MoCo Council Vote Today

[Anonymous]

For those who supported this, how did you reconcile the mismatch between the stated aims of the bill and what the bill actually does?

The bill defines workforce housing as affordable to people making 120 percent AMI, and its sponsors said the bill was designed to help nurses, firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other public servants have affordable places to live. Currently, 120 percent of AMI equals an annual income of nearly $130k for a single-person household. That translates to rent of about $3,200 a month, which is well above the county’s average rent of about $2,300 a month and right around the average rent for a 2BR apartment.

An MCPS teacher with a masters degree and 25 years of experience tops out at $127k a year. The median salary for a nurse if $85k a year. Firefighters top out around $104k a year. A police officer with five years of experience makes $83k a year. Most county employees will never reach $130k a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who supported this, how did you reconcile the mismatch between the stated aims of the bill and what the bill actually does?

The bill defines workforce housing as affordable to people making 120 percent AMI, and its sponsors said the bill was designed to help nurses, firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other public servants have affordable places to live. Currently, 120 percent of AMI equals an annual income of nearly $130k for a single-person household. That translates to rent of about $3,200 a month, which is well above the county’s average rent of about $2,300 a month and right around the average rent for a 2BR apartment.

An MCPS teacher with a masters degree and 25 years of experience tops out at $127k a year. The median salary for a nurse if $85k a year. Firefighters top out around $104k a year. A police officer with five years of experience makes $83k a year. Most county employees will never reach $130k a year.

Further, the bill only requires 15% of the housing to be workforce housing. The other 85% becomes government subsidized (due to the tax deferal) market rate housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For those who supported this, how did you reconcile the mismatch between the stated aims of the bill and what the bill actually does?

The bill defines workforce housing as affordable to people making 120 percent AMI, and its sponsors said the bill was designed to help nurses, firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other public servants have affordable places to live. Currently, 120 percent of AMI equals an annual income of nearly $130k for a single-person household. That translates to rent of about $3,200 a month, which is well above the county’s average rent of about $2,300 a month and right around the average rent for a 2BR apartment.

An MCPS teacher with a masters degree and 25 years of experience tops out at $127k a year. The median salary for a nurse if $85k a year. Firefighters top out around $104k a year. A police officer with five years of experience makes $83k a year. Most county employees will never reach $130k a year.

That imaginary MCPS teacher would only be paid that much if they were stuck in McPS for 25 years. McPS caps external candidates at year 13. So it’s more likely that a teacher with that much experience is making about $90k. If they had been stuck in MCPS for 25 years, they’ve already figured out a housing solution within their budget and only have 5 years left of a crappy commute. Dense housing isn’t going to lure them back to MoCo

[Anonymous]

Affordable housing is a simple matter of economic justice.

Don’t you support economic justice?

[Anonymous]

Yeah at the end of the day- look at the actual sell prices of the proposed new units, and compare that to the verbage the council member are saying.

"We want housing so our nurses and cops and fire fighters can afford to live here". OK, thats great, I think most people would agree with that.

But the rezoning, as shown in Arlington will be for 800k- 1.2 townhomes and triplexes. Who does that help, besides the developers (who are not "evil" by the way, like any other business they want to make a profit).

But the end result, has absolutely nothing to with the stated goals.

It would be nice if the council and Montgomery planning and all the other proponents at least pretended to admit that.

[Anonymous]

I wish someone could come up with a way to incentivize building some smaller cheaper homes.
Just taking one example. We had friends—fed married to a nurse—renting an old construction reasonably sized SFH. Unfortunately it needed substantial renovations. They would have loved to buy it and renovate but could not afford cost to buy, renovate and rent to live elsewhere. It didn’t make financial sense for the owner to renovate it — they sold to a develop who knocked it down and built a big fancy house and sold it for 1.5M or something like that. That is happening all around our neighborhood — older reasonably sized homes in need of some renovation that used to sell for 700K knocked down to build 1.5m houses (or more). The beighborhood character is gradually changing with fewer teachers, military, Feds and non profit workers, and more lawyers doctors and bakers. I’d love some sort of incentives to renovate older stock or at least replace them with houses in the same price range.

[Anonymous]

The people opposing this fair housing measure are showing their unearned white privilege.

[Anonymous]

Is there any map of where the new changes are allowed? Or is it everywhere,? I’ve lost the thread on the compromise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there any map of where the new changes are allowed? Or is it everywhere,? I’ve lost the thread on the compromise.

https://mcplanning.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/lookup/index.html?appid=35c44dee1734457185b0604f3ce67e5e

[Anonymous]

Can't wait to see what an absolute $hitshow Connecticut Avenue is going to be when this goes into effect....

[Anonymous]

MoCo people are showing their ugly sides by failing to support measures which fight income inequality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish someone could come up with a way to incentivize building some smaller cheaper homes.
Just taking one example. We had friends—fed married to a nurse—renting an old construction reasonably sized SFH. Unfortunately it needed substantial renovations. They would have loved to buy it and renovate but could not afford cost to buy, renovate and rent to live elsewhere. It didn’t make financial sense for the owner to renovate it — they sold to a develop who knocked it down and built a big fancy house and sold it for 1.5M or something like that. That is happening all around our neighborhood — older reasonably sized homes in need of some renovation that used to sell for 700K knocked down to build 1.5m houses (or more). The beighborhood character is gradually changing with fewer teachers, military, Feds and non profit workers, and more lawyers doctors and bakers. I’d love some sort of incentives to renovate older stock or at least replace them with houses in the same price range.

This county does not incentivize construction of single family homes. In fact, it discourages them by charging much higher impact fees on these than it charges on apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing is a simple matter of economic justice.

Don’t you support economic justice?

Workforce not affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing is a simple matter of economic justice.

Don’t you support economic justice?

Workforce not affordable.

This “workforce housing” isn’t even affordable for the workforce it claims to be helping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Affordable housing is a simple matter of economic justice.

Don’t you support economic justice?

Workforce not affordable.

This “workforce housing” isn’t even affordable for the workforce it claims to be helping.

Are you saying this bill should include new taxes on you to subsidize all the units? Are you willing to volunteer your paycheck to do so?

How else will the units be "affordable? Please explain.