MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[Anonymous]

On yesterday's virtual learning session, several people pointed out that outreach has been minimal. One woman wisely noted that she received notices about the changes to leaf blower laws-- why haven't they done something similar.

A light bulb went off for me when she said this. I think news has only gotten out because of list serves and local media.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

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.

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.

Oh great thanks a lot. Just like the Purple Line that you guys tied up in a stupid lawsuit that only resulted in higher costs and a delayed project. How considerate of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On yesterday's virtual learning session, several people pointed out that outreach has been minimal. One woman wisely noted that she received notices about the changes to leaf blower laws-- why haven't they done something similar.

A light bulb went off for me when she said this. I think news has only gotten out because of list serves and local media.

I didn’t start this thread, but I have started a couple of the others in the past year because it seemed like the only way to really get the word out. It’s so shady.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

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.

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.

Oh great thanks a lot. Just like the Purple Line that you guys tied up in a stupid lawsuit that only resulted in higher costs and a delayed project. How considerate of you.

No, I supported the purple line because it seems mostly reasonable. I also was a proponent of it running in more places but instead we got stuck with the new super bus.

However, upzoning is a stupid solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

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.

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.

Oh great thanks a lot. Just like the Purple Line that you guys tied up in a stupid lawsuit that only resulted in higher costs and a delayed project. How considerate of you.

No, I supported the purple line because it seems mostly reasonable. I also was a proponent of it running in more places but instead we got stuck with the new super bus.

However, upzoning is a stupid solution.

I wonder how much MoCo's portion of a Metro Circle Line with roughly parallel surface BRT (which might now look to EV) to cover more granular access would have cost, and how much greater the eventual benefit might have been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

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.

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.

Oh great thanks a lot. Just like the Purple Line that you guys tied up in a stupid lawsuit that only resulted in higher costs and a delayed project. How considerate of you.

You are welcome! Can't wait to donate to the cause of locking this up until I retire.

[Anonymous]

At this point, who (if anyone) has the power to stop this?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point, who (if anyone) has the power to stop this?

The Council -- unlikely, as they are pretty much all ideologically behind it or in developers' pockets.

The courts -- unlikely, due to the timing/organization needed to effect a halt before any of this goes into effect, due to the Council's/Planning's having continuously repeated mention of engagement/meeting minimum requirements, there (though timing of, depth of and responsiveness to that are dubious, flimsy and platitudinous/not required, respectively), and due to their ability to shape their approach to make it less vulnerable to challenge, having seen the pitfalls in Arlington/elsewhere.

The people -- unlikely, given the need either for sustained public protest/picketing/civil disobedience that might make for political infeasibility or for a well organized, rapid recall effort with overwhelming support.

[Anonymous]

I find it interesting that the only people trying to shut down discussion of the AHS are its advocates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point, who (if anyone) has the power to stop this?

The Council -- unlikely, as they are pretty much all ideologically behind it or in developers' pockets.

The courts -- unlikely, due to the timing/organization needed to effect a halt before any of this goes into effect, due to the Council's/Planning's having continuously repeated mention of engagement/meeting minimum requirements, there (though timing of, depth of and responsiveness to that are dubious, flimsy and platitudinous/not required, respectively), and due to their ability to shape their approach to make it less vulnerable to challenge, having seen the pitfalls in Arlington/elsewhere.

The people -- unlikely, given the need either for sustained public protest/picketing/civil disobedience that might make for political infeasibility or for a well organized, rapid recall effort with overwhelming support.

They have addressed zero of those concerns. What you are stating was their hope, but they have failed. It’s very plain to see that if they pass this it would be counter to the wishes of a super-majority of their constituency. They can pass it, but the pockets for impending lawsuits will be much, much, deeper than in Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point, who (if anyone) has the power to stop this?

The Council -- unlikely, as they are pretty much all ideologically behind it or in developers' pockets.

The courts -- unlikely, due to the timing/organization needed to effect a halt before any of this goes into effect, due to the Council's/Planning's having continuously repeated mention of engagement/meeting minimum requirements, there (though timing of, depth of and responsiveness to that are dubious, flimsy and platitudinous/not required, respectively), and due to their ability to shape their approach to make it less vulnerable to challenge, having seen the pitfalls in Arlington/elsewhere.

The people -- unlikely, given the need either for sustained public protest/picketing/civil disobedience that might make for political infeasibility or for a well organized, rapid recall effort with overwhelming support.

They have addressed zero of those concerns. What you are stating was their hope, but they have failed. It’s very plain to see that if they pass this it would be counter to the wishes of a super-majority of their constituency. They can pass it, but the pockets for impending lawsuits will be much, much, deeper than in Arlington.

