MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Close-in housing is more effective than further out housing or maybe now it isn’t? What’s being built further out is mostly SFH. No one is choosing to live in a further out SFH because they can’t afford an apartment closer in. They’re buying the housing type not the location. |
Anonymous
I read the testimony at this link. It's good and not understandable for the average person. The summary in the dcum post above (considering policies separately so hard to piece together all the scams) is way more user-friendly. How can that message get out? |
Anonymous
If Glenn Orlin wanted to still be telling the County Council how to do things, then he shouldn't have retired, twice. It's not the 1970s in Montgomery County anymore. Or anywhere else, either. |
Anonymous
Just another Trumpist attack. The facts he pointed out speak for themselves. |
Anonymous
At this point I can’t help but feel that the planning board and council members are going to find themselves the subjects of a Netflix docuseries at some point. |
Anonymous
I don’t know, but last listening session is tomorrow. For anything sharing information because it takes place they should include that link along with the previously posted explainer and the link to the petition. |
Anonymous
Here is the direct link without the period: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf |
Anonymous
You never want to discuss the substance. You just want to attack the messenger, question others’ right to speak, distract from the issue at hand, or drown out alternative views. It speaks volumes about YIMBYism that you don’t engage the substance once it goes past your seven-word canned answers, which are misleading, by the way. For anyone looking for the Orlin testimony it’s on the council website: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf If you have a stake in MCPS, you should read what Orlin writes very carefully. If the planning proposal passes, important capital projects will be cut or pushed further down the road. |
Anonymous
|
Reminder, the virtual listening session is tomorrow. It says that the registration cap has been reached, not sure if the live links will still work.
Great information here, please share: https://static1.squarespa...02rDNcHgpQ “Attend a Public Listening Session Wednesday, Oct. 2, Virtual Session (Zoom) 12 to 2 p.m. Meeting details will be sent to registrants prior to the event. Registration is closed at more than 950 participants. The session will be streamed on the Council's Facebook and YouTube pages and the recording will be posted following the meeting.” The Council is also inviting residents to provide additional feedback on the Attainable Housing Strategies initiative. https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/f...i90z2ksvq/ Sign the petition here: https://www.change.org/p/...ery-county |
Anonymous
The answer is obvious. New construction puts additional pressure on infrastructure that has not been accounted for yet. Seriously how can you not understand this simple concept? |
Anonymous
|
As it unlikely that the Council is still reading this thread, if they ever did, at page 37, you can submit feedback to the County Council via this portal here. This way, it will be read by all members of the Council.
https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/ |
Anonymous
Not that folks shouldn't provide that feedback, either positive or negative, but they should do so with the grain of salt that this is likely performative. The response is already written, and had been some time back, along the lines of: "After unprecedented community engagement and careful review of the commentary of Montgomery County residents, representing both full-throated support of the Attainable Housing Strategies presented by Montgomery Planning and neighborhood concerns, [insert sponsoring Councilmembers' names] are proposing legislation that will bring much of that vision to reality. [Insert language almost identical to that used at the beginning of the listening sessions regarding the housing shortage and affordability, pointing to conformance with Thrive] We are appreciative of the considerable response to our outreach, and we listened closely to the concerns expressed by our neighbors and fellow Montgomery County residents. Our decision to take action does not come lightly, and, as we move forward, we are heartened by the knowledge that many resident concerns can be addressed through well established County processes. Montgomery County is growing and changing. To truly thrive, we must embrace that change by supporting growth for the many who would call our County home, and addressing that need for housing must remain our overwhelming concern. We thank the Planning Board, particularly Chair Artie Harris, and those at Montgomery Planning, led by Jason Sartori, who worked long and hard to produce the recommendations on which this proposed legislation is based. We also thank those members of our Council staff who have reviewed the recommended actions, identifying alterations, now included in our proposal, that better comport with existing County processes and law. We encourage our fellow Montgomery County residents to lend their support to this important legislation." The proposal, enshring many of the allowances as by-right and without significant limit, will probably drop sometime between the election and the holidays, likely close to one or the other to minimize notice/exposure in the news cycle. The required hearings, etc., will remain performative, and the following vote will be scheduled for a time towards the beginning of summer -- long enough to claim it was not at the first possible moment and, therefore, not "rushed." The only thing then will be to decide an effective date that would minimize notice of related activity leading into the following election cycle's primary, as all but Friedson would be safe in their seats with Democrat nomination, and Friedson will be aiming for an office that cycle where having passed this kind of legislation might help him. Somewhere in the middle of all of this, the less noticed but effectively paired effort to reduce development impact taxes will skate through. Anyone looking to have something different happen without some rapid indication to the contrary, now that the listening sessions are over, might need to look into a recall effort. |
Anonymous
We’ve seen enough resistance that I think a very healthy lawsuit is guaranteed. Probably a series of them. There is no realistic way to justify what the county is proposing. |
Anonymous
You've missed all the groudwork that went in to laying out their justification. Why do you think Planning was asked only to focus on the one avenue? They also will have the benefit of knowing the outcome of Arlington's effort to craft the proposed legislation to help proof it against suit, and likely the result of an appeal before final ammendments and passage. |
Anonymous
Oh, I know. I’m saying that while they tried to hide it as much as possible, just like they did with Thrive, the opposition is widely known this time around, and their complete lack of research and lack of justification in moving this forward is transparent. These people are not rocket scientists, I think that some attorneys will have a field day picking this apart. |