More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Already signed up for the May 14 Zoom virtual (in person too late, only notified by postcard few days before). Show up people!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

Nah. My point is that the language used does not convey the understanding of importance to most of those current residents most likely to be affected by the zoning changes that likely are the aim, here.
Zoning change planning can provide a better outcome if well coordinated with greater input from well informed current residents most directly impacted.

If the county/planning department would do that, there wouldn't be the need for alarm. But they don't, so there is some concern warranted. And awareness is important, so that those in the neighborhood(s) who feel it would be better not to have that land use are able to advocate in a meanigful way.

The Planning Department and MCPS behave very similarly in terms of transparency and achieve similar results in terms of quality of outcomes, scandals and public trust.

Planning is much more transparent that MCPS.

The fact that there are pages of people trying to divine the meaning of a single sentence that’s at the core of the zone proposal says otherwise.

Intentionally using confusing and obscuring bureaucratic language, particularly when a significant portion of your target audience is ESL to me says a lot about who Planning are and what their intent are and is not flattering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

Nah. My point is that the language used does not convey the understanding of importance to most of those current residents most likely to be affected by the zoning changes that likely are the aim, here.
Zoning change planning can provide a better outcome if well coordinated with greater input from well informed current residents most directly impacted.

If the county/planning department would do that, there wouldn't be the need for alarm. But they don't, so there is some concern warranted. And awareness is important, so that those in the neighborhood(s) who feel it would be better not to have that land use are able to advocate in a meanigful way.

The Planning Department and MCPS behave very similarly in terms of transparency and achieve similar results in terms of quality of outcomes, scandals and public trust.

Planning is much more transparent that MCPS.

The fact that there are pages of people trying to divine the meaning of a single sentence that’s at the core of the zone proposal says otherwise.

Intentionally using confusing and obscuring bureaucratic language, particularly when a significant portion of your target audience is ESL to me says a lot about who Planning are and what their intent are and is not flattering.

This is what politicians do when they want to do something they know the public doesn’t want

[Anonymous]

This new zoning state level zoning reform law is going to ruin many neighborhoods. It is a gift to developers that will keep on harming local residents. Most residents that live near bus stops don't even ride the buses, so tying zoning reform to buses stops makes no sense. The law about non-profits/churches getting special exemptions to zoning rules is also ridiculous. It violates the equal protection clause and gives some entities special treatment for land use rules.

[Anonymous]

Ritual 5/14 at 7 pm. Sign up. In person for Wheaton—Denis Ave. to Amherst? soon date?) show up!

[Anonymous]

Virtual not ritual. Typo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

We will, and I hope vociferously, but do you think that they will bother to listen?

Will they listen? Yes. Will they do what you want them to? Not necessarily. Those are two different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This new zoning state level zoning reform law is going to ruin many neighborhoods. It is a gift to developers that will keep on harming local residents. Most residents that live near bus stops don't even ride the buses, so tying zoning reform to buses stops makes no sense. The law about non-profits/churches getting special exemptions to zoning rules is also ridiculous. It violates the equal protection clause and gives some entities special treatment for land use rules.

I don't know whether you know that religious institutions already have special exemptions to zoning rules. For example, churches are not residences, but churches are allowed to build by right in areas that are zoned residential.

Also, it's misleading to call a BRT station a "bus stop". There are probably bus stops in your neighborhood, but that's not what the plan is talking about. There are BRT stations on 29 that you can take a look at, for example the ones next to Blair, and the ones next to Trader Joe's. Zoning changes around BRT stations are just another example of transit-oriented development, which everyone in the county should already be familiar with. It's better to put the housing near public transportation, so the public transportation is convenient for people to use, than to put the housing far from public transportation. Also, we're going to invest a lot in public transportation, so we should support this investment by enabling more people to live near and use public transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

Nah. My point is that the language used does not convey the understanding of importance to most of those current residents most likely to be affected by the zoning changes that likely are the aim, here.
Zoning change planning can provide a better outcome if well coordinated with greater input from well informed current residents most directly impacted.

If the county/planning department would do that, there wouldn't be the need for alarm. But they don't, so there is some concern warranted. And awareness is important, so that those in the neighborhood(s) who feel it would be better not to have that land use are able to advocate in a meanigful way.

