MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

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

What is so shocking about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't think people buy townhomes? Weird.

They do not appreciate as much as single family homes. Eliminating single family homes and replacing them with townhomes (in predominately POC neighborhoods) will make the racial disparities in home ownership by home type worse. So the net effect is that white housing wealth will appreciate even faster than POC housing wealth if policies worsen existing disparities. This is even more problematic with condos because they tend to lose value after adjusting for inflation. Owning a condo often leaves people worse off financially than no owning at all. So go ahead with this policy if you want, but it will basically benefit rich white people the most and worsen the racial wealth gap, which is not remotely progressive.

I understand that your premise is that this policy will result in less single family homes available for purchase by populations that have historically been unable to build wealth through homeownership. Accepting that as true, it does not mean that it will worsen the racial wealth gap.

The wealth gap is largely a result of exclusionary zoning, but not solely or even primarily due to the loss of appreciation of owned real estate. It is a result of the opportunity loss of a lack of access to the resources in historically SFZ areas. There is evidence to show, controlled for other variables, that things like health outcomes, educational test scores, connections/networking, college attendance, etc are tied to location. Allowing access to those communities even if renting or owning properties with lower appreciation will over time decrease the wealth gap. Will it necessarily meant that some of the resources and opportunities currently enjoyed by the wealthy are spread around to more people? Yes it does. And that is very progressive.

So ruining middle class and working class communities is better because then homes are dirt cheap and everyone can buy one? Yeah, that’s not progressive. That’s exploitative.

No home will be dirt cheap and nothing will be ruined. IT will be changed.

And where is the flaw in what I originally said? It helps dialogue if you tell me where you disagree with assertions or offer alternatives, rather than just use hyperbolic language to dismiss them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

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

What is so shocking about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't think people buy townhomes? Weird.

They do not appreciate as much as single family homes. Eliminating single family homes and replacing them with townhomes (in predominately POC neighborhoods) will make the racial disparities in home ownership by home type worse. So the net effect is that white housing wealth will appreciate even faster than POC housing wealth if policies worsen existing disparities. This is even more problematic with condos because they tend to lose value after adjusting for inflation. Owning a condo often leaves people worse off financially than no owning at all. So go ahead with this policy if you want, but it will basically benefit rich white people the most and worsen the racial wealth gap, which is not remotely progressive.

I understand that your premise is that this policy will result in less single family homes available for purchase by populations that have historically been unable to build wealth through homeownership. Accepting that as true, it does not mean that it will worsen the racial wealth gap.

The wealth gap is largely a result of exclusionary zoning, but not solely or even primarily due to the loss of appreciation of owned real estate. It is a result of the opportunity loss of a lack of access to the resources in historically SFZ areas. There is evidence to show, controlled for other variables, that things like health outcomes, educational test scores, connections/networking, college attendance, etc are tied to location. Allowing access to those communities even if renting or owning properties with lower appreciation will over time decrease the wealth gap. Will it necessarily meant that some of the resources and opportunities currently enjoyed by the wealthy are spread around to more people? Yes it does. And that is very progressive.

So ruining middle class and working class communities is better because then homes are dirt cheap and everyone can buy one? Yeah, that’s not progressive. That’s exploitative.

No home will be dirt cheap and nothing will be ruined. IT will be changed.

And where is the flaw in what I originally said? It helps dialogue if you tell me where you disagree with assertions or offer alternatives, rather than just use hyperbolic language to dismiss them.

Again, all of these deflections and assertions that you cannot back up.

Inserting - no, squeezing - quadplexes into plots between small single family homes in areas like Wheaton and down county Silver Spring (an area with already diverse SES and racial / ethnic homeownership) will degrade those communities. Never mind the aesthetics of it - awful - we’re also talking about more cars on already crowded streets, more kids in already overcrowded, old schools, more people using already overused infrastructure. This degrades these neighborhoods. And these neighborhoods are largely comprised of middle class and working class people who bought here because they wanted to have a SFH and to enjoy more peace and quiet than areas with apartment buildings.

