MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[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 RT wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

Either you've testified at public hearings about housing policy, in which case you've heard plenty of pro-housing people explain this plenty of times, or you're a person who has a lot of time to post on DCUM, in which case a person might wonder how come you don't have the time to testify at public hearings.

Either you sincerely want to know, in which case you can go educate yourself, or you don't sincerely want to know, in which case feel free to waste your own time.

DP. I've heard a lot of people offer theories of how upzoning causes prices to fall, but it doesn't matter if no one builds. In the case of Montgomery County, there is a lot of approved density that isn't getting built because it doesn't pencil. Upzoning residential areas isn't going to change that and is more likely to suppress very high density construction because those projects will face more competition from lower density projects that are cheaper to build but can get the same price as a very high-density project.

I don't think anyone has said that re-zoning, by itself, will make housing more affordable for more people. Obviously there also has to be building following on the re-zoning.

I will note that there is no "approved density" that isn't getting built. Builders don't build "density". Builders build housing. Now, would zoning changes lead builders to make different decisions about where to build housing? Yes, that's the whole point.

OK. There’s a lot of approved housing that isn’t getting built. You have to make silly semantic arguments because the facts are really bad for your position. The problem isn’t zoning. The problem is developers aren’t building because they think the market in Montgomery County is poor. Anything built here is at a disadvantage to things built in DC and especially NOVA because those places have more jobs, so it’s higher risk.

"Approved housing" isn't fungible. As a matter of fact, your argument supports re-zoning. Builders aren't building approved housing, under the current zoning, because it doesn't pencil out. Assuming we want builders to be building housing (which I do, though you may not), that's a reason to change the zoning, to give builders more options for projects that do pencil out.

Nothing is going to pencil out at scale without more jobs. You think you’re going to get 50 quads to replace the 200-unit high-rise that’s not getting built? YIMBYs in this county have done it a great disservice by promoting jobless urbanism while also supporting policies that are hostile to business.

The builders who can do 200 units are few and far between. Many of them have big investments in CRE or multi-family that are getting crushed, losing many millions of equity in current structures.

However, there are a lot more crappy little builders in this area who can do 2-4 unit flips. That's who give donations of a couple thousand to each Council member to get up-zoning. These guys can't handle a big project like 200 units, but they can toss together a crew and local bank + hard money financing to pump out 4 unit garden apartments.

So yeah, that's the game.

You don’t get market changing housing deliveries without the developers who can deliver 200 units.

The issue with 200+ units is that all the kids there need to go to one school. At least with garden apartment you are spreading the numbers across a bunch of schools/infrastructure.

The County needs to be careful with up-zoning; these ticky-tack flippers will want to pile garden apartments into the same 3-4 neighborhoods inside the Beltway and put even further strain on the same 2 high school pyramids. The County should parcel it out evenly across MoCo, perhaps even by putting limits on a single HS pyramid (e.g., once BCC catchment gets 75 units approved, no more will be approved until every MoCo HS pyramid hits the 75 threshold).

There's a real risk of concentration on infrastructure if the County doesn't do this carefully. Flippers are going to aim for the land with highest return and quickest chance of sale - they move in a herd.

Back to central planning...

The "ticky tacky flippers" are flipping currently, and it's fully allowed currently. In which case, I think they should be allowed to build a building with 2-3-4 units instead of one gargantuan McMansion. It also wouldn't be "garden apartments", it would just be a basic duplex, triplex, or fourplex building.

At least the McMansion doesn’t utterly overwhelm the existing schools. MoCo has a school supply problem at all levels.

Montgomery County also has a housing supply problem, and I think that housing is even more important than schools.

DP. I disagree, in a way.

Housing is more important than schools in the same way that food is more important than housing. Kind of a hierarchy of needs thing.

However, just as the need for housing might eclipse the preference for a particular cuisine or brand of food where other food is available, the need for adequate public facilities such as schools might be more important than the preference for additional housing of a particular type where other housing (hi-rise instead of triplex, townhouse a modest distance away, rental instead of a purchase, etc.) is available.