That was not positing that there wouldn't be legal challenge, but that it would be unlikely to be effective, given the timing, groundwork and fast-follower-perspective advantage of the Thrive 2050/AHS initiative (with complementarty pro-density-in-residential legislation, such as proposed impact tax reductions and Maryland HB 538).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point, who (if anyone) has the power to stop this?

The Council -- unlikely, as they are pretty much all ideologically behind it or in developers' pockets.

The courts -- unlikely, due to the timing/organization needed to effect a halt before any of this goes into effect, due to the Council's/Planning's having continuously repeated mention of engagement/meeting minimum requirements, there (though timing of, depth of and responsiveness to that are dubious, flimsy and platitudinous/not required, respectively), and due to their ability to shape their approach to make it less vulnerable to challenge, having seen the pitfalls in Arlington/elsewhere.

The people -- unlikely, given the need either for sustained public protest/picketing/civil disobedience that might make for political infeasibility or for a well organized, rapid recall effort with overwhelming support.

They have addressed zero of those concerns. What you are stating was their hope, but they have failed. It’s very plain to see that if they pass this it would be counter to the wishes of a super-majority of their constituency. They can pass it, but the pockets for impending lawsuits will be much, much, deeper than in Arlington.

There is where those Big Law partners will come in handy. For all those Big Law partners on here that have seen countless attacks on DCUM; please disregard all of those..we love you and your high compensation. Please help.

[Anonymous]

Wait, look at this. An entire development of townhomes? Right here in Montgomery County?

I thought that the YIMBYs said that this was ILLEGAL? My gosh, building illegal homes right under our noses!

https://mocoshow.com/2024/10/02/new-82-unit-townhome-community-on-tower-oaks-blvd-receives-preliminary-approval/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1Jbt2dMJcMCJPAdUGUOApY6Fz_u3irlE-z500aigec0Uizv-dNP_u5yCs_aem_4gtbPCyqNjcQZE5-jiiYkA

LMAO. This seems to be a little more sane than trying to insert these where they weren’t meant to be. I mean, what is this, actual planning? In our county?

“ The project plan includes 82 townhome units, featuring both front- and rear-loaded designs, along with a central open-space plaza. The Planning Commission also reviewed the project, approving a level 2 site plan application earlier this summer.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At this point, who (if anyone) has the power to stop this?

The Council -- unlikely, as they are pretty much all ideologically behind it or in developers' pockets.

The courts -- unlikely, due to the timing/organization needed to effect a halt before any of this goes into effect, due to the Council's/Planning's having continuously repeated mention of engagement/meeting minimum requirements, there (though timing of, depth of and responsiveness to that are dubious, flimsy and platitudinous/not required, respectively), and due to their ability to shape their approach to make it less vulnerable to challenge, having seen the pitfalls in Arlington/elsewhere.

The people -- unlikely, given the need either for sustained public protest/picketing/civil disobedience that might make for political infeasibility or for a well organized, rapid recall effort with overwhelming support.

They have addressed zero of those concerns. What you are stating was their hope, but they have failed. It’s very plain to see that if they pass this it would be counter to the wishes of a super-majority of their constituency. They can pass it, but the pockets for impending lawsuits will be much, much, deeper than in Arlington.

There is where those Big Law partners will come in handy. For all those Big Law partners on here that have seen countless attacks on DCUM; please disregard all of those..we love you and your high compensation. Please help.

I know some of those partners. No problems with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Wait, look at this. An entire development of townhomes? Right here in Montgomery County?

I thought that the YIMBYs said that this was ILLEGAL? My gosh, building illegal homes right under our noses!

https://mocoshow.com/2024/10/02/new-82-unit-townhome-community-on-tower-oaks-blvd-receives-preliminary-approval/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR1Jbt2dMJcMCJPAdUGUOApY6Fz_u3irlE-z500aigec0Uizv-dNP_u5yCs_aem_4gtbPCyqNjcQZE5-jiiYkA

LMAO. This seems to be a little more sane than trying to insert these where they weren’t meant to be. I mean, what is this, actual planning? In our county?

“ The project plan includes 82 townhome units, featuring both front- and rear-loaded designs, along with a central open-space plaza. The Planning Commission also reviewed the project, approving a level 2 site plan application earlier this summer.”

Wow, look, more housing!

Look at the crisis!

https://mocoshow.com/2024/10/03/rockville-office-building-may-convert-to-181-unit-residential-multifamily-building/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR03Cg-rVs79YckvbBw8TTNIGRt94JIknEBv64jT908oONIuNH-CIr-terc_aem_vofmJTI0K1lji1EvRa_urg