Listening Sessions - Montgomery County Attainable Housing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this seems like such a betrayal. I supported and voted for a lot of the folks on the council, and this is what get in return? They turned out to be just your average scummy politicians.

Clearly they don’t care about my vote, and that’s fine, I guess. Just don’t come back to my house with your smarmy fake smiles looking for handouts again.

A betrayal of what?

[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:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

And yet houses in walkable neighborhoods sell for more than houses in non-walkable neighborhoods and usually have multiple offers. Go figure.

Can you show us examples of equivalent houses in equivalent locations, one with only detached SFHs surrounding it and another with a quadriplex or apartment building next to it, where the second house sold for more than the first within a month or two of each other?

No, because they’re currently illegal, but a lot of people can see high-rise apartments from their front or back porches in East Bethesda and their property values are doing just fine. Just using logic, at the very least, your land will appreciate because its development potential will increase, probably at a faster pace than the structure depreciates.

In addition, potential litigants are going to be challenged to show harm resulting from the zoning change because the tight sales market will continue to push sales prices up, especially as interest rates fall. Almost every land use policy that the county has made during the last decade or so has benefited land owners financially, with the exception of the 15 percent ADU requirement, which ironically has helped fuel market rate shortages and price increases. The zoning change will benefit landowners as well, at the expense of people who don’t own land.

Huh. Will it benefit quality of life? As we all become pods in the smart growth Matrix?

It really depends on what you value. If you value walkable communities with jobs and services nearby, then, yes it will benefit quality of life.

Doesn't this currently exist? There is a core, quite a few apt buildings and then duplexes and sfhs. Isn't that a walkable community... That exists? Too bad so few parks .DC has MoCo beat for that.

where is there this?

Downtown Bethesda. There is a shopping district, surround apartments and condos gradually diminishing in height, and then sfhs. All walkable.

[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:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

And yet houses in walkable neighborhoods sell for more than houses in non-walkable neighborhoods and usually have multiple offers. Go figure.

Can you show us examples of equivalent houses in equivalent locations, one with only detached SFHs surrounding it and another with a quadriplex or apartment building next to it, where the second house sold for more than the first within a month or two of each other?

No, because they’re currently illegal, but a lot of people can see high-rise apartments from their front or back porches in East Bethesda and their property values are doing just fine. Just using logic, at the very least, your land will appreciate because its development potential will increase, probably at a faster pace than the structure depreciates.

In addition, potential litigants are going to be challenged to show harm resulting from the zoning change because the tight sales market will continue to push sales prices up, especially as interest rates fall. Almost every land use policy that the county has made during the last decade or so has benefited land owners financially, with the exception of the 15 percent ADU requirement, which ironically has helped fuel market rate shortages and price increases. The zoning change will benefit landowners as well, at the expense of people who don’t own land.

Huh. Will it benefit quality of life? As we all become pods in the smart growth Matrix?

It really depends on what you value. If you value walkable communities with jobs and services nearby, then, yes it will benefit quality of life.

Doesn't this currently exist? There is a core, quite a few apt buildings and then duplexes and sfhs. Isn't that a walkable community... That exists? Too bad so few parks .DC has MoCo beat for that.

where is there this?

Downtown Bethesda. There is a shopping district, surround apartments and condos gradually diminishing in height, and then sfhs. All walkable.

So there is one walkable community in Montgomery County, and that's it, that's all we need, we're done? That's not my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants to live in SFHs and not crappy apartments or condos.

Apartments and Condos SUCK.

This is the Everyone Wants What I Want And Doesn't Want What I Don't Want rule.

That's why SFH appreciate in value while condos barely break even.

Nomone wants to live in sh!tty apartments and condos that are hot boxes for roach and bed bug infestations. Have fun buying a condo next door to a neighbor who constantly smokes weed 24/7 365 and the vapors penetrate your walls and the hallways. Absolutely miserable existence. The markets speak for itself. SFH are way more valuable.

Your post says a lot about you, but not a lot about housing.