There's a calculus to it, to be sure, depending on where on the spectrum of need and preference these might fall. There is enough housing stock available and enough properties on which such housing could be built with current zoning that the school overcrowding factor is the more pressing element in many localities, especially closer in, where the policy change is aimed. It also is far less flexible than housing inventory, taking greater lead times to address, and it is directly negatively impacted by the even greater housing inventory envisioned in the upzoning under consideration. The same may well be the case for other essential public services.

Montgomery Planning and the County Council should be taking a more holistic and community/resident-inclusive approach.

People can't live in housing that could be built. The housing has to actually be built in order for people to live in it.

[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 RT wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

Either you've testified at public hearings about housing policy, in which case you've heard plenty of pro-housing people explain this plenty of times, or you're a person who has a lot of time to post on DCUM, in which case a person might wonder how come you don't have the time to testify at public hearings.

Either you sincerely want to know, in which case you can go educate yourself, or you don't sincerely want to know, in which case feel free to waste your own time.

DP. I've heard a lot of people offer theories of how upzoning causes prices to fall, but it doesn't matter if no one builds. In the case of Montgomery County, there is a lot of approved density that isn't getting built because it doesn't pencil. Upzoning residential areas isn't going to change that and is more likely to suppress very high density construction because those projects will face more competition from lower density projects that are cheaper to build but can get the same price as a very high-density project.

I don't think anyone has said that re-zoning, by itself, will make housing more affordable for more people. Obviously there also has to be building following on the re-zoning.

I will note that there is no "approved density" that isn't getting built. Builders don't build "density". Builders build housing. Now, would zoning changes lead builders to make different decisions about where to build housing? Yes, that's the whole point.

OK. There’s a lot of approved housing that isn’t getting built. You have to make silly semantic arguments because the facts are really bad for your position. The problem isn’t zoning. The problem is developers aren’t building because they think the market in Montgomery County is poor. Anything built here is at a disadvantage to things built in DC and especially NOVA because those places have more jobs, so it’s higher risk.

"Approved housing" isn't fungible. As a matter of fact, your argument supports re-zoning. Builders aren't building approved housing, under the current zoning, because it doesn't pencil out. Assuming we want builders to be building housing (which I do, though you may not), that's a reason to change the zoning, to give builders more options for projects that do pencil out.

Nothing is going to pencil out at scale without more jobs. You think you’re going to get 50 quads to replace the 200-unit high-rise that’s not getting built? YIMBYs in this county have done it a great disservice by promoting jobless urbanism while also supporting policies that are hostile to business.

The builders who can do 200 units are few and far between. Many of them have big investments in CRE or multi-family that are getting crushed, losing many millions of equity in current structures.

However, there are a lot more crappy little builders in this area who can do 2-4 unit flips. That's who give donations of a couple thousand to each Council member to get up-zoning. These guys can't handle a big project like 200 units, but they can toss together a crew and local bank + hard money financing to pump out 4 unit garden apartments.

So yeah, that's the game.

You don’t get market changing housing deliveries without the developers who can deliver 200 units.

The issue with 200+ units is that all the kids there need to go to one school. At least with garden apartment you are spreading the numbers across a bunch of schools/infrastructure.

The County needs to be careful with up-zoning; these ticky-tack flippers will want to pile garden apartments into the same 3-4 neighborhoods inside the Beltway and put even further strain on the same 2 high school pyramids. The County should parcel it out evenly across MoCo, perhaps even by putting limits on a single HS pyramid (e.g., once BCC catchment gets 75 units approved, no more will be approved until every MoCo HS pyramid hits the 75 threshold).

There's a real risk of concentration on infrastructure if the County doesn't do this carefully. Flippers are going to aim for the land with highest return and quickest chance of sale - they move in a herd.

Back to central planning...

The "ticky tacky flippers" are flipping currently, and it's fully allowed currently. In which case, I think they should be allowed to build a building with 2-3-4 units instead of one gargantuan McMansion. It also wouldn't be "garden apartments", it would just be a basic duplex, triplex, or fourplex building.

At least the McMansion doesn’t utterly overwhelm the existing schools. MoCo has a school supply problem at all levels.

