MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Repeatedly refuted, here and elsewhere, by the observations that: The scope and extent of the densification strategy currently being put forth were part of no platform of any of the councilmembers at the time of their election (even Sayles, who had been on the Planning Board). Each of them has avowed that these details from Planning are new to them as of the June submission. Election of a representative does not equate to accedance to that representative's views on every issue. Voters can still get their say at the next election, but if the Council moves forward in a way that would make publicly popular retraction of densification policy difficult (e.g., by enacting a zoning text amendment with language that creates by-right development or development approvals without the public hearings that otherwise would be necessary) and/or does so in a way that preempts the possibility of a ballot initiative that would provide more direct public determination prior to densification action, then they would more clearly be pushing this against the will/interests of those they were elected to represent. |
Anonymous
You can't refute it. It's a fact. It's like saying gravity has been repeatedly refuted. |
Anonymous
|
Is this true?:
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1226381.page |
Anonymous
So in your world, voters only ever vote once and have no recourse of recall, ballot initiative or the next election cycle when a candidate's position has become clear and that position is terribly unpopular. Okaaaaaayyy, then... What has been refuted is not that the council was elected or that they can make a zoning text amendment. What has been refuted is the concept that their having been elected should mean that anything within the purview of their office should be considered right and just, and be accepted by the populace without contest, because, effectively, "voters already had their say in the last election." Even when those positions were not known or made public prior to election. Or even though the candidate's voting support when elected was the result of their positions on completely separate issues, and not on the one in question. |
Anonymous
|
It is true. Not only that, but Friedson is having the council consider the growth and infrastructure policy and the impact fee bill separately, making it harder to piece together all of the loopholes, discounts, and exemptions. Here’s what a former council staffer (who used to cover planning for the professional staff) had to say about Friedson’s effort: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf A number of the new developer tax breaks in the bill weren’t even discussed in the GIP, so there’s no qualitative basis for many of them. |
Anonymous
|
You tax things you want to discourage. Do you think we should be discouraging the creation of housing? |
Anonymous
This is an absurd comment, it has to be paid for somehow. The county needs to build schools and expand infrastructure to accommodate additional residents. Without impact fees everyone else in the county has to pay for this through increased property taxes and sales taxes. The cost of expanding infrastructure should be directly realized by the private property owners that are causing the county to incur this expense. For someone that talks about market oriented solutions you seem like a big fan of socialism when negative externalities don't support your YIMBY dogma. |
Anonymous
Basically, the YIMBY logic is let the markets decide except for when it is inconvenient to their political agenda. In this situation, everyone else should pay for it and be grateful for higher taxes. |
Anonymous
Governments levy taxes to pay for the cost of government. You don’t seem to have a very good understanding of tax policy. Did the county council raise property taxes because they want to discourage people from living here? Did the state raise sales taxes because they want to discourage people from buying things? Does the federal government have Social Security and Medicare tax to discourage people from working? Stop torturing economics and be a grown up. Distract all you want, but anyone paying attention knows the tax cuts are a transfer of wealth from the government (the people) to developers. You even know it deep down, which is why you are so defensive about it. |
Anonymous
Everyone who lives in Montgomery County should read this: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf. It’s a great summary of how Planning and Friedson have this wrong and points out how Friedson is trying to pull a fast one. It’s always this way with Planning, almost as if they know their ideas can’t stand on their own so there’s always some trickery. |
Anonymous
Wow, that's some good specificity |
Anonymous
Those close-in SFH homeowners are causing the county and state to incur a lot infrastructure expenses by keeping other people further away from their jobs. |
Anonymous
It's not a tax on developers. It's a tax on people purchasing new homes. But how does someone moving into a new townhome have a greater burden on infrastructure than someone moving into an elderly couple's former home next door? |
Anonymous
You have some evidence and metrics to back this up, right? |
Anonymous
In that case it’s a tax on the top on the top 10 percent of households because that’s who new homes are priced for. Should the other 90 percent subsidize the top 10 percent? You’re also missing the fact that the vast majority of homes were developed under the impact fee system or the proffer system, so the county has already extracted the value of infrastructure from that home and will continue to do so every time the home is sold. Through recordation taxes. But it’s not really paid for by the purchaser, is it? The county cut impact fee rates twice in the past four years. Were those savings passed on to buyers or did developers charge even more and take those rate reductions as profit? |