Hahhahaha

You idiots think you'll be transforming the area into a miniaturized version of a concrete jungle like Tokyo, but all you'll end up doing is creating a bunch of favelas like in Rio.

Please go to a listening session and say that. Please. Word-for-word.

Awww, look at the cute little angry renter. He's a little angry man that can't stand the fact he has to rent while he wants to own a home and can't afford it. Because he can't afford it he has to ruin what other have and worked towards.

At the rate idiots like you are driving MoCo into the ground, it makes entire sense to take our $1.1M HHI and move up to Howard or AA counties. Have fun trying to replace the sky high taxes we pay to the county with a whole bunch of imported poverty. People with means and who pay the most taxes will flee. They always do. An extra 20 minute commute is NBD. Better that than avoid MoCo poverty.

Yeah, you're weird.

I'm the poster you're responding to. I'm not a man, I'm not an angry, and I'm not a renter. I'm not even especially little.

If you want to take your $1.1 million household income and move to Howard or Anne Arundel counties, then you should do that. Nobody is stopping you, nor should anybody be.

You know how much I pay in total taxes to MoCo every year? It has six digits. The only weirdo here is you who wants to drive out six figure taxpayers and replace them with poverty who’ll pay $0 in taxes based on their incomes. How will you maintain the schools, police, and all of the other progressive programs when everyone paying huge amounts of taxes simply leaves? Congrats, you’re now turned into Baltimore.

>6 digits

You are paying the State to provide security for you in the form of police, law, and the courts so that others don’t rob you of your entire wealth. You would have been guillotined in past time for being rich and the State would not have been able to protect you

You really hate successful people don't you? You think they are evil want them dead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants to live in SFHs and not crappy apartments or condos.

Apartments and Condos SUCK.

This is the Everyone Wants What I Want And Doesn't Want What I Don't Want rule.

That's why SFH appreciate in value while condos barely break even.

Nomone wants to live in sh!tty apartments and condos that are hot boxes for roach and bed bug infestations. Have fun buying a condo next door to a neighbor who constantly smokes weed 24/7 365 and the vapors penetrate your walls and the hallways. Absolutely miserable existence. The markets speak for itself. SFH are way more valuable.

Your post says a lot about you, but not a lot about housing.

Hahhahaha

You idiots think you'll be transforming the area into a miniaturized version of a concrete jungle like Tokyo, but all you'll end up doing is creating a bunch of favelas like in Rio.

Please go to a listening session and say that. Please. Word-for-word.

Awww, look at the cute little angry renter. He's a little angry man that can't stand the fact he has to rent while he wants to own a home and can't afford it. Because he can't afford it he has to ruin what other have and worked towards.

At the rate idiots like you are driving MoCo into the ground, it makes entire sense to take our $1.1M HHI and move up to Howard or AA counties. Have fun trying to replace the sky high taxes we pay to the county with a whole bunch of imported poverty. People with means and who pay the most taxes will flee. They always do. An extra 20 minute commute is NBD. Better that than avoid MoCo poverty.

Yeah, you're weird.

I'm the poster you're responding to. I'm not a man, I'm not an angry, and I'm not a renter. I'm not even especially little.

If you want to take your $1.1 million household income and move to Howard or Anne Arundel counties, then you should do that. Nobody is stopping you, nor should anybody be.

You know how much I pay in total taxes to MoCo every year? It has six digits. The only weirdo here is you who wants to drive out six figure taxpayers and replace them with poverty who’ll pay $0 in taxes based on their incomes. How will you maintain the schools, police, and all of the other progressive programs when everyone paying huge amounts of taxes simply leaves? Congrats, you’re now turned into Baltimore.

>6 digits

You are paying the State to provide security for you in the form of police, law, and the courts so that others don’t rob you of your entire wealth. You would have been guillotined in past time for being rich and the State would not have been able to protect you

You really hate successful people don't you? You think they are evil want them dead.

DP. "Successful" and "rich" are not synonyms.