Montgomery County also has a housing supply problem, and I think that housing is even more important than schools.

DP. I disagree, in a way.

Housing is more important than schools in the same way that food is more important than housing. Kind of a hierarchy of needs thing.

However, just as the need for housing might eclipse the preference for a particular cuisine or brand of food where other food is available, the need for adequate public facilities such as schools might be more important than the preference for additional housing of a particular type where other housing (hi-rise instead of triplex, townhouse a modest distance away, rental instead of a purchase, etc.) is available.

There's a calculus to it, to be sure, depending on where on the spectrum of need and preference these might fall. There is enough housing stock available and enough properties on which such housing could be built with current zoning that the school overcrowding factor is the more pressing element in many localities, especially closer in, where the policy change is aimed. It also is far less flexible than housing inventory, taking greater lead times to address, and it is directly negatively impacted by the even greater housing inventory envisioned in the upzoning under consideration. The same may well be the case for other essential public services.

Montgomery Planning and the County Council should be taking a more holistic and community/resident-inclusive approach.

People can't live in housing that could be built. The housing has to actually be built in order for people to live in it.

So you are saying that the county should build as many houses as possible without any consideration for the capacity to handle new residents? That is not a sustainable way to run a county and it will lead to financial disaster. There needs to be some balance. Build everything and anything is not the answer. Build nothing is not a good solution either.

[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 RT wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

Either you've testified at public hearings about housing policy, in which case you've heard plenty of pro-housing people explain this plenty of times, or you're a person who has a lot of time to post on DCUM, in which case a person might wonder how come you don't have the time to testify at public hearings.

Either you sincerely want to know, in which case you can go educate yourself, or you don't sincerely want to know, in which case feel free to waste your own time.

DP. I've heard a lot of people offer theories of how upzoning causes prices to fall, but it doesn't matter if no one builds. In the case of Montgomery County, there is a lot of approved density that isn't getting built because it doesn't pencil. Upzoning residential areas isn't going to change that and is more likely to suppress very high density construction because those projects will face more competition from lower density projects that are cheaper to build but can get the same price as a very high-density project.

I don't think anyone has said that re-zoning, by itself, will make housing more affordable for more people. Obviously there also has to be building following on the re-zoning.

I will note that there is no "approved density" that isn't getting built. Builders don't build "density". Builders build housing. Now, would zoning changes lead builders to make different decisions about where to build housing? Yes, that's the whole point.

OK. There’s a lot of approved housing that isn’t getting built. You have to make silly semantic arguments because the facts are really bad for your position. The problem isn’t zoning. The problem is developers aren’t building because they think the market in Montgomery County is poor. Anything built here is at a disadvantage to things built in DC and especially NOVA because those places have more jobs, so it’s higher risk.

"Approved housing" isn't fungible. As a matter of fact, your argument supports re-zoning. Builders aren't building approved housing, under the current zoning, because it doesn't pencil out. Assuming we want builders to be building housing (which I do, though you may not), that's a reason to change the zoning, to give builders more options for projects that do pencil out.

Nothing is going to pencil out at scale without more jobs. You think you’re going to get 50 quads to replace the 200-unit high-rise that’s not getting built? YIMBYs in this county have done it a great disservice by promoting jobless urbanism while also supporting policies that are hostile to business.

The builders who can do 200 units are few and far between. Many of them have big investments in CRE or multi-family that are getting crushed, losing many millions of equity in current structures.

However, there are a lot more crappy little builders in this area who can do 2-4 unit flips. That's who give donations of a couple thousand to each Council member to get up-zoning. These guys can't handle a big project like 200 units, but they can toss together a crew and local bank + hard money financing to pump out 4 unit garden apartments.

So yeah, that's the game.

You don’t get market changing housing deliveries without the developers who can deliver 200 units.

The issue with 200+ units is that all the kids there need to go to one school. At least with garden apartment you are spreading the numbers across a bunch of schools/infrastructure.

