MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I am also great dismayed by how the Council and Planning Board seem to be ramming this through, with smug dismissals of their constituents concerns. The responses to concerns voiced in the listening sessions, on the website are so condescending, it is maddening. They just don't care about the communities.

So, what's next-- assuming this is passed, are we going to have to band together and sue?

Curious, I wasn’t able to join last night’s session. What was the tone of council members in attendance? Smug? The MoCo 360 article simply said they corrected mischaracterizations of the proposal but gave little additional info.

As for suing, I’d contribute. I think it’s despicable that they’re ramming this thing through and also doing so under a fog of limited outreach to communities, especially communities with higher rates of homeowners who are POC. It’s sneaky and exploitative of the developers.

[Anonymous]

This is just a horrible, stupid way to create “affordable” housing by ruining communities and lowering property values.

So disappointed in leader who came up with this stupid idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the quote from Fani-Gonzalez that homeowners don’t own a community …. Except we sort of do. We are literally investors in it and the quality of our lives, our schools, our streets, our infrastructure - all of it - is paid for through our property taxes and income taxes and the hard work we put into maintaining our communities. We certainly “own” our communities more than developers.

She and other council members have total contempt for their constituents. “Attainable housing” nothing but a Trojan horse for developers.

You have strange logic. Who would be building on a piece of property if not the owner? Why would you expect to be able to decide what an owner does with their own property? That’s a very entitled way of thinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just a horrible, stupid way to create “affordable” housing by ruining communities and lowering property values.

So disappointed in leader who came up with this stupid idea.

No it’s actually just basic math and economic theory. Supply/Demand

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, just look at the demographic trends the county projected a few years ago:

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MP_TrendsReport_final.pdf

You can see by the by 2030-2040, the number of people in MoCo who will be in their prime income earning years is rapidly declining while the county overall is either getting younger or a lot older. In other words, people with means are fleeing while the county gets a bunch of geriatric boomers. The only place where the county is getting growth from is laughably labeled as 'international migration', which we all know is basically illegal immigration (basically where the youth is from). The county has a net negative of domestic migration, meaning it is losing more domestic US citizens who are leaving the county than the number moving in, lol.

Long story short, US citizens with money are leaving MoCo, the only growth is largely from undocumented immigrants, and the tax base from those in their prime earning years is expected to rapidly dwindle over the next 15 years.

So who exactly is the county tearing down the housing for with these kinds of demographic trends? They're tearing down SFH and your neighborhoods for imported poverty from abroad, because there is a net negative of domestic residents of the USA moving to MoCo. White flight? Ha, that's old news. White people already started to flee way back in 2010, as the report shows. The ones who will keep fleeing MoCo are those with money. It's going to be hilarious watching as the county keeps getting poorer and poorer. The tax base is going to crumble, the destruction of neighborhoods is going to accelerate it, and the only solution they'll be able to come up for the loss of revenue is to keep increasing taxes. The impoverished people they're importing won't be able to pay the tax bills, so you know who they're going to target.

There is a whole ton of conjecture int his not tied to what is actually in the report.

The increase in *relative share* of older residents is a result of an aging population.

"The aging of baby boomers explains the percentage drop in the share of young adults, 20 to 34, from 26.5 percent in 1990 to 18.8 percent in 2016 with the forecasted decline slowing to 17.3 percent by 2040. This is the only age group decreasing in number (by 4,225 young adults), down 2.1 percent in 2016. Young adults are the most mobile age group, typically renters, some starting families, and they are the core of the county’s new residents." p. 29.

It is not tied to anybody "fleeing."

And as cited above the total tax revenue of the County is as healthy as any county in Maryland, with both real estate and income tax revenue INCREASING in 2023 over 2022.

But thank you for mentioning the aging population. Tending to their housing needs is another reason to increase and diversify the types of housing in the county.

Newsflash genius: of course tax REVENUE goes up as inflation goes up, lol. How shocking. The county already just INCREASED taxes. See how well it goes for revenues over time if your only solution is to keep increasing taxes.