However, it's true that people with lots of assets have a high interest in an effective system of making sure that their assets remain their assets - i.e., law enforcement and the courts - and those are paid for by taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one want this to happen except a few demented MoCo officials. We have a serious democracy problem.

This needs to be put to a vote or killed.

What you are seeing is not-well-checked democracy in action. As foreseen by those founding the country, 50.1% of the voting public might run roughshod over any minority, or even a non-voting majority, without proper curbs. With a county population becoming more and more dominated by those who would benefit from unchecked progressivism, we've gotten more and more of the council makeup pushing such policies. For them, it's a virtuous cycle, with the denser development increasing the progressive lean of the electoral base.

Moreover, politicians elected by a slim majority based on general support for a multi-issue platform can pursue a single plank of that platform that doesn't even have a substantial plurality behind it if they owe ideological or financial allegiance to it, and can be protected from the unpopularity of that both by their attention to the remaining, more popularly supported planks, and by astute timing of action (e.g., substantial last-minute changes, summer review while much of the public is on vacation, hasty/limited/partisan-packed public input opportunities, distance from the next election cycle, etc. -- all in play, here). Hyping false-choice catastrophe as an alternative is a well worn strategy for passage of unpopular legislation, and we see our politicians giving it their well coordiated all here, too.

Getting this on the ballot would be possible except for that latter bit about timing. The full scope of changes was made public after a ballot initiative would have to have been launched for this year, and they will vote on legislation well before a ballot initiative might be in effect for the next cycle.

Lawsuits may come into play, but those wealthy enough to employ them will tend to be relatively insulated (histoical designations in TKPK, covenants in Chevy Chase and some parts of Bethesda), and are not likely enough, then, to oppose the action broadly, as that would reduce the likelihood of successful opposition for any one litigating community's interests. As mentioned by another, it would be difficult to demonstrate harm in court, though there are real and inequitable negative impacts that certainly would result from the recommendations.

What remains are the equivalent of pitchforks and torches. Politicians likely will be able to shrug that off, relying on the strawmen enabled by those demonstrating in an emotional manner instead of having to address any of the real issues behind voiced grievance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one want this to happen except a few demented MoCo officials. We have a serious democracy problem.

This needs to be put to a vote or killed.

What you are seeing is not-well-checked democracy in action. As foreseen by those founding the country, 50.1% of the voting public might run roughshod over any minority, or even a non-voting majority, without proper curbs. With a county population becoming more and more dominated by those who would benefit from unchecked progressivism, we've gotten more and more of the council makeup pushing such policies. For them, it's a virtuous cycle, with the denser development increasing the progressive lean of the electoral base.

Moreover, politicians elected by a slim majority based on general support for a multi-issue platform can pursue a single plank of that platform that doesn't even have a substantial plurality behind it if they owe ideological or financial allegiance to it, and can be protected from the unpopularity of that both by their attention to the remaining, more popularly supported planks, and by astute timing of action (e.g., substantial last-minute changes, summer review while much of the public is on vacation, hasty/limited/partisan-packed public input opportunities, distance from the next election cycle, etc. -- all in play, here). Hyping false-choice catastrophe as an alternative is a well worn strategy for passage of unpopular legislation, and we see our politicians giving it their well coordiated all here, too.

Getting this on the ballot would be possible except for that latter bit about timing. The full scope of changes was made public after a ballot initiative would have to have been launched for this year, and they will vote on legislation well before a ballot initiative might be in effect for the next cycle.

Lawsuits may come into play, but those wealthy enough to employ them will tend to be relatively insulated (histoical designations in TKPK, covenants in Chevy Chase and some parts of Bethesda), and are not likely enough, then, to oppose the action broadly, as that would reduce the likelihood of successful opposition for any one litigating community's interests. As mentioned by another, it would be difficult to demonstrate harm in court, though there are real and inequitable negative impacts that certainly would result from the recommendations.

What remains are the equivalent of pitchforks and torches. Politicians likely will be able to shrug that off, relying on the strawmen enabled by those demonstrating in an emotional manner instead of having to address any of the real issues behind voiced grievance.