The County needs to be careful with up-zoning; these ticky-tack flippers will want to pile garden apartments into the same 3-4 neighborhoods inside the Beltway and put even further strain on the same 2 high school pyramids. The County should parcel it out evenly across MoCo, perhaps even by putting limits on a single HS pyramid (e.g., once BCC catchment gets 75 units approved, no more will be approved until every MoCo HS pyramid hits the 75 threshold).

There's a real risk of concentration on infrastructure if the County doesn't do this carefully. Flippers are going to aim for the land with highest return and quickest chance of sale - they move in a herd.

Back to central planning...

The "ticky tacky flippers" are flipping currently, and it's fully allowed currently. In which case, I think they should be allowed to build a building with 2-3-4 units instead of one gargantuan McMansion. It also wouldn't be "garden apartments", it would just be a basic duplex, triplex, or fourplex building.

At least the McMansion doesn’t utterly overwhelm the existing schools. MoCo has a school supply problem at all levels.

Montgomery County also has a housing supply problem, and I think that housing is even more important than schools.

DP. I disagree, in a way.

Housing is more important than schools in the same way that food is more important than housing. Kind of a hierarchy of needs thing.

However, just as the need for housing might eclipse the preference for a particular cuisine or brand of food where other food is available, the need for adequate public facilities such as schools might be more important than the preference for additional housing of a particular type where other housing (hi-rise instead of triplex, townhouse a modest distance away, rental instead of a purchase, etc.) is available.

There's a calculus to it, to be sure, depending on where on the spectrum of need and preference these might fall. There is enough housing stock available and enough properties on which such housing could be built with current zoning that the school overcrowding factor is the more pressing element in many localities, especially closer in, where the policy change is aimed. It also is far less flexible than housing inventory, taking greater lead times to address, and it is directly negatively impacted by the even greater housing inventory envisioned in the upzoning under consideration. The same may well be the case for other essential public services.

Montgomery Planning and the County Council should be taking a more holistic and community/resident-inclusive approach.

People can't live in housing that could be built. The housing has to actually be built in order for people to live in it.

So you are saying that the county should build as many houses as possible without any consideration for the capacity to handle new residents? That is not a sustainable way to run a county and it will lead to financial disaster. There needs to be some balance. Build everything and anything is not the answer. Build nothing is not a good solution either.

No, nobody is saying that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

more people have homes

Not really. Upzoning just means more housing for childless adults and a lot less housing for people with kids, and a whole lot less housing for larger families. What's the point of pushing out people with multiple kids? That seems like a stupid goal.

Even If upzoned units dont fit families (which they can) then those individuals are not competing with families for other units: more people have homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

more people have homes

Not really. Upzoning just means more housing for childless adults and a lot less housing for people with kids, and a whole lot less housing for larger families. What's the point of pushing out people with multiple kids? That seems like a stupid goal.

Even If upzoned units dont fit families (which they can) then those individuals are not competing with families for other units: more people have homes.

So you want property taxes for to go up? This will not help with promoting affordable housing. Higher property taxes will increase the monthly cost to own a home and raise rents. Each quadplex will create about 2 new students and the property tax revenue from a quadplex might not even cover the cost of providing schooling for these kids. Then the county still needs to spend another 30k+ a year to pay for everything else with these quadplex residents. None of this 30k is covered by property taxes; the sales taxes and income taxes will not come over the rest of it.

[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:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

more people have homes

Not really. Upzoning just means more housing for childless adults and a lot less housing for people with kids, and a whole lot less housing for larger families. What's the point of pushing out people with multiple kids? That seems like a stupid goal.

Even If upzoned units dont fit families (which they can) then those individuals are not competing with families for other units: more people have homes.

So you want property taxes for to go up? This will not help with promoting affordable housing. Higher property taxes will increase the monthly cost to own a home and raise rents. Each quadplex will create about 2 new students and the property tax revenue from a quadplex might not even cover the cost of providing schooling for these kids. Then the county still needs to spend another 30k+ a year to pay for everything else with these quadplex residents. None of this 30k is covered by property taxes; the sales taxes and income taxes will not come over the rest of it.

And opponents of NIMBYs say that NIMBYs are unfriendly to families. Yeesh.

[Anonymous]

^^^DAMMIT I MEANT YIMBYs.