No matter how badly you want to try to gold wrap a turd, it is still a turd. The county's demographics stink. People their prime warning years (i.e. taxpayers who pay the most taxes) are imploding by 2030-2040. The only area of population growth for the county is from 'international migration' while domestic migration to the county is negative. The most international arrivals continue to be from countries like El Salvador, as the report shows. 'International migration' is code speak for illegal immigration, we all know it.

The county can try to to make up wealth fleeing through volume, but all the volume coming in from illegal migration will be poor. They will work jobs for cash under the table. Even if they report income, it'll likely be so low that the net after taxation on them minus the amount you have to spend on them will be negative.

There's no way to polish it. They're tearing up your neighborhoods because they demand US citizens upend their way of life in order to provide affordable housing for international migrants, who are the only source of population growth for the county.

All fear mongering. That’s your main thesis. “Be afraid of others”

In reality, Takoma Park already has SFH next door to multi unit buildings and has been this way for decades. Yet somehow Takoma Park remains highly desirable and safe. Many young families un Takoma Park are UMC professionals with high income and they live side by side with immigrants and lower income citizens. There is nothing to fear.

Takoma Park is not a safe city by any reasonable definition of “safe”. The assault rate is 1.9x the national average. The rate of car theft is 1.5x the national average and the murder rate is also . Literally, half of the crime in TP is from Ward 6 which has more than 50% multi-family housing. This statement is not a compelling argument or even accurate and it certainly does not suggest that eliminating single family zoning will enhance quality of life in MOCO.

Well I actually live here and I walk around with my kids everywhere and never have any issues. You are just a fear monger.

Let’s look at a real neighborhood with a mix of housing types side by side.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/e16jiXoZa3EwkB7R8?g_st=ic

This is in a perfectly safe neighborhood with expensive houses next door to multifamily that has been that way for decades. I know this street very well so you cant BS me about crime etc. Please tell me why that neighborhood is so bad.

Making a factual statement about crime rate is not fear mongering. Whether crime is high or a neighborhood is unsafe is more of an opinion based on individual risk tolerance levels. However, the crime rate for TP is higher than the national average. So I personally would consider this to be a relatively unsafe place and would not live there. Your street may be “safe” but the entire city is only 2.1 Sq miles. Unfortunately, there is not much of a buffer between your street and the sections of TP that make the crime rate higher than the national average.

When do you plan to make a factual statement? Takoma Park does NOT have a higher crime rate than the national average. You are spreading misinformation. Takoma Park is perfectly safe. I live here and spend every day walking the area with my family. You can’t just expect a person with on the ground experience to believe your BS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the quote from Fani-Gonzalez that homeowners don’t own a community …. Except we sort of do. We are literally investors in it and the quality of our lives, our schools, our streets, our infrastructure - all of it - is paid for through our property taxes and income taxes and the hard work we put into maintaining our communities. We certainly “own” our communities more than developers.

She and other council members have total contempt for their constituents. “Attainable housing” nothing but a Trojan horse for developers.

You have strange logic. Who would be building on a piece of property if not the owner? Why would you expect to be able to decide what an owner does with their own property? That’s a very entitled way of thinking.

I’m sorry, you don’t think that other people decide what you can do with your property?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just a horrible, stupid way to create “affordable” housing by ruining communities and lowering property values.

So disappointed in leader who came up with this stupid idea.

No it’s actually just basic math and economic theory. Supply/Demand

Congratulations, you have a child’s understanding of economics.

Keep reading.

Ceteris paribus and negative externalities would be good places to start your journey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha, just look at the demographic trends the county projected a few years ago:

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/MP_TrendsReport_final.pdf

You can see by the by 2030-2040, the number of people in MoCo who will be in their prime income earning years is rapidly declining while the county overall is either getting younger or a lot older. In other words, people with means are fleeing while the county gets a bunch of geriatric boomers. The only place where the county is getting growth from is laughably labeled as 'international migration', which we all know is basically illegal immigration (basically where the youth is from). The county has a net negative of domestic migration, meaning it is losing more domestic US citizens who are leaving the county than the number moving in, lol.