All of the above will lower home values and it hurts the very people this proposal is supposed to help - POC, middle class and working class people You know this otherwise you’d provide actual proof that this plan doesn’t diminish home values, making homes dirt cheap. You can’t. You just deflect and attack.

[Anonymous]

People - It’s great to post here and certainly interesting to see the various nonsense arguments that YIMBYSms / developers are using to destroy middle / working class neighborhoods across the county, particularly those with high proportions of POC - Wheaton, Silver Spring, Glendon, etc.

But you MUST write your council member, you MUST attend the listening meetings for the county. You MUST speak up to the planning board. Do it today, send that email. Or call on Monday and leave that message. Let your voices be heard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People - It’s great to post here and certainly interesting to see the various nonsense arguments that YIMBYSms / developers are using to destroy middle / working class neighborhoods across the county, particularly those with high proportions of POC - Wheaton, Silver Spring, Glendon, etc.

But you MUST write your council member, you MUST attend the listening meetings for the county. You MUST speak up to the planning board. Do it today, send that email. Or call on Monday and leave that message. Let your voices be heard.

*Glenmont not Glendon

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

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

What is so shocking about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't think people buy townhomes? Weird.

They do not appreciate as much as single family homes. Eliminating single family homes and replacing them with townhomes (in predominately POC neighborhoods) will make the racial disparities in home ownership by home type worse. So the net effect is that white housing wealth will appreciate even faster than POC housing wealth if policies worsen existing disparities. This is even more problematic with condos because they tend to lose value after adjusting for inflation. Owning a condo often leaves people worse off financially than no owning at all. So go ahead with this policy if you want, but it will basically benefit rich white people the most and worsen the racial wealth gap, which is not remotely progressive.

I understand that your premise is that this policy will result in less single family homes available for purchase by populations that have historically been unable to build wealth through homeownership. Accepting that as true, it does not mean that it will worsen the racial wealth gap.

The wealth gap is largely a result of exclusionary zoning, but not solely or even primarily due to the loss of appreciation of owned real estate. It is a result of the opportunity loss of a lack of access to the resources in historically SFZ areas. There is evidence to show, controlled for other variables, that things like health outcomes, educational test scores, connections/networking, college attendance, etc are tied to location. Allowing access to those communities even if renting or owning properties with lower appreciation will over time decrease the wealth gap. Will it necessarily meant that some of the resources and opportunities currently enjoyed by the wealthy are spread around to more people? Yes it does. And that is very progressive.

This policy won't do that. The multifamily units will be disproportionately built in the middle class POC areas which will cause relocation away from these places among middle class and upper-middle class households. The areas in MOCO with more affordable SFH tend to have higher % POC. Moving to opportunity only works in moderation because if there is a significant change the income composition of "high opportunity" neighborhoods, the factors that were conducive to social mobility will no longer exist. This policy will not be effective at mass scale and it risks worsening inequality by creating more insidious structural barriers where children from different SES backgrounds do not socialize together at all. Affluent households will not tolerate a decline in their neighborhood conditions or their schools and they will move to somewhere that is more insulated from these policy changes or opt out of the public school system entirely. NYC is a worrying example of what the future will look like in MOCO, the private school attendance rate for rich white children (and asian children) is 50%+.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

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

What is so shocking about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't think people buy townhomes? Weird.

They do not appreciate as much as single family homes. Eliminating single family homes and replacing them with townhomes (in predominately POC neighborhoods) will make the racial disparities in home ownership by home type worse. So the net effect is that white housing wealth will appreciate even faster than POC housing wealth if policies worsen existing disparities. This is even more problematic with condos because they tend to lose value after adjusting for inflation. Owning a condo often leaves people worse off financially than no owning at all. So go ahead with this policy if you want, but it will basically benefit rich white people the most and worsen the racial wealth gap, which is not remotely progressive.

I understand that your premise is that this policy will result in less single family homes available for purchase by populations that have historically been unable to build wealth through homeownership. Accepting that as true, it does not mean that it will worsen the racial wealth gap.