Off to have more coffee.

[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:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

I predict the opposite. A decline in the tax base. Owners of SFHs tend to be richer, and they pay the bulk of the income taxes. People who buy SFHs want a neighborhood of SFHs. DMV has plenty of options, and with remote work many of those who want a SFH will simply move. I fully expect MoCo will lose upper income taxpayers. Note that roughly 50% of MoCo residents pay no income taxes. MoCo as with CA and NY are heavily reliant not only on upper income taxpayers but top 5%. They have options and more so today with remote work.

You'll get more tax revenue from upzoned land than from R-60 or R-90.

The folks buying into a 3-4 unit building are not likely to be paying much in income taxes. They easily could be costing the County money, particularly if they have children. The owner of that former SFH likely pays income taxes, as that owner is likely in income bracket. Perhaps, property taxes from that 3-4 unit building are higher than from the former SFH, but I doubt the County makes a profit from those higher property taxes given the increased services that need to be provided.

Density also means less linear feet of county roads, utilities, etc needed.

Yes that is true, but around 85% of the MOCO's operating budget is attributable to expenses that largely scale with population size. Only around 15% of the county's operating budget is due to things like (bond servicing and transportation, etc) where expenses might see significant economies of scale. If quadplex residents are half as costly for this portion of county expenditures that only saves MOCO around $474 per quadplex resident each year. The hypothetical cost savings (directly attributable to MOCO) from these efficiencies would mean that the quadplex costs the county $65,490 each year(rather than 70,646 in the previous example). In the most optimistic scenario, the property tax revenue from a quadplex ($28,750-32,000) will fall short by $33,000. Property taxes only cover around half of the expenses from the new quadplex residents. Income and sales taxes will not fully cover the rest and the county will lose money on overage for each additional plex unit.

I agree with you. I see the continuing effort to attract new residents as a simple Ponzi scheme.

[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:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

I predict the opposite. A decline in the tax base. Owners of SFHs tend to be richer, and they pay the bulk of the income taxes. People who buy SFHs want a neighborhood of SFHs. DMV has plenty of options, and with remote work many of those who want a SFH will simply move. I fully expect MoCo will lose upper income taxpayers. Note that roughly 50% of MoCo residents pay no income taxes. MoCo as with CA and NY are heavily reliant not only on upper income taxpayers but top 5%. They have options and more so today with remote work.

You'll get more tax revenue from upzoned land than from R-60 or R-90.

The folks buying into a 3-4 unit building are not likely to be paying much in income taxes. They easily could be costing the County money, particularly if they have children. The owner of that former SFH likely pays income taxes, as that owner is likely in income bracket. Perhaps, property taxes from that 3-4 unit building are higher than from the former SFH, but I doubt the County makes a profit from those higher property taxes given the increased services that need to be provided.

Density also means less linear feet of county roads, utilities, etc needed.

Yes that is true, but around 85% of the MOCO's operating budget is attributable to expenses that largely scale with population size. Only around 15% of the county's operating budget is due to things like (bond servicing and transportation, etc) where expenses might see significant economies of scale. If quadplex residents are half as costly for this portion of county expenditures that only saves MOCO around $474 per quadplex resident each year. The hypothetical cost savings (directly attributable to MOCO) from these efficiencies would mean that the quadplex costs the county $65,490 each year(rather than 70,646 in the previous example). In the most optimistic scenario, the property tax revenue from a quadplex ($28,750-32,000) will fall short by $33,000. Property taxes only cover around half of the expenses from the new quadplex residents. Income and sales taxes will not fully cover the rest and the county will lose money on overage for each additional plex unit.

I agree with you. I see the continuing effort to attract new residents as a simple Ponzi scheme.

Please start attending public hearings to express your opinion that Montgomery County should adopt policies to prevent its population from increasing.

[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:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

more people have homes

Not really. Upzoning just means more housing for childless adults and a lot less housing for people with kids, and a whole lot less housing for larger families. What's the point of pushing out people with multiple kids? That seems like a stupid goal.

Even If upzoned units dont fit families (which they can) then those individuals are not competing with families for other units: more people have homes.