What do you want? "THERE MIGHT BE CHANGES TO THE ZONING AROUND WHERE YOU LIVE" in giant flashing letters on a trailer that's towed around the plan area? They've already done a ton of outreach over the past year and a half, and they're doing more outreach. Do you live in the plan area? Have you received anything in the mail from the Planning Department?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new zoning state level zoning reform law is going to ruin many neighborhoods. It is a gift to developers that will keep on harming local residents. Most residents that live near bus stops don't even ride the buses, so tying zoning reform to buses stops makes no sense. The law about non-profits/churches getting special exemptions to zoning rules is also ridiculous. It violates the equal protection clause and gives some entities special treatment for land use rules.

I don't know whether you know that religious institutions already have special exemptions to zoning rules. For example, churches are not residences, but churches are allowed to build by right in areas that are zoned residential.

Also, it's misleading to call a BRT station a "bus stop". There are probably bus stops in your neighborhood, but that's not what the plan is talking about. There are BRT stations on 29 that you can take a look at, for example the ones next to Blair, and the ones next to Trader Joe's. Zoning changes around BRT stations are just another example of transit-oriented development, which everyone in the county should already be familiar with. It's better to put the housing near public transportation, so the public transportation is convenient for people to use, than to put the housing far from public transportation. Also, we're going to invest a lot in public transportation, so we should support this investment by enabling more people to live near and use public transportation.

They are bus stops. It’s a bus. It’s in the name.

Bus Rapid Transit.

Clever how they have even included the word “transit” in the acronym so that it sounds more urban as an excuse to build, but it’s still the bus. A handful of people will take the neo bus and join the handful of people will ride their bikes, and in the end the majority get to suffer the consequences of this godawful plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for some insight. What does this mean in layperson’s terms?

“Retain existing residential development within neighborhoods, while expanding new residential typologies along the corridor.
Promote new infill development at religious institutional properties, at proposed BRT stops, and on properties along the corridor.”

The first phrase means that the zoning "within neighborhoods" wouldn't change, but the zoning along University Boulevard the corridor would change to allow (not require) more housing types. Currently most of the property along University Boulevard is zoned R-60 or R-90, which means the only housing type that property owners are currently allowed to build by right is a detached house on a minimum 6000 square foot (R-60) or 9000 square foot (R-90) lot.

R-90: https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/montgomerycounty/latest/montgomeryco_md_zone2014/0-0-0-60201

The second phrase means that zoning in the corridor plan area would change to allow (not require) more housing types, and potentially non-residential use (for example, housing on top of stores), on properties owned by churches, at proposed stops for the University Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit line, and on properties along the University Boulevard corridor. For example, Northwood Presbyterian Church is considering building affordable housing, but that's not feasible without rezoning: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/03/08/churches-affordable-housing/

More about the Montgomery County BRT plans: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/brt/

I personally don't like the "within neighborhoods" language, because neighborhoods that currently already have multi-unit housing etc. are also neighborhoods, but that's the language the Planning Department is using.

But also, "existing residential development within neighborhoods" is misleading. Most, including many in the affected properties, themselves, view the "existing neighborhood" of Woodmoor, for example, to end at University, itself (and at Colesville, 495 and the stream/parkland). Planning changes along corridors have redrawn neighborhood lines (for planning purposes) stripping those properties from the community and treating the strip as its own community/neighborhood.

So when they say that existing development would be maintained, they mean except for the areas they are studying (for the most part), where they are looking to allow "new residential typologies". This means, typically, multiplexes/townhouses and the like, but may not be limited to that. There are additional densities and other allowances (setback, etc.) that now come from state and county changes when on prior-state-owned land, on non-profit land (e.g., houses of worship) or when near a place of mass transit, especially (if not exclusively?) when including some affordable units in a development. The affected area might be 500 feet from the transportation corridor, sometimes half a block, sometimes a whole block, sometimes within a certain distance (half a mile? a quarter?) of a BRT stop (there aren't rail stops close enough to count, there, for nearly the whole of the corridor, except, maybe, the westernmost end, but the allowances, there have a larger radius).