The wealth gap is largely a result of exclusionary zoning, but not solely or even primarily due to the loss of appreciation of owned real estate. It is a result of the opportunity loss of a lack of access to the resources in historically SFZ areas. There is evidence to show, controlled for other variables, that things like health outcomes, educational test scores, connections/networking, college attendance, etc are tied to location. Allowing access to those communities even if renting or owning properties with lower appreciation will over time decrease the wealth gap. Will it necessarily meant that some of the resources and opportunities currently enjoyed by the wealthy are spread around to more people? Yes it does. And that is very progressive.

This policy won't do that. The multifamily units will be disproportionately built in the middle class POC areas which will cause relocation away from these places among middle class and upper-middle class households. The areas in MOCO with more affordable SFH tend to have higher % POC. Moving to opportunity only works in moderation because if there is a significant change the income composition of "high opportunity" neighborhoods, the factors that were conducive to social mobility will no longer exist. This policy will not be effective at mass scale and it risks worsening inequality by creating more insidious structural barriers where children from different SES backgrounds do not socialize together at all. Affluent households will not tolerate a decline in their neighborhood conditions or their schools and they will move to somewhere that is more insulated from these policy changes or opt out of the public school system entirely. NYC is a worrying example of what the future will look like in MOCO, the private school attendance rate for rich white children (and asian children) is 50%+.

Yes, it is very clear you're scared of black and brown people, particularly if they aren't as rich as you.

You should spend more of your time thinking about why that is, rather than whatever you think you're doing here. MoCo doesn't seem to be for you anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

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

What is so shocking about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't think people buy townhomes? Weird.

They do not appreciate as much as single family homes. Eliminating single family homes and replacing them with townhomes (in predominately POC neighborhoods) will make the racial disparities in home ownership by home type worse. So the net effect is that white housing wealth will appreciate even faster than POC housing wealth if policies worsen existing disparities. This is even more problematic with condos because they tend to lose value after adjusting for inflation. Owning a condo often leaves people worse off financially than no owning at all. So go ahead with this policy if you want, but it will basically benefit rich white people the most and worsen the racial wealth gap, which is not remotely progressive.

I understand that your premise is that this policy will result in less single family homes available for purchase by populations that have historically been unable to build wealth through homeownership. Accepting that as true, it does not mean that it will worsen the racial wealth gap.

The wealth gap is largely a result of exclusionary zoning, but not solely or even primarily due to the loss of appreciation of owned real estate. It is a result of the opportunity loss of a lack of access to the resources in historically SFZ areas. There is evidence to show, controlled for other variables, that things like health outcomes, educational test scores, connections/networking, college attendance, etc are tied to location. Allowing access to those communities even if renting or owning properties with lower appreciation will over time decrease the wealth gap. Will it necessarily meant that some of the resources and opportunities currently enjoyed by the wealthy are spread around to more people? Yes it does. And that is very progressive.

So ruining middle class and working class communities is better because then homes are dirt cheap and everyone can buy one? Yeah, that’s not progressive. That’s exploitative.

No home will be dirt cheap and nothing will be ruined. IT will be changed.

And where is the flaw in what I originally said? It helps dialogue if you tell me where you disagree with assertions or offer alternatives, rather than just use hyperbolic language to dismiss them.

Again, all of these deflections and assertions that you cannot back up.

Inserting - no, squeezing - quadplexes into plots between small single family homes in areas like Wheaton and down county Silver Spring (an area with already diverse SES and racial / ethnic homeownership) will degrade those communities. Never mind the aesthetics of it - awful - we’re also talking about more cars on already crowded streets, more kids in already overcrowded, old schools, more people using already overused infrastructure. This degrades these neighborhoods. And these neighborhoods are largely comprised of middle class and working class people who bought here because they wanted to have a SFH and to enjoy more peace and quiet than areas with apartment buildings.