Long story short, US citizens with money are leaving MoCo, the only growth is largely from undocumented immigrants, and the tax base from those in their prime earning years is expected to rapidly dwindle over the next 15 years.

So who exactly is the county tearing down the housing for with these kinds of demographic trends? They're tearing down SFH and your neighborhoods for imported poverty from abroad, because there is a net negative of domestic residents of the USA moving to MoCo. White flight? Ha, that's old news. White people already started to flee way back in 2010, as the report shows. The ones who will keep fleeing MoCo are those with money. It's going to be hilarious watching as the county keeps getting poorer and poorer. The tax base is going to crumble, the destruction of neighborhoods is going to accelerate it, and the only solution they'll be able to come up for the loss of revenue is to keep increasing taxes. The impoverished people they're importing won't be able to pay the tax bills, so you know who they're going to target.

There is a whole ton of conjecture int his not tied to what is actually in the report.

The increase in *relative share* of older residents is a result of an aging population.

"The aging of baby boomers explains the percentage drop in the share of young adults, 20 to 34, from 26.5 percent in 1990 to 18.8 percent in 2016 with the forecasted decline slowing to 17.3 percent by 2040. This is the only age group decreasing in number (by 4,225 young adults), down 2.1 percent in 2016. Young adults are the most mobile age group, typically renters, some starting families, and they are the core of the county’s new residents." p. 29.

It is not tied to anybody "fleeing."

And as cited above the total tax revenue of the County is as healthy as any county in Maryland, with both real estate and income tax revenue INCREASING in 2023 over 2022.

But thank you for mentioning the aging population. Tending to their housing needs is another reason to increase and diversify the types of housing in the county.

Newsflash genius: of course tax REVENUE goes up as inflation goes up, lol. How shocking. The county already just INCREASED taxes. See how well it goes for revenues over time if your only solution is to keep increasing taxes.

No matter how badly you want to try to gold wrap a turd, it is still a turd. The county's demographics stink. People their prime warning years (i.e. taxpayers who pay the most taxes) are imploding by 2030-2040. The only area of population growth for the county is from 'international migration' while domestic migration to the county is negative. The most international arrivals continue to be from countries like El Salvador, as the report shows. 'International migration' is code speak for illegal immigration, we all know it.

The county can try to to make up wealth fleeing through volume, but all the volume coming in from illegal migration will be poor. They will work jobs for cash under the table. Even if they report income, it'll likely be so low that the net after taxation on them minus the amount you have to spend on them will be negative.

There's no way to polish it. They're tearing up your neighborhoods because they demand US citizens upend their way of life in order to provide affordable housing for international migrants, who are the only source of population growth for the county.

All fear mongering. That’s your main thesis. “Be afraid of others”

In reality, Takoma Park already has SFH next door to multi unit buildings and has been this way for decades. Yet somehow Takoma Park remains highly desirable and safe. Many young families un Takoma Park are UMC professionals with high income and they live side by side with immigrants and lower income citizens. There is nothing to fear.

Takoma Park is not a safe city by any reasonable definition of “safe”. The assault rate is 1.9x the national average. The rate of car theft is 1.5x the national average and the murder rate is also . Literally, half of the crime in TP is from Ward 6 which has more than 50% multi-family housing. This statement is not a compelling argument or even accurate and it certainly does not suggest that eliminating single family zoning will enhance quality of life in MOCO.

Well I actually live here and I walk around with my kids everywhere and never have any issues. You are just a fear monger.

Let’s look at a real neighborhood with a mix of housing types side by side.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/e16jiXoZa3EwkB7R8?g_st=ic

This is in a perfectly safe neighborhood with expensive houses next door to multifamily that has been that way for decades. I know this street very well so you cant BS me about crime etc. Please tell me why that neighborhood is so bad.

Making a factual statement about crime rate is not fear mongering. Whether crime is high or a neighborhood is unsafe is more of an opinion based on individual risk tolerance levels. However, the crime rate for TP is higher than the national average. So I personally would consider this to be a relatively unsafe place and would not live there. Your street may be “safe” but the entire city is only 2.1 Sq miles. Unfortunately, there is not much of a buffer between your street and the sections of TP that make the crime rate higher than the national average.