So you want property taxes for to go up? This will not help with promoting affordable housing. Higher property taxes will increase the monthly cost to own a home and raise rents. Each quadplex will create about 2 new students and the property tax revenue from a quadplex might not even cover the cost of providing schooling for these kids. Then the county still needs to spend another 30k+ a year to pay for everything else with these quadplex residents. None of this 30k is covered by property taxes; the sales taxes and income taxes will not come over the rest of it.

Are you the same guy telling me upzoned units will be for childless adults? But now we have more kids in the county thanks to upzoning? I'm not worried we will be able to have more population and kids in our county.

[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:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

I predict the opposite. A decline in the tax base. Owners of SFHs tend to be richer, and they pay the bulk of the income taxes. People who buy SFHs want a neighborhood of SFHs. DMV has plenty of options, and with remote work many of those who want a SFH will simply move. I fully expect MoCo will lose upper income taxpayers. Note that roughly 50% of MoCo residents pay no income taxes. MoCo as with CA and NY are heavily reliant not only on upper income taxpayers but top 5%. They have options and more so today with remote work.

You'll get more tax revenue from upzoned land than from R-60 or R-90.

The folks buying into a 3-4 unit building are not likely to be paying much in income taxes. They easily could be costing the County money, particularly if they have children. The owner of that former SFH likely pays income taxes, as that owner is likely in income bracket. Perhaps, property taxes from that 3-4 unit building are higher than from the former SFH, but I doubt the County makes a profit from those higher property taxes given the increased services that need to be provided.

Density also means less linear feet of county roads, utilities, etc needed.

Yes that is true, but around 85% of the MOCO's operating budget is attributable to expenses that largely scale with population size. Only around 15% of the county's operating budget is due to things like (bond servicing and transportation, etc) where expenses might see significant economies of scale. If quadplex residents are half as costly for this portion of county expenditures that only saves MOCO around $474 per quadplex resident each year. The hypothetical cost savings (directly attributable to MOCO) from these efficiencies would mean that the quadplex costs the county $65,490 each year(rather than 70,646 in the previous example). In the most optimistic scenario, the property tax revenue from a quadplex ($28,750-32,000) will fall short by $33,000. Property taxes only cover around half of the expenses from the new quadplex residents. Income and sales taxes will not fully cover the rest and the county will lose money on overage for each additional plex unit.

I agree with you. I see the continuing effort to attract new residents as a simple Ponzi scheme.

Who knew I was just a scam victim for just moving to this county (twice! Once as kid and once as an adult).

[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:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

I predict the opposite. A decline in the tax base. Owners of SFHs tend to be richer, and they pay the bulk of the income taxes. People who buy SFHs want a neighborhood of SFHs. DMV has plenty of options, and with remote work many of those who want a SFH will simply move. I fully expect MoCo will lose upper income taxpayers. Note that roughly 50% of MoCo residents pay no income taxes. MoCo as with CA and NY are heavily reliant not only on upper income taxpayers but top 5%. They have options and more so today with remote work.

You'll get more tax revenue from upzoned land than from R-60 or R-90.

The folks buying into a 3-4 unit building are not likely to be paying much in income taxes. They easily could be costing the County money, particularly if they have children. The owner of that former SFH likely pays income taxes, as that owner is likely in income bracket. Perhaps, property taxes from that 3-4 unit building are higher than from the former SFH, but I doubt the County makes a profit from those higher property taxes given the increased services that need to be provided.

Density also means less linear feet of county roads, utilities, etc needed.

Yes that is true, but around 85% of the MOCO's operating budget is attributable to expenses that largely scale with population size. Only around 15% of the county's operating budget is due to things like (bond servicing and transportation, etc) where expenses might see significant economies of scale. If quadplex residents are half as costly for this portion of county expenditures that only saves MOCO around $474 per quadplex resident each year. The hypothetical cost savings (directly attributable to MOCO) from these efficiencies would mean that the quadplex costs the county $65,490 each year(rather than 70,646 in the previous example). In the most optimistic scenario, the property tax revenue from a quadplex ($28,750-32,000) will fall short by $33,000. Property taxes only cover around half of the expenses from the new quadplex residents. Income and sales taxes will not fully cover the rest and the county will lose money on overage for each additional plex unit.