All of the above will lower home values and it hurts the very people this proposal is supposed to help - POC, middle class and working class people You know this otherwise you’d provide actual proof that this plan doesn’t diminish home values, making homes dirt cheap. You can’t. You just deflect and attack.

I acknowledged that it will "diminish home values" in the sense that it will make more housing more available to more people. So yes, it will over a long period of time make the sale price you can get for your existing SFH less. Conceded. I am neither deflecting nor attacking.

I think we are talking past each other in that I am talking about creating more opportunity for people that don't already live in those neighborhoods and you are talking about people that already live in those neighborhoods. Yes, the aesthetics *over time* will change. Yes, there will be more people that the public education system needs to serve. Yes, unless and until car culture becomes less prevalent it will increase the number of cars parked on roads and moving on roads. All of that is true.

To me, it is worth it. To you, it is not.

[Anonymous]

It annoys the crap out of me that developers, realtors and mortgage brokers are out here using this anonymous board for their arguments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It annoys the crap out of me that developers, realtors and mortgage brokers are out here using this anonymous board for their arguments.

It boggles my mind that people simply can't fathom people believing in these policies without it being based on personal profit motive.

Do you think that all of the following organizations and people are somehow captured by the developers and have no independent basis for supporting the policy?

the White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/exclusionary-zoning-its-effect-on-racial-discrimination-in-the-housing-market/

HUD: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-072417.html

ACLU: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-072417.html

NAACP: https://www.arlnow.com/2024/07/09/racial-equity-arguments-raised-in-naacp-filing-on-missing-middle-lawsuit/

National Low Income Housing Coalition: https://nlihc.org/resource/research-finds-high-demand-municipalities-have-experienced-limited-housing-growth-likely

Just to name a few....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It annoys the crap out of me that developers, realtors and mortgage brokers are out here using this anonymous board for their arguments.

You can't fathom the concept of people wanting housing to be affordable for their kids? I've got two-- lower elementary. 20 more years of housing costs going up considerably faster than incomes is not going to make a good world for them. And as a fed, I'm not exactly in a position to give them trust funds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It annoys the crap out of me that developers, realtors and mortgage brokers are out here using this anonymous board for their arguments.

You can't fathom the concept of people wanting housing to be affordable for their kids? I've got two-- lower elementary. 20 more years of housing costs going up considerably faster than incomes is not going to make a good world for them. And as a fed, I'm not exactly in a position to give them trust funds.

Hope they enjoy their crime ridden trash neighborhood in MoCo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure White Flint too, with bonus metro access.

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

What is so shocking about that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't think people buy townhomes? Weird.

They do not appreciate as much as single family homes. Eliminating single family homes and replacing them with townhomes (in predominately POC neighborhoods) will make the racial disparities in home ownership by home type worse. So the net effect is that white housing wealth will appreciate even faster than POC housing wealth if policies worsen existing disparities. This is even more problematic with condos because they tend to lose value after adjusting for inflation. Owning a condo often leaves people worse off financially than no owning at all. So go ahead with this policy if you want, but it will basically benefit rich white people the most and worsen the racial wealth gap, which is not remotely progressive.

I understand that your premise is that this policy will result in less single family homes available for purchase by populations that have historically been unable to build wealth through homeownership. Accepting that as true, it does not mean that it will worsen the racial wealth gap.

The wealth gap is largely a result of exclusionary zoning, but not solely or even primarily due to the loss of appreciation of owned real estate. It is a result of the opportunity loss of a lack of access to the resources in historically SFZ areas. There is evidence to show, controlled for other variables, that things like health outcomes, educational test scores, connections/networking, college attendance, etc are tied to location. Allowing access to those communities even if renting or owning properties with lower appreciation will over time decrease the wealth gap. Will it necessarily meant that some of the resources and opportunities currently enjoyed by the wealthy are spread around to more people? Yes it does. And that is very progressive.

