MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will ruin neighborhoods and reduce properties values in some neighborhoods without protections from excessive density. Neighborhoods with protective covenants and HOA's that prevent multifamily housing will become more valuable. Some properties close in that have higher redevelopment potential will increase in value due to higher land prices. Many of the others will lose value and resident quality of life will go down hill. Single family communities close to high quality private schools with strong HOA/Covenants to protect thew neighborhood are likely safe. However, many middle class homeowners in desirable school attendance zones will be financially destroyed if this passes.

Have any of these things happened with Missing Middle in Arlington?

Nope. 1.5 - 1.7 missing middle home builders don’t even advertise their properties as demand is so high, and they get contracts on those properties pre-construction most of the time.

Missing middle is not new. The Coconut Grove area in my Miami is the one I’m most familiar with because I have a relative that lives there and it’s one of the most, if not the most expensive area to buy home right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t wanna upzone because of progressive values. I want to upzone because I am a libertarian that believes in minimal zoning. Zoning is literally big government telling me what to do with my property. We need to abolish zoning short of industrial facilities. No reason commercial needs to be separated from residential. The corner store ideal and all the wonderful neighborhood interactions are dead thanks to zoning. The suburbs killed society and everybody is too alienated because they have to drive everywhere

Alright, well have fun with your libertarian utopia. I'm sure you will love it when you are unable to sleep at night because of noise pollution and your property smell like marijuana due to the halfway house next door. Unlimited property rights cost everyone else in the community from negative externalities. If you eliminate zoning and let people do whatever they want, you are going to have problems with school overcrowding, traffic, there will be increased flooding excessive impervious surfaces, etc. There needs to be some balance between individual property rights and impact on the community.

Negative externalities are something you can put a price on, and mitigate accordingly.

Theoretically yes, but it usually doesn't work this way in practice. Oftentimes, it is not possible require developers to cover the full cost of negative externalities because there are constitutional restrictions on impact fees charged by municipalities. Municipalities almost never give payments to the nearby property owners for the impact it has on the use and enjoyment of their own properties. Surrounding properties near the development have to deal with increased traffic, noise pollution, reduction in sunlight, loss of privacy they don't receive compensation for this. Completely unregulated zoning is a textbook example of privatized gains and socialized losses.

Yeah. Funny how we don't see these externality mitigations as part of the proposed plans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will ruin neighborhoods and reduce properties values in some neighborhoods without protections from excessive density. Neighborhoods with protective covenants and HOA's that prevent multifamily housing will become more valuable. Some properties close in that have higher redevelopment potential will increase in value due to higher land prices. Many of the others will lose value and resident quality of life will go down hill. Single family communities close to high quality private schools with strong HOA/Covenants to protect thew neighborhood are likely safe. However, many middle class homeowners in desirable school attendance zones will be financially destroyed if this passes.

Oh, we are doing hyperbolic posts like this already? Cool. My turn:

It will enhance the quality of life in all neighborhoods and increase home values everywhere. The density around transit corridors will bring vibrant walkable destinations and resident-serving businesses that increase tax revenue to the county, thereby increasing the quality and quality of all county services for everyone. Within 10 years we will have the ideal mix of different housing types for all types with stable property values for all.

I just commented on another post about the missing middle experience in Coconut Grove area in Miami, what you’re said here is not wrong but all of the above mentioned came with a steeped property tax increase, at least in the Grove area where missing middle type housing is about 20 - 25 years old

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It will ruin neighborhoods and reduce properties values in some neighborhoods without protections from excessive density. Neighborhoods with protective covenants and HOA's that prevent multifamily housing will become more valuable. Some properties close in that have higher redevelopment potential will increase in value due to higher land prices. Many of the others will lose value and resident quality of life will go down hill. Single family communities close to high quality private schools with strong HOA/Covenants to protect thew neighborhood are likely safe. However, many middle class homeowners in desirable school attendance zones will be financially destroyed if this passes.

Have any of these things happened with Missing Middle in Arlington?

Nope. 1.5 - 1.7 missing middle home builders don’t even advertise their properties as demand is so high, and they get contracts on those properties pre-construction most of the time.

Missing middle is not new. The Coconut Grove area in my Miami is the one I’m most familiar with because I have a relative that lives there and it’s one of the most, if not the most expensive area to buy home right now.

So, because that happened in a completely dissimilar community (and with a different approach), it certainly will happen along University Boulevard where they are pressing for it presently (and where the lower acquisition cost vs. TKPK historic district, CC & Bethesda mean low-hanging fruit for developers), and we shouldn't wait to see the few-years-later effects on more similar communities/approaches in Arlington before diving in ourselves, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure I understand the document. They are proposing to rezone single family lots into lots that could accommodate duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes — have I got that right?

And the rezoning would occur in these buffer zones that straddle the existing “growth corridors”?

And they want to expand that area around the growth corridors to include anything within a mile of a Metro station or a MARC station?

Now I understand why neighborhoods along River Road fought so hard (and unsuccessfully) to oppose the designation of the stretch of River from the Beltway to DC as a growth corridor.