Please explain what you mean by this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one want this to happen except a few demented MoCo officials. We have a serious democracy problem.

This needs to be put to a vote or killed.

What you are seeing is not-well-checked democracy in action. As foreseen by those founding the country, 50.1% of the voting public might run roughshod over any minority, or even a non-voting majority, without proper curbs. With a county population becoming more and more dominated by those who would benefit from unchecked progressivism, we've gotten more and more of the council makeup pushing such policies. For them, it's a virtuous cycle, with the denser development increasing the progressive lean of the electoral base.

Moreover, politicians elected by a slim majority based on general support for a multi-issue platform can pursue a single plank of that platform that doesn't even have a substantial plurality behind it if they owe ideological or financial allegiance to it, and can be protected from the unpopularity of that both by their attention to the remaining, more popularly supported planks, and by astute timing of action (e.g., substantial last-minute changes, summer review while much of the public is on vacation, hasty/limited/partisan-packed public input opportunities, distance from the next election cycle, etc. -- all in play, here). Hyping false-choice catastrophe as an alternative is a well worn strategy for passage of unpopular legislation, and we see our politicians giving it their well coordiated all here, too.

Getting this on the ballot would be possible except for that latter bit about timing. The full scope of changes was made public after a ballot initiative would have to have been launched for this year, and they will vote on legislation well before a ballot initiative might be in effect for the next cycle.

Lawsuits may come into play, but those wealthy enough to employ them will tend to be relatively insulated (histoical designations in TKPK, covenants in Chevy Chase and some parts of Bethesda), and are not likely enough, then, to oppose the action broadly, as that would reduce the likelihood of successful opposition for any one litigating community's interests. As mentioned by another, it would be difficult to demonstrate harm in court, though there are real and inequitable negative impacts that certainly would result from the recommendations.

What remains are the equivalent of pitchforks and torches. Politicians likely will be able to shrug that off, relying on the strawmen enabled by those demonstrating in an emotional manner instead of having to address any of the real issues behind voiced grievance.

Please explain what you mean by this.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one want this to happen except a few demented MoCo officials. We have a serious democracy problem.

This needs to be put to a vote or killed.

What you are seeing is not-well-checked democracy in action. As foreseen by those founding the country, 50.1% of the voting public might run roughshod over any minority, or even a non-voting majority, without proper curbs. With a county population becoming more and more dominated by those who would benefit from unchecked progressivism, we've gotten more and more of the council makeup pushing such policies. For them, it's a virtuous cycle, with the denser development increasing the progressive lean of the electoral base.

Moreover, politicians elected by a slim majority based on general support for a multi-issue platform can pursue a single plank of that platform that doesn't even have a substantial plurality behind it if they owe ideological or financial allegiance to it, and can be protected from the unpopularity of that both by their attention to the remaining, more popularly supported planks, and by astute timing of action (e.g., substantial last-minute changes, summer review while much of the public is on vacation, hasty/limited/partisan-packed public input opportunities, distance from the next election cycle, etc. -- all in play, here). Hyping false-choice catastrophe as an alternative is a well worn strategy for passage of unpopular legislation, and we see our politicians giving it their well coordiated all here, too.

Getting this on the ballot would be possible except for that latter bit about timing. The full scope of changes was made public after a ballot initiative would have to have been launched for this year, and they will vote on legislation well before a ballot initiative might be in effect for the next cycle.

Lawsuits may come into play, but those wealthy enough to employ them will tend to be relatively insulated (histoical designations in TKPK, covenants in Chevy Chase and some parts of Bethesda), and are not likely enough, then, to oppose the action broadly, as that would reduce the likelihood of successful opposition for any one litigating community's interests. As mentioned by another, it would be difficult to demonstrate harm in court, though there are real and inequitable negative impacts that certainly would result from the recommendations.

