MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A small explainer with some good background - useful to read before the listening session

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ded17586597cc7e187c7388/t/66e720d98ca24d4acc2832a9/1726423257245/00-AHS+Explainer-final-b.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3o0NP9nXuxh854vempWg9_HkTzi0bBkDF1-eMrnc8MYUNL1VQsXw0Jneo_aem_Yr2CIDst5s7f02rDNcHgpQ

Kudos to the person who made this. Sincerely. It is nicely done.

It is also clearly not a neutral source. It should be read in conjunction with the actual plan itself, and the accompanying information from the County and others.

[Anonymous]

I’d love for one of the advocates of the AHS to explain why upzoning will definitely result in more housing production instead of resulting in substitution of multiplex units for high-rise units (in other words if 100 multiplex units are produced, will developers of large projects cut back their production by a similar number of units?).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A small explainer with some good background - useful to read before the listening session

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ded17586597cc7e187c7388/t/66e720d98ca24d4acc2832a9/1726423257245/00-AHS+Explainer-final-b.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3o0NP9nXuxh854vempWg9_HkTzi0bBkDF1-eMrnc8MYUNL1VQsXw0Jneo_aem_Yr2CIDst5s7f02rDNcHgpQ

Thank you for posting. It did a great job summarizing the issues. I wasn't even aware that public input had been sought this summer! And. I hadn't even considered the possibility that developers could combine adjacent lots:

Might it be expected that outside financiers, developers, and builders will buy up and merge adjacent lots and erect
multiplexes priced “at market” which will do nothing for “attainable” housing? This is a certainty. It has happened
repeatedly in places where upzoning has been implemented. For example, in 2021, the Washington Post ran an article
about how an area of starter homes was bought up by global investment entities, forcing out the original low-income
homeowners and pricing the new units at market rather than “attainable” prices.36 Similarly, the actual examples above
on page 3 shows the same effect. The AHS’s magical math does not work in the real world.

Christ on a cracker

[Anonymous]

So basically a developer can buy a typical $1m Bethesda home on a 1/4 acre lot, raze it, spend $500,000 putting up a quadplex-multi-unit dwelling, sell each unit for $500,000, - call THAT “affordable housing” - and walk away with $500,000 profit. Rinse. Repeat.


This is a gold mine for corporate developers. This has NOTHING to do with affordable housing. It’s a sweetheart deal for developers

[Anonymous]

I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

It’s interesting that the prior publications gave another address in Bethesda.

Also interesting that you have to sign up in advance. Talk about a barrier to entry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

It’s interesting that the prior publications gave another address in Bethesda.

Also interesting that you have to sign up in advance. Talk about a barrier to entry.

The venue was moved to accommodate the amount of people they expected BECAUSE people signed up in advance. And that was publicized through appropriate channels.

And you don't have to sign up in advance to attend, or to speak. The sign up was used to gauge attendance and to organize speakers....and it worked.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A small explainer with some good background - useful to read before the listening session

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5ded17586597cc7e187c7388/t/66e720d98ca24d4acc2832a9/1726423257245/00-AHS+Explainer-final-b.pdf?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3o0NP9nXuxh854vempWg9_HkTzi0bBkDF1-eMrnc8MYUNL1VQsXw0Jneo_aem_Yr2CIDst5s7f02rDNcHgpQ

Kudos to the person who made this. Sincerely. It is nicely done.

It is also clearly not a neutral source. It should be read in conjunction with the actual plan itself, and the accompanying information from the County and others.

It does a great job of referencing the county’s assertions and providing data that shows how flimsy the plan is. The portion demonstrating how actual homes have been turned into multiplexes and then sold for $$$$ - hardly affordable or attainable - is pretty damning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

It’s interesting that the prior publications gave another address in Bethesda.

Also interesting that you have to sign up in advance. Talk about a barrier to entry.

The venue was moved to accommodate the amount of people they expected BECAUSE people signed up in advance. And that was publicized through appropriate channels.

And you don't have to sign up in advance to attend, or to speak. The sign up was used to gauge attendance and to organize speakers....and it worked.

Where was the announcement of the change? I have an email that showed tonight as the Bethesda Services Center.

And the county says in the sign up that you have to sign up to attend. I’m glad they are letting people in but that’s not what their sign up says. It says you must sign up to join.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

I just hope the council listens. I’m in district 6 and Fani-Gonzalez seems completely uninterested in hearing from residents who have concerns about this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

I just hope the council listens. I’m in district 6 and Fani-Gonzalez seems completely uninterested in hearing from residents who have concerns about this issue.

She’s getting herself some nice national press out of it, maybe she will fail herself up and out of the county.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/yimby-push-multifamily-housing-hits-192647400.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

I just hope the council listens. I’m in district 6 and Fani-Gonzalez seems completely uninterested in hearing from residents who have concerns about this issue.

She’s getting herself some nice national press out of it, maybe she will fail herself up and out of the county.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/yimby-push-multifamily-housing-hits-192647400.html

Wow, I’m the poster you responded to and so disappointed to see this from Fani-Gonzalez though not totally surprised. Of course, the district she represents is one of the most socio economically diverse and hardly comprised of “cookie cutter homes no one can afford”. Lots of POC and working class people moved to this district because it is accessible. She wants to do developers’ bidding. Yuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

I just hope the council listens. I’m in district 6 and Fani-Gonzalez seems completely uninterested in hearing from residents who have concerns about this issue.

She is pretty erratic except when it comes to planning. You have no hope of changing her mind. She’s definitely a yes along with Friedson and Glass.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

I just hope the council listens. I’m in district 6 and Fani-Gonzalez seems completely uninterested in hearing from residents who have concerns about this issue.

She is pretty erratic except when it comes to planning. You have no hope of changing her mind. She’s definitely a yes along with Friedson and Glass.

I’m surprised about Friedson given District 1 seems heavily opposed. But I suppose developer money is appealing …