More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Even the YImBYist of YImBY groups acknowledge that this will do little to nothing to create affordable housing.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway

So, in the end we should go through all of this to have “walkable urban neighborhoods” in areas of suburban housing that few people have asked for, and in fact many of them moved away from on purpose.

At least they are saying the quiet part out loud now. It’s not about housing, it’s about people who can’t afford to live in the city recreating a city in the suburbs.

Interesting that the article mention Somerville as some form of ideal. The genius planners there let a bunch of beloved local, independent restaurants and shops get bulldozed to make way for a much larger Tufts science lab.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

Par for the course. There are parties that would not only accept but would welcome a decrease in property values. Those same people also want to adjust school boundaries so that there are no “good” or “bad” schools or neighborhoods, just a nice luke warm average at best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If the corridor plan transforms Four Corners into San Francisco's Excelsior District, that will actually be a success for Montgomery County.

DP. If we want Excelsior, Glenmont to Wheaton is the better comparison and better community opportunity. Or Wheaton to Kensington, though shorter, and certain to generate even greater opposition.

Four Corners to Wheaton is all about developers' low-hanging fruit from a profit perspective.

Yup, it avoids the difficult and the ethnic areas so they can build the same cookie cutter project that appeals to the same cookie cutter demographic.

Please tell us where "the difficult and the ethnic areas" are.

White Oak and Central Wheaton. They would rather build up a new area rather than redevelop an old one that doesn't have the demographics they want for their over priced bougie apartments.

They want live bougie without having to earn the money to buy a single family home…if gentrification is the cost, that’s what it takes to be able to ride their bike to the local coffee shop. Current residents of neighborhoods be damned.

Damned to what ?

DP. To higher densities without adequate public facilities (including schools), larger structures and lessened tree canopy next door or nearby diminishing the feel of their surroundings, additional traffic congestion where BRT is not an efficient option, less available street parking near their own homes, lower resale/borrowing values of their own properties, etc., all different from that which would have been expected at the time of their highly life-impactful, burdensome-to-change decisions to reside in those neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even the YImBYist of YImBY groups acknowledge that this will do little to nothing to create affordable housing.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway

So, in the end we should go through all of this to have “walkable urban neighborhoods” in areas of suburban housing that few people have asked for, and in fact many of them moved away from on purpose.

At least they are saying the quiet part out loud now. It’s not about housing, it’s about people who can’t afford to live in the city recreating a city in the suburbs.

Interesting that the article mention Somerville as some form of ideal. The genius planners there let a bunch of beloved local, independent restaurants and shops get bulldozed to make way for a much larger Tufts science lab.

Let’s just follow the urbanism trends. Last decade it was all about maximizing density. Eliminating restrictions on height, massing, size, etc to produce as many micro-studio apartments as possible. Now it’s moved on to “gentle density” and walkable suburbs.

It’s basically the same group of people demanding that we bend the world around their momentary desires.

If we follow this same thread, as this cohort ages they will next be demanding more single family houses with yards and we will be back at square one.

The bizarre thing to me is that the proper role of Planning is to bring this big picture approach so that we are not jerking from fad to fad to fad but taking into account the present and the future.

Unfortunately Planning has always chased one fad to the next. Look at downtown Bethesda and their green space in the sky connected by bridges nonsense. What a failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

You definitely work at Planning because you share the vision they have that the county should only and forever be a bedroom community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even the YImBYist of YImBY groups acknowledge that this will do little to nothing to create affordable housing.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway

So, in the end we should go through all of this to have “walkable urban neighborhoods” in areas of suburban housing that few people have asked for, and in fact many of them moved away from on purpose.

At least they are saying the quiet part out loud now. It’s not about housing, it’s about people who can’t afford to live in the city recreating a city in the suburbs.

Interesting that the article mention Somerville as some form of ideal. The genius planners there let a bunch of beloved local, independent restaurants and shops get bulldozed to make way for a much larger Tufts science lab.

Which "quiet part" is now "out loud"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even the YImBYist of YImBY groups acknowledge that this will do little to nothing to create affordable housing.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway

So, in the end we should go through all of this to have “walkable urban neighborhoods” in areas of suburban housing that few people have asked for, and in fact many of them moved away from on purpose.

At least they are saying the quiet part out loud now. It’s not about housing, it’s about people who can’t afford to live in the city recreating a city in the suburbs.

Interesting that the article mention Somerville as some form of ideal. The genius planners there let a bunch of beloved local, independent restaurants and shops get bulldozed to make way for a much larger Tufts science lab.

Which "quiet part" is now "out loud"?

Are you the same poster in this thread that nearly always needs assistance in reading comprehension?

The writer introduces an idea and then addresses it in the very next sentence. It’s not a complex word problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Even the YImBYist of YImBY groups acknowledge that this will do little to nothing to create affordable housing.

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway

So, in the end we should go through all of this to have “walkable urban neighborhoods” in areas of suburban housing that few people have asked for, and in fact many of them moved away from on purpose.

At least they are saying the quiet part out loud now. It’s not about housing, it’s about people who can’t afford to live in the city recreating a city in the suburbs.

Interesting that the article mention Somerville as some form of ideal. The genius planners there let a bunch of beloved local, independent restaurants and shops get bulldozed to make way for a much larger Tufts science lab.

Which "quiet part" is now "out loud"?

Are you the same poster in this thread that nearly always needs assistance in reading comprehension?

The writer introduces an idea and then addresses it in the very next sentence. It’s not a complex word problem.

Are you referring to "It’s not about housing, it’s about people who can’t afford to live in the city recreating a city in the suburbs." If so, that's a self-contradictory statement. If it's about people living in the suburbs who can't afford to live in the city, then it actually is about housing.

Maybe the poster meant to say that Strong Towns is saying the out-loud part out loud?

Your assumption here seems to be that the suburbs should never change. I have news for you: the suburbs have changed, are changing, and will continue to change. This would be true even if you could wave a magic wand and get the University Boulevard corridor plan and BRT canceled tomorrow, forever. You can't stop the change. You can only try get the change to be change you want, versus change you don't want. So, what change do you want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

You definitely work at Planning because you share the vision they have that the county should only and forever be a bedroom community.

We are like in the top 20, something like 12th in top HHI in counties in the country. Do you want to move up more?

But sure, rezone things so that people can build offices too, not just homes. There. Happy now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

DP. You're not having a substantive discussion. You're having a discussion that is "Planning isn't doing the things I think Planning should do!" And the things you think Planning should do are encourage rich households and discourage poor households. Which is an opinion you get to have, but not everybody agrees on that as the primary planning goal for the county.