When do you plan to make a factual statement? Takoma Park does NOT have a higher crime rate than the national average. You are spreading misinformation. Takoma Park is perfectly safe. I live here and spend every day walking the area with my family. You can’t just expect a person with on the ground experience to believe your BS.

I wouldn’t say that it’s “safe.”

https://crimegrade.org/safest-places-in-takoma-park-md/

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/md/takoma-park/crime

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/md/takoma-park/crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I am also great dismayed by how the Council and Planning Board seem to be ramming this through, with smug dismissals of their constituents concerns. The responses to concerns voiced in the listening sessions, on the website are so condescending, it is maddening. They just don't care about the communities.

So, what's next-- assuming this is passed, are we going to have to band together and sue?

Curious, I wasn’t able to join last night’s session. What was the tone of council members in attendance? Smug? The MoCo 360 article simply said they corrected mischaracterizations of the proposal but gave little additional info.

As for suing, I’d contribute. I think it’s despicable that they’re ramming this thing through and also doing so under a fog of limited outreach to communities, especially communities with higher rates of homeowners who are POC. It’s sneaky and exploitative of the developers.

It’s very funny to read the YIMBY complaints this morning. Apparently there is no good or fair way to oppose them.

How about we vote on it? NO WE SHOULDNT VOTE ON ZONING ISSUES.

How about online meeting? NO, EVERYONE MUST SHOW UP TO TESTIFY. ITS TOO HARD TO RECORD. ITS NOT FAIR.

Ok, so we will show up to the in person meetings. ITS NOT FAIR, THEY HAVE MORE PEOPLE. ALL OF OUR SECRET INVISIBLE SUPPORTERS CANT SHOW UP AT THAT TIME AND THEY HAD TO WASH THEIR HAIR AND THEY LIVE IN CANADA YOU WOULDNT KNOW THEM.

How about a thorough analysis with projections for density and density targets for each area? Maybe something that proves that this will work and won’t disrupt existing communities? SURPLAH AND DERMAMD!!!! ITS IN THE RULES!

we don’t support this as it stands, maybe let’s test it out in some way on a small scale, maybe build density only in areas that are already dense. EVERYONE LOVES THE IDEA, YOU ARE JUSY MEAN RACIST NIMBYS AND THERE ARE LIKE FIVE OF YOU.

So, vote on it? NOOOOO, WE WILL DO IT ON THE STATE LEVEL.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 have no doubt that they will sell us out. This whole thing is Friedson’s baby.

I don’t know who “us” is in your sentence but Planning has done no assessment of whether the AHS could make the housing crisis even worse. That’s malpractice.

Us = homeowners

Homeowners who vote, which is why it would never have been put to a vote. We will be voting in 2026, though.

Which will be too late. You don't fully appreciate the orchestration and timing that have gone into this. The intention is to enact it quickly in the new year, with the only current concern being the impact to Alsobrook's Senate candidacy that might come from collateral damage if it were to move forward sooner.

I do appreciate that, and I’ve been saying the same. My point is that they have to hear from us when we have the opportunity. This might be passed, but nothing is irreversible. Also, if they are willing to do this, what else do they have planned? We can put a stop to some of it in the next election.

It is not necessarily reversible due to provisions in HB 538 and constitutionally vested property right that can occur from rezoning. Reversing it could potentially be a takings clause violation and therefore be illegal.

[Anonymous]

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1226381.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I am also great dismayed by how the Council and Planning Board seem to be ramming this through, with smug dismissals of their constituents concerns. The responses to concerns voiced in the listening sessions, on the website are so condescending, it is maddening. They just don't care about the communities.

So, what's next-- assuming this is passed, are we going to have to band together and sue?

Curious, I wasn’t able to join last night’s session. What was the tone of council members in attendance? Smug? The MoCo 360 article simply said they corrected mischaracterizations of the proposal but gave little additional info.

