There is no housing crisis in MoCo or most of the DMV for that matter
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Wait, so the argument now is that multi-unit dwellings simply should not exist anywhere at all because there is a chance that somebody would have somebody living close to them that smokes? |
Anonymous
I'm curious what the actual real world difference is between what is happening and what would happen if individual properties were rezoned? My understanding is that the individual process requires sending something through US mail to adjacent owners letting them know what is happening and telling them how they can provide feedback. That is the only thing that (maybe) didn't happen here. However there was a strong public engagement plan for the Thrive plan as well as a LOT of public messaging about what is going on, as well as public hearings. So the argument you are making is that something would have been different had a couple hundred residents received a post card in the mail? |
Anonymous
The argument is that this is one of many reasons some people reach a point in life when they crave SFHs (remember COVID? Suddenly a little personal space was quite nice) and reducing the inventory only makes them that much more unobtainable. If you reduce the inventory in the area where they exist near the city lines, they'll build them further away. Not sure how that reduces "spread". |
Anonymous
OK, thanks, I'm glad we are moving away from saying that multi-unit dwellings are per se terrible. That was silliness. Now we're saying that you don't like the trade-off of more multi-unit and less SFH homes in certain ares because some people have a preference for SFH in close in areas. Now much better, but a little... |
Anonymous
Let’s stay in reality. What we are taking about is zoning, and the proposed changing of zoning is bad. No one said that multi unit housing doesn’t have its place. This is like one person asserting that there are too many gun deaths, person two acknowledging that some people (like this in law enforcement) should have guns, and then you saying, “see, I’m glad that we can agree that guns aren’t bad…in fact, let’s talk about how we need more guns.” You didn’t win an argument or make a point here, though it is the YImBY way to pretend that you did. |
Anonymous
The argument against 3-4 unit complexes is that everybody is everybody's business and that there is no way to avoid. If an immediate neighbor smokes, you are stuck. In a larger complex, you can appeal to the broader HOA board that is somewhat separate. These smaller complexes are going to have all sorts of problems, financial and otherwise. |
Anonymous
Not a libertarian. I can acknowledge the source of the problem and not agree with the proposed solution (missing middle, which only benefits developers, because it has not yet driven down the price of close-in land and probably never will). Housing stipends, repurposing commercial properties (where I live, there are tons of vacant 'office condos' that could be retrofitted as perfectly nice townhomes), rezoning commercial zones to include multi-use buildings, and incentives for planned communities of smaller SFHs should all be considered, as well. |
Anonymous
PP here and I think you and I are agreeing. There are reasonable debates to be had about whether "the proposed changing of zoning is bad." But that reasoned debate does not include an assertion, which was made, that multi-unit dwellings are a blanket disaster because of the possibility of smokers. Just trying to keep us on track.... |
Anonymous
So you do in fact think that it is blanket bad to have multi-unit dwellings that are not large scale? Anywhere at any time? |
Anonymous
|
Setting aside whether the DMV area has or does not have a housing crisis, wr can agree that, at least nationally, there is and that in many markets, housing prices increased exponentially.
Frankly, this problem would not have occurred if banks did not give mortgages to people who did not put at least 20% down. Due to the super low interest rates, people put very little down and bought places that they otherwise would not have been able to afford (took on a lot of leverage). If borrowers had to put at least 20% down, we would not have the problem of prices increasing at ridiculous rates. |
Anonymous
Again, that's an insincere response. And that drives ever farther from rational discourse. Of course it makes a difference to have that direct, physical notification. In such cases, a greater proportion of those participating in providing feedback are from those most directly affected areas. The time available at hearings does not become as dominated by those already lined up in support of a development application or initiative. The notice also generates involvement earlier in the process. What we have, here, are what should be those local processes handled county-wide and with less certain timely awareness. Those pushing for it are still lined up, but not only can dominate the early interaction, where significant change is more possible, but also can pull involvement, with the more generally diffused notifications across the county, from areas that aren't directly affected, again minimizing the input of those who are. Thrive carried a similar engagement paradigm that limited relative input from those most directly affected. If you think that those most directly affected are not those living in these neighborhoods or that they should not have greater say about changes more directly affecting their neighborhoods than those not in thier neighborhoods, then we simply disagree. |
Anonymous
First, please stop calling my thoughts "insincere." It was sincere. And it is rational to inquire about the actual impact of a certain process on the opportunity for meaningful feedback from the community. It would be helpful to know, in a data driven way, if a postcard in the mail would have increased resident involvement in a meaningful way. I don't have the time at the moment to track down what outreach was conducted by the County to what geographic areas at what time, nor do we know what proportion of people providing input were notified by what method. It is not grounded in a solid foundation (though I won't say "insincere") to assert that the County is following the process that it is BECAUSE of an intention to limit community awareness and opportunity to provide input. That assertion runs counter to many actions the County has taken, including a robust and frequently updated website and blog....none of which is required by zone/ordinance. |
Anonymous
And none of which provides the affected neighborhoods the differentially greater, meaningfully early-in-the-process input that they should have. How many folks independently decide to check county websites to see if there is something new affecting them? That's part of the reason, if not the entirety of it, that the direct postcard notification is supposed to be employed. If you don't get that, you effectively don't get invited to the table. Of course those pushing for the change are enamored of the relatively unfettered influence they gained with pursuit of a zoning text amendment. I used the word "insincere" because I meant that. You clearly have a grasp of the processes. Anyone with such would already know the relative deficiencies I'd laid out and how that might negatively impact the voices of those in those more directly affected communities. The natural conclusion is that you are posting simply to undermine the thought, rather than to provide a rational counter (or, *gasp*, acknowledge the point). |
Anonymous
Just to level set, the original assertion I am responding to here claims that a group of nefarious YIMBYs actively manipulated a process, doing something extremely out of the ordinary via an "end around", with the specific intent to "minimize the voices of those affected." That poster characterized anyone in support of this approach as not caring at all about the impacts because "they want what they want" and any attempt to support missing middle housing as "strawman hyperbole and other rhetorical employment of logical fallacy." If this is the same poster, I find comments about logical rigor and intellectual honesty to be disingenuous at best. I acknowledge, and never asserted otherwise, that more notice could have been given and that different processes require different modes of notice to different groups of people. I concede that less notice as *an effect* on the number of people that will engage. I contest that: - the ZTA process is unusual or an "end around." Rather, it is an established and regularly used way to change zoning. - the ZTA process was used for the purpose of limiting community feedback - that the impact of different notice is substantial to the end result. |
Anonymous
I think that at this point, taking all of that into account, it’s very important that we closely monitor and widely disseminate information about any ZTA in the future to make sure that neighborhood associations and listserves are acutely aware of every step along the way. Fool us twice… |