I agree with you. I see the continuing effort to attract new residents as a simple Ponzi scheme.

Worse. The County seemingly is focused on attracting families that actually will cost the County money in that whatever taxes they pay will not cover the cost of the services being provided to them. The County needs more rich people; it does not need to drive them away, which is one outcome of upzoning. Most rich people, even those with children, will be a net gain to the County.

[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:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

I predict the opposite. A decline in the tax base. Owners of SFHs tend to be richer, and they pay the bulk of the income taxes. People who buy SFHs want a neighborhood of SFHs. DMV has plenty of options, and with remote work many of those who want a SFH will simply move. I fully expect MoCo will lose upper income taxpayers. Note that roughly 50% of MoCo residents pay no income taxes. MoCo as with CA and NY are heavily reliant not only on upper income taxpayers but top 5%. They have options and more so today with remote work.

You'll get more tax revenue from upzoned land than from R-60 or R-90.

The folks buying into a 3-4 unit building are not likely to be paying much in income taxes. They easily could be costing the County money, particularly if they have children. The owner of that former SFH likely pays income taxes, as that owner is likely in income bracket. Perhaps, property taxes from that 3-4 unit building are higher than from the former SFH, but I doubt the County makes a profit from those higher property taxes given the increased services that need to be provided.

Density also means less linear feet of county roads, utilities, etc needed.

Yes that is true, but around 85% of the MOCO's operating budget is attributable to expenses that largely scale with population size. Only around 15% of the county's operating budget is due to things like (bond servicing and transportation, etc) where expenses might see significant economies of scale. If quadplex residents are half as costly for this portion of county expenditures that only saves MOCO around $474 per quadplex resident each year. The hypothetical cost savings (directly attributable to MOCO) from these efficiencies would mean that the quadplex costs the county $65,490 each year(rather than 70,646 in the previous example). In the most optimistic scenario, the property tax revenue from a quadplex ($28,750-32,000) will fall short by $33,000. Property taxes only cover around half of the expenses from the new quadplex residents. Income and sales taxes will not fully cover the rest and the county will lose money on overage for each additional plex unit.

I agree with you. I see the continuing effort to attract new residents as a simple Ponzi scheme.

Worse. The County seemingly is focused on attracting families that actually will cost the County money in that whatever taxes they pay will not cover the cost of the services being provided to them. The County needs more rich people; it does not need to drive them away, which is one outcome of upzoning. Most rich people, even those with children, will be a net gain to the County.

Please start attending public hearings to express your opinion that Montgomery County should adopt policies to attract rich people and drive away non-rich people.

[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:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

I predict the opposite. A decline in the tax base. Owners of SFHs tend to be richer, and they pay the bulk of the income taxes. People who buy SFHs want a neighborhood of SFHs. DMV has plenty of options, and with remote work many of those who want a SFH will simply move. I fully expect MoCo will lose upper income taxpayers. Note that roughly 50% of MoCo residents pay no income taxes. MoCo as with CA and NY are heavily reliant not only on upper income taxpayers but top 5%. They have options and more so today with remote work.

You'll get more tax revenue from upzoned land than from R-60 or R-90.

The folks buying into a 3-4 unit building are not likely to be paying much in income taxes. They easily could be costing the County money, particularly if they have children. The owner of that former SFH likely pays income taxes, as that owner is likely in income bracket. Perhaps, property taxes from that 3-4 unit building are higher than from the former SFH, but I doubt the County makes a profit from those higher property taxes given the increased services that need to be provided.

Density also means less linear feet of county roads, utilities, etc needed.