As for suing, I’d contribute. I think it’s despicable that they’re ramming this thing through and also doing so under a fog of limited outreach to communities, especially communities with higher rates of homeowners who are POC. It’s sneaky and exploitative of the developers.

I haven't been to a listening session yet, but others have posted such impressions. I was actually referring to their responses on their website: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/. See for example-- parking:

The AHS report recommends reducing parking minimums to increase the feasibility of fitting duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes on small lots. However, it does not mandate that developers do so. The provision of parking will be driven by market demand. Furthermore, reduced parking minimums are appropriate for walkable communities with access to services, amenities, and multiple modes of transportation. Attracting households with less reliance on personal automobiles is also important for environmental sustainability.

For example, they have deemed it "appropriate" to reduce parking for "walkable communities"-- there are scant details just talking points in how to address foreseeable problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 have no doubt that they will sell us out. This whole thing is Friedson’s baby.

I don’t know who “us” is in your sentence but Planning has done no assessment of whether the AHS could make the housing crisis even worse. That’s malpractice.

Us = homeowners

Homeowners who vote, which is why it would never have been put to a vote. We will be voting in 2026, though.

Which will be too late. You don't fully appreciate the orchestration and timing that have gone into this. The intention is to enact it quickly in the new year, with the only current concern being the impact to Alsobrook's Senate candidacy that might come from collateral damage if it were to move forward sooner.

I do appreciate that, and I’ve been saying the same. My point is that they have to hear from us when we have the opportunity. This might be passed, but nothing is irreversible. Also, if they are willing to do this, what else do they have planned? We can put a stop to some of it in the next election.

It is not necessarily reversible due to provisions in HB 538 and constitutionally vested property right that can occur from rezoning. Reversing it could potentially be a takings clause violation and therefore be illegal.

Isn’t it true that developers are hesitant to get involved in Arlington while the lawsuit proceeds? Maybe it’s just so that they don’t get caught with their pants down during the build, but I know that the lack of clarity and the possibility of reversal is keeping investment low in MM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I am also great dismayed by how the Council and Planning Board seem to be ramming this through, with smug dismissals of their constituents concerns. The responses to concerns voiced in the listening sessions, on the website are so condescending, it is maddening. They just don't care about the communities.

So, what's next-- assuming this is passed, are we going to have to band together and sue?

Curious, I wasn’t able to join last night’s session. What was the tone of council members in attendance? Smug? The MoCo 360 article simply said they corrected mischaracterizations of the proposal but gave little additional info.

As for suing, I’d contribute. I think it’s despicable that they’re ramming this thing through and also doing so under a fog of limited outreach to communities, especially communities with higher rates of homeowners who are POC. It’s sneaky and exploitative of the developers.

I haven't been to a listening session yet, but others have posted such impressions. I was actually referring to their responses on their website: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/. See for example-- parking:

The AHS report recommends reducing parking minimums to increase the feasibility of fitting duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes on small lots. However, it does not mandate that developers do so. The provision of parking will be driven by market demand. Furthermore, reduced parking minimums are appropriate for walkable communities with access to services, amenities, and multiple modes of transportation. Attracting households with less reliance on personal automobiles is also important for environmental sustainability.

For example, they have deemed it "appropriate" to reduce parking for "walkable communities"-- there are scant details just talking points in how to address foreseeable problems.

Just like Thrive. Keep it as vague as possible. Seems that people have caught onto it at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the quote from Fani-Gonzalez that homeowners don’t own a community …. Except we sort of do. We are literally investors in it and the quality of our lives, our schools, our streets, our infrastructure - all of it - is paid for through our property taxes and income taxes and the hard work we put into maintaining our communities. We certainly “own” our communities more than developers.

She and other council members have total contempt for their constituents. “Attainable housing” nothing but a Trojan horse for developers.

You have strange logic. Who would be building on a piece of property if not the owner? Why would you expect to be able to decide what an owner does with their own property? That’s a very entitled way of thinking.

You are being intentionally obtuse. Developers may be owners but they have far different motivators and incentives than people buying a home to live in it and be part of the community.

Developers are entitled, and what we’re seeing play out is their lobbying efforts and $$ undermining SFH communities.