What remains are the equivalent of pitchforks and torches. Politicians likely will be able to shrug that off, relying on the strawmen enabled by those demonstrating in an emotional manner instead of having to address any of the real issues behind voiced grievance.

The migration will be interesting to see once the proposal is finalized. A lot of people are likely similar to my family in that we live in a nice neighborhood that has appreciated well but definitely isn’t Chevy Chase.

As of now, there are still some developable homes in the area. So, some land values will go up, the land that is profitable to develop. The rest of us are screwed because we have too much in the house for it to be attractive to a developer, but our property value will tank once they open a rental quad next door. Who would ever spend $1M+ to live next door to an apartment building in some random suburban neighborhood? I certainly wouldn’t. Then there will be the inevitable decline in schools, and that won’t help matters.

It might be a race to see who can escape to more protected areas (either by zoning or price prohibition).

Is there any timeline to implement this garbage?

lol, maybe I’ll pave the yard for parking and see if someone can cheaply hack together 3-4 units from my house. I’m sure that the county will provide incentives for me to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one want this to happen except a few demented MoCo officials. We have a serious democracy problem.

This needs to be put to a vote or killed.

What you are seeing is not-well-checked democracy in action. As foreseen by those founding the country, 50.1% of the voting public might run roughshod over any minority, or even a non-voting majority, without proper curbs. With a county population becoming more and more dominated by those who would benefit from unchecked progressivism, we've gotten more and more of the council makeup pushing such policies. For them, it's a virtuous cycle, with the denser development increasing the progressive lean of the electoral base.

Moreover, politicians elected by a slim majority based on general support for a multi-issue platform can pursue a single plank of that platform that doesn't even have a substantial plurality behind it if they owe ideological or financial allegiance to it, and can be protected from the unpopularity of that both by their attention to the remaining, more popularly supported planks, and by astute timing of action (e.g., substantial last-minute changes, summer review while much of the public is on vacation, hasty/limited/partisan-packed public input opportunities, distance from the next election cycle, etc. -- all in play, here). Hyping false-choice catastrophe as an alternative is a well worn strategy for passage of unpopular legislation, and we see our politicians giving it their well coordiated all here, too.

Getting this on the ballot would be possible except for that latter bit about timing. The full scope of changes was made public after a ballot initiative would have to have been launched for this year, and they will vote on legislation well before a ballot initiative might be in effect for the next cycle.

Lawsuits may come into play, but those wealthy enough to employ them will tend to be relatively insulated (histoical designations in TKPK, covenants in Chevy Chase and some parts of Bethesda), and are not likely enough, then, to oppose the action broadly, as that would reduce the likelihood of successful opposition for any one litigating community's interests. As mentioned by another, it would be difficult to demonstrate harm in court, though there are real and inequitable negative impacts that certainly would result from the recommendations.

What remains are the equivalent of pitchforks and torches. Politicians likely will be able to shrug that off, relying on the strawmen enabled by those demonstrating in an emotional manner instead of having to address any of the real issues behind voiced grievance.

Please explain what you mean by this.

The county is courting poor residents that seem to be replacing more wealthy residents. Are you just clutching your pearls?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

And yet houses in walkable neighborhoods sell for more than houses in non-walkable neighborhoods and usually have multiple offers. Go figure.

Can you show us examples of equivalent houses in equivalent locations, one with only detached SFHs surrounding it and another with a quadriplex or apartment building next to it, where the second house sold for more than the first within a month or two of each other?

No, because they’re currently illegal, but a lot of people can see high-rise apartments from their front or back porches in East Bethesda and their property values are doing just fine. Just using logic, at the very least, your land will appreciate because its development potential will increase, probably at a faster pace than the structure depreciates.

In addition, potential litigants are going to be challenged to show harm resulting from the zoning change because the tight sales market will continue to push sales prices up, especially as interest rates fall. Almost every land use policy that the county has made during the last decade or so has benefited land owners financially, with the exception of the 15 percent ADU requirement, which ironically has helped fuel market rate shortages and price increases. The zoning change will benefit landowners as well, at the expense of people who don’t own land.