Yes that is true, but around 85% of the MOCO's operating budget is attributable to expenses that largely scale with population size. Only around 15% of the county's operating budget is due to things like (bond servicing and transportation, etc) where expenses might see significant economies of scale. If quadplex residents are half as costly for this portion of county expenditures that only saves MOCO around $474 per quadplex resident each year. The hypothetical cost savings (directly attributable to MOCO) from these efficiencies would mean that the quadplex costs the county $65,490 each year(rather than 70,646 in the previous example). In the most optimistic scenario, the property tax revenue from a quadplex ($28,750-32,000) will fall short by $33,000. Property taxes only cover around half of the expenses from the new quadplex residents. Income and sales taxes will not fully cover the rest and the county will lose money on overage for each additional plex unit.

I agree with you. I see the continuing effort to attract new residents as a simple Ponzi scheme.

Please start attending public hearings to express your opinion that Montgomery County should adopt policies to prevent its population from increasing.

Why, is this another veiled threat? Part of the YIMBY bullying policy?

The current efforts are suboptimal. There could be other efforts that would be more optimal, maybe ones that go back to attracting wealth to the area.

[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:Condos mean more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants. Which means more people want to live there. Which drives up the prices of those condos. Which drives up the prices of houses developers need to buy and tear down in order to build more condos. Which means even more people in a given area. Which means more bars and restaurants, which means more people want to live there, which drives up the prices even further.

People understood intuitively before we changed the term “gentrification” to “upzoning.”

There isn’t a coherent explanation of how changing zoning laws reduce housing prices. Typically the opposite happens — prices go up, by a lot.

There is, and it's based on supply and demand. Just like "gentrification" and "upzoning" are different things, so "there is no explanation" and "I don't like the explanation" are different things, too.

So what’s the explanation?

https://googlethatforyou.com?q=housing%20zoning%20supply%20demand

‘If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.’ —Albert Einstein

Very weird that no one can explain how upzoning reduces housing prices

If upzoning doesn’t reduce housing prices, then what is the point of upzoning?

DP. Upzoning is good because the market will redevelop some land into denser housing where it makes sense for the developer. That will lead to growth, which will grow the tax base as well provided that the council doesn’t decide to subsidize the developers.

I predict the opposite. A decline in the tax base. Owners of SFHs tend to be richer, and they pay the bulk of the income taxes. People who buy SFHs want a neighborhood of SFHs. DMV has plenty of options, and with remote work many of those who want a SFH will simply move. I fully expect MoCo will lose upper income taxpayers. Note that roughly 50% of MoCo residents pay no income taxes. MoCo as with CA and NY are heavily reliant not only on upper income taxpayers but top 5%. They have options and more so today with remote work.

You'll get more tax revenue from upzoned land than from R-60 or R-90.

The folks buying into a 3-4 unit building are not likely to be paying much in income taxes. They easily could be costing the County money, particularly if they have children. The owner of that former SFH likely pays income taxes, as that owner is likely in income bracket. Perhaps, property taxes from that 3-4 unit building are higher than from the former SFH, but I doubt the County makes a profit from those higher property taxes given the increased services that need to be provided.

Density also means less linear feet of county roads, utilities, etc needed.

Yes that is true, but around 85% of the MOCO's operating budget is attributable to expenses that largely scale with population size. Only around 15% of the county's operating budget is due to things like (bond servicing and transportation, etc) where expenses might see significant economies of scale. If quadplex residents are half as costly for this portion of county expenditures that only saves MOCO around $474 per quadplex resident each year. The hypothetical cost savings (directly attributable to MOCO) from these efficiencies would mean that the quadplex costs the county $65,490 each year(rather than 70,646 in the previous example). In the most optimistic scenario, the property tax revenue from a quadplex ($28,750-32,000) will fall short by $33,000. Property taxes only cover around half of the expenses from the new quadplex residents. Income and sales taxes will not fully cover the rest and the county will lose money on overage for each additional plex unit.

I agree with you. I see the continuing effort to attract new residents as a simple Ponzi scheme.

Please start attending public hearings to express your opinion that Montgomery County should adopt policies to prevent its population from increasing.

Why, is this another veiled threat? Part of the YIMBY bullying policy?

The current efforts are suboptimal. There could be other efforts that would be more optimal, maybe ones that go back to attracting wealth to the area.

How could it be a threat, veiled or open? It's an invitation for you to participate in the public process and speak your mind publicly, if you are not already doing that.