MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

They are not FORBIDDING parking. Builders will be allowed to provide as much parking as they want.

Developers don’t care about the well-being or county residents or marginalized communities. They only care about profits and they will not condenser negative externalities of their projects if the county does not force them to do so. The whole point of development standards is to provide a minimum baseline that ensures developers will not do things that have an excessively negative impact on overall community health and welfare. The market will not provide a solution to ensuring that elderly and disabled people have equitable access to society because it is more profitable to exclude them (in most circumstances). My family member is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and they literally cannot be around other people (so no public transit). This is a very rare disease and they would not have access to appropriate medical facilities (over 50 miles away) if they did not have a parking/a car to drive to the cancer treatment center. Letting developers do whatever they “want” without regard for the consequences/impact on the community is a recipe for disaster. I am not opposed to the MM idea, but it needs to be more narrowly targeted to ensure that growth does not outpace the availability of infrastructure and public services, or negatively impact vulnerable community members.

Developers care about profits, therefore if there is demand for parking, they will build parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

They are not FORBIDDING parking. Builders will be allowed to provide as much parking as they want.

Developers don’t care about the well-being or county residents or marginalized communities. They only care about profits and they will not condenser negative externalities of their projects if the county does not force them to do so. The whole point of development standards is to provide a minimum baseline that ensures developers will not do things that have an excessively negative impact on overall community health and welfare. The market will not provide a solution to ensuring that elderly and disabled people have equitable access to society because it is more profitable to exclude them (in most circumstances). My family member is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and they literally cannot be around other people (so no public transit). This is a very rare disease and they would not have access to appropriate medical facilities (over 50 miles away) if they did not have a parking/a car to drive to the cancer treatment center. Letting developers do whatever they “want” without regard for the consequences/impact on the community is a recipe for disaster. I am not opposed to the MM idea, but it needs to be more narrowly targeted to ensure that growth does not outpace the availability of infrastructure and public services, or negatively impact vulnerable community members.

Developers care about profits, therefore if there is demand for parking, they will build parking.

If there is a demand for proper storm water drainage then they will build proper storm water drainage.

If there is a demand for safe sidewalks then the developers will build safe sidewalks.

Let the libertarianism flow through through you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

There is a requirement to have the same number of accessible parking spaces as there otherwise would have been. They accounted for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

They are not FORBIDDING parking. Builders will be allowed to provide as much parking as they want.

Developers don’t care about the well-being or county residents or marginalized communities. They only care about profits and they will not condenser negative externalities of their projects if the county does not force them to do so. The whole point of development standards is to provide a minimum baseline that ensures developers will not do things that have an excessively negative impact on overall community health and welfare. The market will not provide a solution to ensuring that elderly and disabled people have equitable access to society because it is more profitable to exclude them (in most circumstances). My family member is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and they literally cannot be around other people (so no public transit). This is a very rare disease and they would not have access to appropriate medical facilities (over 50 miles away) if they did not have a parking/a car to drive to the cancer treatment center. Letting developers do whatever they “want” without regard for the consequences/impact on the community is a recipe for disaster. I am not opposed to the MM idea, but it needs to be more narrowly targeted to ensure that growth does not outpace the availability of infrastructure and public services, or negatively impact vulnerable community members.

Developers care about profits, therefore if there is demand for parking, they will build parking.

Market demand will not solve issues like school overcrowding, pollution, traffic congestion. My whole point is that things like disability inclusive development, impervious surface coverage limits, tree canopy preservation,
ect, will mostly not happen if you let developers do whatever there is “demand for”. There are very real environmental and social consequences for letting developers do whatever they “want”.Developers will not give adequate consideration to social impacts or environmental harms if they are not forced to do it. MM housing is fine, but I think it would be more prudent to start with special use permits for multiplex housing with an annual cap on the number of units before deciding whether this standard should be lifted altogether. This will allow the county time to evaluate the real-world impact before making a very consequential and largely irreversible change to zoning regulations. Establishing by right development zoning (that can increase density up to 4x) will create a vested property interest that may give property owners standing to sue (for changes to zoning) and limit the counties ability to enhance or rework policies if necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

They are not FORBIDDING parking. Builders will be allowed to provide as much parking as they want.

