its left to the county council, Moco taxes will rival northern NJ and westchester NY. but it will all be in the name of equity...

This is painful to read. We love our community and are afraid this will happen. Really pondering a move.

All these neighborhoods contribute to the County cofers and it feels like a systematic mission to destroy them. Security, School, now Housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

There would be no requirement for MPDUs, much less Section 8, for the multiplexes. For the 19-unit stacked flat apartments, they would merely need to build at an max average of 1500 square feet per unit. For those not following closely, that's a rather large apartment size, especially considering devlopers could build something like 7 1100 sf one bedrooms, 8 1500 sf two bedrooms and 4 2200 sf three bedrooms to achieve the 1500 sf average. These wouldn't represent anything of lower cost versus existing apartment structures, and the larger units might go for more than similarly sized existing sfhs they replace that had been at least moderately "attainable."

With the way things are going nationally, these almost certainly would simply be built as high-priced rentals, especially given the tax advantages to the typical conglomerate owners of rental vs. sale that have, in part, driven that shift towards more rental housing stock.