This policy won't do that. The multifamily units will be disproportionately built in the middle class POC areas which will cause relocation away from these places among middle class and upper-middle class households. The areas in MOCO with more affordable SFH tend to have higher % POC. Moving to opportunity only works in moderation because if there is a significant change the income composition of "high opportunity" neighborhoods, the factors that were conducive to social mobility will no longer exist. This policy will not be effective at mass scale and it risks worsening inequality by creating more insidious structural barriers where children from different SES backgrounds do not socialize together at all. Affluent households will not tolerate a decline in their neighborhood conditions or their schools and they will move to somewhere that is more insulated from these policy changes or opt out of the public school system entirely. NYC is a worrying example of what the future will look like in MOCO, the private school attendance rate for rich white children (and asian children) is 50%+.

Yes, it is very clear you're scared of black and brown people, particularly if they aren't as rich as you.

You should spend more of your time thinking about why that is, rather than whatever you think you're doing here. MoCo doesn't seem to be for you anyway.

This is such BS. The very neighborhoods in MoCo that will be hurt most are in fact also the most socio economically and racially diverse - Wheaton, Silver Spring, Glenmont, Langley Park. The areas that are defacto exempt from this proposal - whiter, more affluent, less diverse.

Your “but you’re a racist” card shows you have no evidence to the contrary and either your a YIMBY who feels entitled to take from those who already struggle for what they have or a developer who sees $$$$ when they can convert a SFH plot into four homes and charge more per square foot than they could get for a SFH while simultaneously overtaxing schools, infrastructure, and crowding streets without any consequence or accountability.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It annoys the crap out of me that developers, realtors and mortgage brokers are out here using this anonymous board for their arguments.

You can't fathom the concept of people wanting housing to be affordable for their kids? I've got two-- lower elementary. 20 more years of housing costs going up considerably faster than incomes is not going to make a good world for them. And as a fed, I'm not exactly in a position to give them trust funds.

My kids will inherit the proceeds of my home - that’s their “trust fund”. Don’t mess with it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It annoys the crap out of me that developers, realtors and mortgage brokers are out here using this anonymous board for their arguments.

You can't fathom the concept of people wanting housing to be affordable for their kids? I've got two-- lower elementary. 20 more years of housing costs going up considerably faster than incomes is not going to make a good world for them. And as a fed, I'm not exactly in a position to give them trust funds.

DP

Lifelong county resident raising a handful of kids in MoCo. Given the lack of affordable housing and related services (eg, childcare, insurance, groceries, etc. are ridiculously expensive here) coupled with the shifting demographics impacting public schools, I’m coming to grips with the reality that my kids aren’t likely to plant roots here. My spouse and I will likely downsize and retire near wherever our kids land.

The Atlantic and several other outlets are sounding the alarm on affluent/educated/mostly white flight from blue cities and their previously highly rated suburbs. Moco has already experienced this and I am confident this housing proposal will only foster more flight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It annoys the crap out of me that developers, realtors and mortgage brokers are out here using this anonymous board for their arguments.

It boggles my mind that people simply can't fathom people believing in these policies without it being based on personal profit motive.

Do you think that all of the following organizations and people are somehow captured by the developers and have no independent basis for supporting the policy?

the White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/cea/written-materials/2021/06/17/exclusionary-zoning-its-effect-on-racial-discrimination-in-the-housing-market/

HUD: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-072417.html

ACLU: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/pdredge/pdr-edge-featd-article-072417.html

NAACP: https://www.arlnow.com/2024/07/09/racial-equity-arguments-raised-in-naacp-filing-on-missing-middle-lawsuit/

National Low Income Housing Coalition: https://nlihc.org/resource/research-finds-high-demand-municipalities-have-experienced-limited-housing-growth-likely

Just to name a few....

Thanks. And not one of these agencies / organizations addresses the very real consequences of density for the people living in the neighborhoods that are working class / middle class. And specifically that is it will ruin the neighborhood, overcrowd schools (already an issue for us in this county), and overtax already old and under maintenanced infrastructure.

You want to create affordable housing. Nice. Don’t do it on the backs of middle class and working class homeowners in the name of those very same homeowners!