Developers don’t care about the well-being or county residents or marginalized communities. They only care about profits and they will not condenser negative externalities of their projects if the county does not force them to do so. The whole point of development standards is to provide a minimum baseline that ensures developers will not do things that have an excessively negative impact on overall community health and welfare. The market will not provide a solution to ensuring that elderly and disabled people have equitable access to society because it is more profitable to exclude them (in most circumstances). My family member is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and they literally cannot be around other people (so no public transit). This is a very rare disease and they would not have access to appropriate medical facilities (over 50 miles away) if they did not have a parking/a car to drive to the cancer treatment center. Letting developers do whatever they “want” without regard for the consequences/impact on the community is a recipe for disaster. I am not opposed to the MM idea, but it needs to be more narrowly targeted to ensure that growth does not outpace the availability of infrastructure and public services, or negatively impact vulnerable community members.

Developers care about profits, therefore if there is demand for parking, they will build parking.

Market demand will not solve issues like school overcrowding, pollution, traffic congestion. My whole point is that things like disability inclusive development, impervious surface coverage limits, tree canopy preservation,
ect, will mostly not happen if you let developers do whatever there is “demand for”. There are very real environmental and social consequences for letting developers do whatever they “want”.Developers will not give adequate consideration to social impacts or environmental harms if they are not forced to do it. MM housing is fine, but I think it would be more prudent to start with special use permits for multiplex housing with an annual cap on the number of units before deciding whether this standard should be lifted altogether. This will allow the county time to evaluate the real-world impact before making a very consequential and largely irreversible change to zoning regulations. Establishing by right development zoning (that can increase density up to 4x) will create a vested property interest that may give property owners standing to sue (for changes to zoning) and limit the counties ability to enhance or rework policies if necessary.

Not PP, but I appreciate the thoughtful response.

The thing is there ARE still requirements in place to address each of the bolded.
I am very curious about your vested interest and standing to sue theory. I need to look into that. If accurate, it is the most persuasive argument I have heard against upzoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

Yes. We all know if Congress got their insurance plan serviced by the Veteran's Administration, we would see it rapidly improve. The same theory applies here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

They are not FORBIDDING parking. Builders will be allowed to provide as much parking as they want.

Developers don’t care about the well-being or county residents or marginalized communities. They only care about profits and they will not condenser negative externalities of their projects if the county does not force them to do so. The whole point of development standards is to provide a minimum baseline that ensures developers will not do things that have an excessively negative impact on overall community health and welfare. The market will not provide a solution to ensuring that elderly and disabled people have equitable access to society because it is more profitable to exclude them (in most circumstances). My family member is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and they literally cannot be around other people (so no public transit). This is a very rare disease and they would not have access to appropriate medical facilities (over 50 miles away) if they did not have a parking/a car to drive to the cancer treatment center. Letting developers do whatever they “want” without regard for the consequences/impact on the community is a recipe for disaster. I am not opposed to the MM idea, but it needs to be more narrowly targeted to ensure that growth does not outpace the availability of infrastructure and public services, or negatively impact vulnerable community members.

Developers care about profits, therefore if there is demand for parking, they will build parking.

Market demand will not solve issues like school overcrowding, pollution, traffic congestion. My whole point is that things like disability inclusive development, impervious surface coverage limits, tree canopy preservation,
ect, will mostly not happen if you let developers do whatever there is “demand for”. There are very real environmental and social consequences for letting developers do whatever they “want”.Developers will not give adequate consideration to social impacts or environmental harms if they are not forced to do it. MM housing is fine, but I think it would be more prudent to start with special use permits for multiplex housing with an annual cap on the number of units before deciding whether this standard should be lifted altogether. This will allow the county time to evaluate the real-world impact before making a very consequential and largely irreversible change to zoning regulations. Establishing by right development zoning (that can increase density up to 4x) will create a vested property interest that may give property owners standing to sue (for changes to zoning) and limit the counties ability to enhance or rework policies if necessary.

I thought we were talking about parking - specifically, getting rid of minimum parking requirements.

Nobody is advocating for getting rid of building codes or stormwater laws or permits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

They are not FORBIDDING parking. Builders will be allowed to provide as much parking as they want.

Developers don’t care about the well-being or county residents or marginalized communities. They only care about profits and they will not condenser negative externalities of their projects if the county does not force them to do so. The whole point of development standards is to provide a minimum baseline that ensures developers will not do things that have an excessively negative impact on overall community health and welfare. The market will not provide a solution to ensuring that elderly and disabled people have equitable access to society because it is more profitable to exclude them (in most circumstances). My family member is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and they literally cannot be around other people (so no public transit). This is a very rare disease and they would not have access to appropriate medical facilities (over 50 miles away) if they did not have a parking/a car to drive to the cancer treatment center. Letting developers do whatever they “want” without regard for the consequences/impact on the community is a recipe for disaster. I am not opposed to the MM idea, but it needs to be more narrowly targeted to ensure that growth does not outpace the availability of infrastructure and public services, or negatively impact vulnerable community members.