There really isn’t much buildable space along that stretch unless you tear down existing single family homes and replace them with denser housing. A little bit of that kind of development might be ok but not along that whole stretch of a major road. It will totally change the look and feel of the area, to say nothing of the traffic.

I don’t think a lot of people would object to lots on river road getting upzoned. The issue is that there are very few houses directly on river road and pThe issue is that they want 500 ft from the road, which includes houses in residential side streets well off the road. There is no justification for it. Furthermore and quite controversially, river road was only included as a “growth corridor” because potentially, one day in the far and distant future, the county could add transit. So it doesn’t even fit within their stated climate change goals. Everyone will have a car. As a result, it gives the game away that this is all about making developers rich and less about anything else.

It’s also quite dystopian that they have intentionally changed the name from “missing middle” to “attainable housing”. What Planning and Friedson on the Council is doing does not engender trust because they are obviously talking out of both sides of their mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP again. For instance, in Bethesda and Chevy Chase, old houses get sold as tear downs. New, bigger houses go up in their place. Affordability declines but the neighborhood, by some measures, gets "nicer".

Do the changes discussed in the report mean that more of these tear downs are going to be rebuilt as duplexes, triplexes and small apartment buildings? In the middle of what otherwise are suburban single family neighborhoods? If so, how can we tell if our house, street falls into such a (re) zone?

Yes, that's exactly what it means. And if it doesn't matter if your house is in a zone that's being targeted, because once they start down this path, they will not stop.

Well, that’s silly. It certainly matters to ME whether my house is in a zone that’s being targeted. Just as I am less concerned about school redistricting that doesn’t affect my street or neighborhood. Otherwise everyone would be up in arms about everything.

OK, whatever. There's a map on page 5 of the powerpoint. If you're south of Rockville, you will be affected. As it turns out, the poor people who purportedly need this "attainable" housing wouldn't deign to live in the northern part of the county.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of poor people who live in the northern part of the county.

Yes, lots of poor people figure their lives out and make things work. Others whine about affordable housing and think they're entitled to live in Bethesda; the planning board seems eager to help them!

One poster was complaining about there being too many cars. Putting people upcounty will definitely get you too many cars. In density not so much.

The estimated travel times and cost of public transport are not going to get folks in these to-be-developed zones point to point, broadly -- to work, to shop (without great encumbrance, to boot), etc., where that would present a good alternative to driving. The added density of this type simply will bring more cars to the local area.

Yes, density bros are evasive. Density and transit oriented development does not reduce aggregate traffic levels to an area. Congestion will get worse overall because there are more people. New residents in transit oriented/walkable developments use cars slightly less than existing residents, but overall vmt and traffic will go up when you add more people. If the new residents use cars 20% less than current residents, doubling the population by upzoning still results in 80% more traffic on local roads. Public transit is not a panacea to infrastructure issues because most people don’t use it regularly and they still own cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

I'm not sure if you actually believe that or if you're pushing a narrative in bad faith, but "dense housing, crime, and bad schools" does not apply to the wealthier parts of Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

I'm not sure if you actually believe that or if you're pushing a narrative in bad faith, but "dense housing, crime, and bad schools" does not apply to the wealthier parts of Montgomery County.

Not yet, I think that’s what the poster is getting at. Darn it, though, the MCC and the planning board seem determined to make it so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

I'm not sure if you actually believe that or if you're pushing a narrative in bad faith, but "dense housing, crime, and bad schools" does not apply to the wealthier parts of Montgomery County.

Haha YIMBYs are ridiculously naive. It absolutely does apply to wealthy parts of MOCO. The #1 predictive variable for crime rates and school outcome is household income level. If you bring in density and invite lower income housing the schools will tank, crime rates will increase. It is unavoidable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

I'm not sure if you actually believe that or if you're pushing a narrative in bad faith, but "dense housing, crime, and bad schools" does not apply to the wealthier parts of Montgomery County.

What do you consider to be the value proposition of Montgomery County vis-a-vis adjacent jurisdictions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm very supportive. It will increase housing opportunities and incentivize more environmentally-friendly walkable development.

The hypothetical narrow effect on my own personal property value is not a driver of my view on this.

Must mean that these rules would not be applicable where you live. Got it.

PP here. These rules are applicable where I live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

I'm not sure if you actually believe that or if you're pushing a narrative in bad faith, but "dense housing, crime, and bad schools" does not apply to the wealthier parts of Montgomery County.

What do you consider to be the value proposition of Montgomery County vis-a-vis adjacent jurisdictions?

Places like Bethesda and CC have low crime, great schools, great politics, and attractive neighborhoods. Could that change? Absolutely. But right now, it's still very much true. And unfortunately, the alternatives are not great. For example, Arlington is ugly and has medicore schools, and is further down the path to destroying everything good that it has going for it (Missing Middle, Plan Langston).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

I'm not sure if you actually believe that or if you're pushing a narrative in bad faith, but "dense housing, crime, and bad schools" does not apply to the wealthier parts of Montgomery County.

What do you consider to be the value proposition of Montgomery County vis-a-vis adjacent jurisdictions?

Shared priorities and values.

[Anonymous]

Here is a short YouTube video of a planner for MoCo talking about the Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_FXqmqishQ