So your point is that zoning changes will be zoning changes? Obviously the plan will make changes. Otherwise there would be no reason for doing the plan in the first place.

I don't understand the alarmism about zoning changes within 500 feet/half a block/maybe even a whole block from University Boulevard. If you disagree with Planning's definition of neighborhood, and you think it can still be the same neighborhood while having multi-unit housing or even commercial land use (for example, the Woodmoor shopping center), you can say so to Planning.

Nah. My point is that the language used does not convey the understanding of importance to most of those current residents most likely to be affected by the zoning changes that likely are the aim, here.
Zoning change planning can provide a better outcome if well coordinated with greater input from well informed current residents most directly impacted.

If the county/planning department would do that, there wouldn't be the need for alarm. But they don't, so there is some concern warranted. And awareness is important, so that those in the neighborhood(s) who feel it would be better not to have that land use are able to advocate in a meanigful way.

What do you want? "THERE MIGHT BE CHANGES TO THE ZONING AROUND WHERE YOU LIVE" in giant flashing letters on a trailer that's towed around the plan area? They've already done a ton of outreach over the past year and a half, and they're doing more outreach. Do you live in the plan area? Have you received anything in the mail from the Planning Department?

The people that support these efforts count on lack of awareness, which is why it’s important to have threads like this to spread the word. Few people pay attention to random planning department meetings. We have lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This new zoning state level zoning reform law is going to ruin many neighborhoods. It is a gift to developers that will keep on harming local residents. Most residents that live near bus stops don't even ride the buses, so tying zoning reform to buses stops makes no sense. The law about non-profits/churches getting special exemptions to zoning rules is also ridiculous. It violates the equal protection clause and gives some entities special treatment for land use rules.

I don't know whether you know that religious institutions already have special exemptions to zoning rules. For example, churches are not residences, but churches are allowed to build by right in areas that are zoned residential.

Also, it's misleading to call a BRT station a "bus stop". There are probably bus stops in your neighborhood, but that's not what the plan is talking about. There are BRT stations on 29 that you can take a look at, for example the ones next to Blair, and the ones next to Trader Joe's. Zoning changes around BRT stations are just another example of transit-oriented development, which everyone in the county should already be familiar with. It's better to put the housing near public transportation, so the public transportation is convenient for people to use, than to put the housing far from public transportation. Also, we're going to invest a lot in public transportation, so we should support this investment by enabling more people to live near and use public transportation.

They are bus stops. It’s a bus. It’s in the name.

Bus Rapid Transit.

Clever how they have even included the word “transit” in the acronym so that it sounds more urban as an excuse to build, but it’s still the bus. A handful of people will take the neo bus and join the handful of people will ride their bikes, and in the end the majority get to suffer the consequences of this godawful plan.

Buses are transit. That is generally known.

And yes, BRT buses stop at BRT stations, which I guess makes them bus stops, in the same way that train stops are places that trains stop at, and airplane stops are places that airplanes stop at, and ferry stops are places that ferries stop at, but we usually call them train stations, airports, and ferry terminals.

[Anonymous]

As long as part of the upzoning plan includes rezoning a portion of areas for schools and the county is prepared to purchase land to build new schools, I’d be ok with this. Cramming more kids into our already overcrowded schools? Nope. I don’t want to hear, “house the kids first then worry about the schools.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as part of the upzoning plan includes rezoning a portion of areas for schools and the county is prepared to purchase land to build new schools, I’d be ok with this. Cramming more kids into our already overcrowded schools? Nope. I don’t want to hear, “house the kids first then worry about the schools.”

Schools don't need special zoning. Northwood, Blair, and Forest Knolls are zoned R-60. Odessa Shannon and Arcola are zoned R-90.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As long as part of the upzoning plan includes rezoning a portion of areas for schools and the county is prepared to purchase land to build new schools, I’d be ok with this. Cramming more kids into our already overcrowded schools? Nope. I don’t want to hear, “house the kids first then worry about the schools.”

Schools don't need special zoning. Northwood, Blair, and Forest Knolls are zoned R-60. Odessa Shannon and Arcola are zoned R-90.

Great. Is the county allocating more funding to purchase properties and build more schools to support the families that will move into the new housing?