Developers care about profits, therefore if there is demand for parking, they will build parking.

Market demand will not solve issues like school overcrowding, pollution, traffic congestion. My whole point is that things like disability inclusive development, impervious surface coverage limits, tree canopy preservation,
ect, will mostly not happen if you let developers do whatever there is “demand for”. There are very real environmental and social consequences for letting developers do whatever they “want”.Developers will not give adequate consideration to social impacts or environmental harms if they are not forced to do it. MM housing is fine, but I think it would be more prudent to start with special use permits for multiplex housing with an annual cap on the number of units before deciding whether this standard should be lifted altogether. This will allow the county time to evaluate the real-world impact before making a very consequential and largely irreversible change to zoning regulations. Establishing by right development zoning (that can increase density up to 4x) will create a vested property interest that may give property owners standing to sue (for changes to zoning) and limit the counties ability to enhance or rework policies if necessary.

Not PP, but I appreciate the thoughtful response.

The thing is there ARE still requirements in place to address each of the bolded.
I am very curious about your vested interest and standing to sue theory. I need to look into that. If accurate, it is the most persuasive argument I have heard against upzoning.

Could potentially be considered a “regulatory taking” of property by the government. The potential loss and standing to sue is more theoretical if it requires a special use permit that is not guaranteed approval. By-right development creates a specific property interest (not hypothetical) property interest that would be lost if properties are later down zoned. So it makes it more difficult to unwind potential zoning mistakes or revised the rules to mitigate unforeseen consequences. This amount of vested property interest due to zoning is somewhat dependent on state laws and state level court precedents. However, the regulatory takings concept is derived from Supreme Court rulings and constitutional law.
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/real-estate/1302354/the-legal-consequences-of-downzoning
There is also a current SCOTUS case outstanding about development impact fees: Sheetz V. El Dorado County. This case has the potential to substantially limit the ability to collect impact fees that offset the cost of providing public services for new development. In context, with the SCOTUS uncertainty it would be better to create special use permit for MM housing with a numerical cap or delay implementation.

[Anonymous]

Per the FAQ:
Will apartment buildings be allowed in my single-family neighborhood?
The preliminary Attainable Housing Strategies recommendations would allow small apartment buildings only along BRT Corridors plus River Road and Connecticut Avenue. These would not be allowed by-right, but only through the new attainable housing optional method of development, which would require a site plan review by the Planning Board and provide an opportunity for public comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

They are not FORBIDDING parking. Builders will be allowed to provide as much parking as they want.

Developers don’t care about the well-being or county residents or marginalized communities. They only care about profits and they will not condenser negative externalities of their projects if the county does not force them to do so. The whole point of development standards is to provide a minimum baseline that ensures developers will not do things that have an excessively negative impact on overall community health and welfare. The market will not provide a solution to ensuring that elderly and disabled people have equitable access to society because it is more profitable to exclude them (in most circumstances). My family member is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and they literally cannot be around other people (so no public transit). This is a very rare disease and they would not have access to appropriate medical facilities (over 50 miles away) if they did not have a parking/a car to drive to the cancer treatment center. Letting developers do whatever they “want” without regard for the consequences/impact on the community is a recipe for disaster. I am not opposed to the MM idea, but it needs to be more narrowly targeted to ensure that growth does not outpace the availability of infrastructure and public services, or negatively impact vulnerable community members.

Developers care about profits, therefore if there is demand for parking, they will build parking.

Market demand will not solve issues like school overcrowding, pollution, traffic congestion. My whole point is that things like disability inclusive development, impervious surface coverage limits, tree canopy preservation,
ect, will mostly not happen if you let developers do whatever there is “demand for”. There are very real environmental and social consequences for letting developers do whatever they “want”.Developers will not give adequate consideration to social impacts or environmental harms if they are not forced to do it. MM housing is fine, but I think it would be more prudent to start with special use permits for multiplex housing with an annual cap on the number of units before deciding whether this standard should be lifted altogether. This will allow the county time to evaluate the real-world impact before making a very consequential and largely irreversible change to zoning regulations. Establishing by right development zoning (that can increase density up to 4x) will create a vested property interest that may give property owners standing to sue (for changes to zoning) and limit the counties ability to enhance or rework policies if necessary.

Not PP, but I appreciate the thoughtful response.