Huh. Will it benefit quality of life? As we all become pods in the smart growth Matrix?

It really depends on what you value. If you value walkable communities with jobs and services nearby, then, yes it will benefit quality of life.

Doesn't this currently exist? There is a core, quite a few apt buildings and then duplexes and sfhs. Isn't that a walkable community... That exists? Too bad so few parks .DC has MoCo beat for that.

where is there this?

Downtown Bethesda. There is a shopping district, surround apartments and condos gradually diminishing in height, and then sfhs. All walkable.

So there is one walkable community in Montgomery County, and that's it, that's all we need, we're done? That's not my opinion.

Downtown SS. Wheaton and Rockville, if they ever bother to build to existing zoning capacity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Won't your taxes go down automatically if your assessed value goes down?

It all works 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:

Anonymous wrote:OP thank you for the info. I’m on county council distribution lists but I did not get this notice.

One comment I will make is that they need to reduce my property taxes for bringing us zoning that will lower my property value tremendously.

Don’t worry if that happens (and it probably will cause your valuation to increase) then they’ll raise the rate so that you still pay more. If your valuation goes up, they’ll keep the rate the same or raise it less.

WTH are you talking about?

An apartment building next door WILL NOT INCREASE MY HOME'S VALUE. They'll keep the rate the same or raise it less? In what MoCo World do you live? They will never keep it the same. They will destroy the quality of life in MoCo and raise my property value until I say screw it and move to another state. They view that as winning because they are only concerned about their own careers which involve getting cash donations from developers and realtors.

You must not be tracking the price of houses in East Bethesda near Wisconsin Avenue very closely. When more people move in you get more stores and transit within walking distance because there are suddenly more customers for these things.

You are just talking to hear yourself talk. Building apt buildings within the SF neighborhood hasn't started yet. Once you've got a quadplex next door, your house is not as desirable. SFHs with view of apt buildings have lower appraisals. Full stop.

And yet houses in walkable neighborhoods sell for more than houses in non-walkable neighborhoods and usually have multiple offers. Go figure.

Can you show us examples of equivalent houses in equivalent locations, one with only detached SFHs surrounding it and another with a quadriplex or apartment building next to it, where the second house sold for more than the first within a month or two of each other?

No, because they’re currently illegal, but a lot of people can see high-rise apartments from their front or back porches in East Bethesda and their property values are doing just fine. Just using logic, at the very least, your land will appreciate because its development potential will increase, probably at a faster pace than the structure depreciates.

In addition, potential litigants are going to be challenged to show harm resulting from the zoning change because the tight sales market will continue to push sales prices up, especially as interest rates fall. Almost every land use policy that the county has made during the last decade or so has benefited land owners financially, with the exception of the 15 percent ADU requirement, which ironically has helped fuel market rate shortages and price increases. The zoning change will benefit landowners as well, at the expense of people who don’t own land.

Huh. Will it benefit quality of life? As we all become pods in the smart growth Matrix?

It really depends on what you value. If you value walkable communities with jobs and services nearby, then, yes it will benefit quality of life.

Doesn't this currently exist? There is a core, quite a few apt buildings and then duplexes and sfhs. Isn't that a walkable community... That exists? Too bad so few parks .DC has MoCo beat for that.

where is there this?

Downtown Bethesda. There is a shopping district, surround apartments and condos gradually diminishing in height, and then sfhs. All walkable.

So there is one walkable community in Montgomery County, and that's it, that's all we need, we're done? That's not my opinion.

I'm in favor of this proposal, but it isn't because MoCo has no walkable areas:

Silver Spring
Rockville
Rio
Pike and Rose
Kentlands


all come to mind

[Anonymous]

The public feedback is making the YImBYs nervous, keep it up people.

Let the council members know how this affects your vote in 2024, 2026, and beyond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The public feedback is making the YImBYs nervous, keep it up people.

Let the council members know how this affects your vote in 2024, 2026, and beyond.

Forgot the link:

https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/