Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

This whole discussion started, though, because someone claimed that the new developments were meeting the "housing shortage" need in Montgomery County. However, the new developments aren't addressing the shortage, unless you take on faith that "luxury apartments" somehow create low income housing because (hand waves) something something the magic of smart growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

This exactly. The new development is not solving any issues. It is simply making developers more money.

So a way for developers to enrich themselves at the expense of taxpayers.

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

This whole discussion started, though, because someone claimed that the new developments were meeting the "housing shortage" need in Montgomery County. However, the new developments aren't addressing the shortage, unless you take on faith that "luxury apartments" somehow create low income housing because (hand waves) something something the magic of smart growth.

"Luxury apartments" just means "new buildings." And new buildings actually do address the housing shortage in Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

And that seems to be primarily what they are adding- more condos and apts. the real room for SFHs is further out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

This whole discussion started, though, because someone claimed that the new developments were meeting the "housing shortage" need in Montgomery County. However, the new developments aren't addressing the shortage, unless you take on faith that "luxury apartments" somehow create low income housing because (hand waves) something something the magic of smart growth.

"Luxury apartments" just means "new buildings." And new buildings actually do address the housing shortage in Montgomery County.

Right- the building going in near our neighborhood will be charging more in rent than most of us pay for our mortgages. I guess there’s always demand tor new luxury apartments though, maybe the luxury units build 10 years ago will decrease the prices for everyone else now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

And that seems to be primarily what they are adding- more condos and apts. the real room for SFHs is further out.

Yes, that's called car-dependent sprawl.

[Anonymous]

The building the developer wants to build across from the Forest Glen metro station has significantly more parking spaces than units. And the minimum amount of affordable housing. The county apparently wants to approve it without changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The smart thing for the county to do is build school capacity to meet anticipated demand. When the county can’t grow because it hasn’t built enough schools, MCPS and the county council have failed.

This isn’t all on MCPS. The county council has repeatedly gutted school funding — especially in urban areas where high-density development is concentrated — by lowering impact fees that developers pay to add school capacity. The fees had been set so that each new development paid roughly the amount of money required to add the capacity needed for that development, but the council has cut the fees because it prioritizes developer profit over building schools.

The county has never done this. Never ever. Not even in the boom growth years in the 1950s. Maybe MCPS should consider sending kids to school in shifts, like they did in the 1950s.

So you’re saying the county has never been smart. Concur.

Instead of shifts, put all the kids from new developments in virtual until schools get built or send them to the nearest school with space. Then we can see how much infrastructure (which developers neither own nor contribute enough toward building) contributes to the price of a house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The smart thing for the county to do is build school capacity to meet anticipated demand. When the county can’t grow because it hasn’t built enough schools, MCPS and the county council have failed.

This isn’t all on MCPS. The county council has repeatedly gutted school funding — especially in urban areas where high-density development is concentrated — by lowering impact fees that developers pay to add school capacity. The fees had been set so that each new development paid roughly the amount of money required to add the capacity needed for that development, but the council has cut the fees because it prioritizes developer profit over building schools.

The county has never done this. Never ever. Not even in the boom growth years in the 1950s. Maybe MCPS should consider sending kids to school in shifts, like they did in the 1950s.

So you’re saying the county has never been smart. Concur.

Instead of shifts, put all the kids from new developments in virtual until schools get built or send them to the nearest school with space. Then we can see how much infrastructure (which developers neither own nor contribute enough toward building) contributes to the price of a house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The building the developer wants to build across from the Forest Glen metro station has significantly more parking spaces than units. And the minimum amount of affordable housing. The county apparently wants to approve it without changes.

What's there now? What's the minimum percentage of MPDUs?

I don't remember what the county has done about minimum parking requirements near Metro stations. I don't think there should be any minimum parking requirements. But if the developer wants to build the parking, the developer can do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The building the developer wants to build across from the Forest Glen metro station has significantly more parking spaces than units. And the minimum amount of affordable housing. The county apparently wants to approve it without changes.

What's there now? What's the minimum percentage of MPDUs?

I don't remember what the county has done about minimum parking requirements near Metro stations. I don't think there should be any minimum parking requirements. But if the developer wants to build the parking, the developer can do so.

The minimum parking requirements for an apartment close to metro are less than one space per unit. The excessive parking problem has never been driven by the minimums. It’s been driven by developers far exceeding the market minimums and planning’s willingness to waive the maximums. This happens near metro stations outside of DTSS and Bethesda all the time.

I appreciate your honesty though. Parking is bad unless the developer wants it. Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.