The thing is there ARE still requirements in place to address each of the bolded.
I am very curious about your vested interest and standing to sue theory. I need to look into that. If accurate, it is the most persuasive argument I have heard against upzoning.

Could potentially be considered a “regulatory taking” of property by the government. The potential loss and standing to sue is more theoretical if it requires a special use permit that is not guaranteed approval. By-right development creates a specific property interest (not hypothetical) property interest that would be lost if properties are later down zoned. So it makes it more difficult to unwind potential zoning mistakes or revised the rules to mitigate unforeseen consequences. This amount of vested property interest due to zoning is somewhat dependent on state laws and state level court precedents. However, the regulatory takings concept is derived from Supreme Court rulings and constitutional law.
https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/real-estate/1302354/the-legal-consequences-of-downzoning
There is also a current SCOTUS case outstanding about development impact fees: Sheetz V. El Dorado County. This case has the potential to substantially limit the ability to collect impact fees that offset the cost of providing public services for new development. In context, with the SCOTUS uncertainty it would be better to create special use permit for MM housing with a numerical cap or delay implementation.

PP here. I have been following Sheetz. The connection to the zoning issue is tenuous.

Your summary reminds me, what the county is proposing is not novel. by-right development has existed for a long time. Have we seen any suits, particularly successful suits, based on a taking? I'm unaware of any, but admittedly have not looked for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

They are not FORBIDDING parking. Builders will be allowed to provide as much parking as they want.

Developers don’t care about the well-being or county residents or marginalized communities. They only care about profits and they will not condenser negative externalities of their projects if the county does not force them to do so. The whole point of development standards is to provide a minimum baseline that ensures developers will not do things that have an excessively negative impact on overall community health and welfare. The market will not provide a solution to ensuring that elderly and disabled people have equitable access to society because it is more profitable to exclude them (in most circumstances). My family member is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and they literally cannot be around other people (so no public transit). This is a very rare disease and they would not have access to appropriate medical facilities (over 50 miles away) if they did not have a parking/a car to drive to the cancer treatment center. Letting developers do whatever they “want” without regard for the consequences/impact on the community is a recipe for disaster. I am not opposed to the MM idea, but it needs to be more narrowly targeted to ensure that growth does not outpace the availability of infrastructure and public services, or negatively impact vulnerable community members.

Developers care about profits, therefore if there is demand for parking, they will build parking.

Market demand will not solve issues like school overcrowding, pollution, traffic congestion. My whole point is that things like disability inclusive development, impervious surface coverage limits, tree canopy preservation,
ect, will mostly not happen if you let developers do whatever there is “demand for”. There are very real environmental and social consequences for letting developers do whatever they “want”.Developers will not give adequate consideration to social impacts or environmental harms if they are not forced to do it. MM housing is fine, but I think it would be more prudent to start with special use permits for multiplex housing with an annual cap on the number of units before deciding whether this standard should be lifted altogether. This will allow the county time to evaluate the real-world impact before making a very consequential and largely irreversible change to zoning regulations. Establishing by right development zoning (that can increase density up to 4x) will create a vested property interest that may give property owners standing to sue (for changes to zoning) and limit the counties ability to enhance or rework policies if necessary.

I thought we were talking about parking - specifically, getting rid of minimum parking requirements.

Nobody is advocating for getting rid of building codes or stormwater laws or permits.

If we’re talking about parking, I support getting rid of minimums. The county also has parking maximums but planning always grants waivers for the maximums when developers ask. If part of the goal is reducing cars, how do you feel about the maximums? Should we reduce cars or is it more important for developers to add a lot of parking (which increases the value of the housing units)?

[Anonymous]

Say it with me: upzoning makes zero difference to housing prices. If only it were that easy...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

Agree. So many empty office buildings. Those are much better suited to convert into apartments. They converted a hotel off 270 around Shady Grove into an apartment. That makes more sense.

FWIW, I'm not opposed to duplexes or apts. I'm actually thinking of moving into a duplex when I retire.

Converting hotels into residential is whole different ball of wax than converting an office building. FYI.

Regardless, it makes sense to convert large buildings like a hotel or office complex than a plot that had a sfh if your goal is to create more affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Say it with me: upzoning makes zero difference to housing prices. If only it were that easy...

It will also make little or no difference in what actually gets built. The McMansions will offer a safer return for developers as long as very high income households want to move to Montgomery County. I expect that they will because Montgomery County has some very good private schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Say it with me: upzoning makes zero difference to housing prices. If only it were that easy...

Of course upzoning, alone, does nothing.