Where do MoCo council members live?

[Anonymous]

I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

What’s your metric for “good?”

What’s the end goal?

Even the YIMBYs aren’t sure what will happen. It probably won’t produce cheaper housing. It will most certainly gentrify certain areas. It will make certain areas whiter. It MAY slow the growth of rent. But maybe not.

I’ve said so many times before, it’s not about providing housing at all, that’s just YImBY BS sales talk. It’s an idealogical war to convert the suburbs, where other people chose to live, into their vision of a “walkable urban environment,” and the fools on the council have bought into it. It’s been sold as some higher good to society, when it’s just a petty and selfish way for YImBYs (which are just dorky neo-YUPPIES) to get their perfect urban mix without the work of living in an actual city.

Here’s an article from StrongTowns that lays it all out in their own words. Please read and share:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

What’s your metric for “good?”

What’s the end goal?

Even the YIMBYs aren’t sure what will happen. It probably won’t produce cheaper housing. It will most certainly gentrify certain areas. It will make certain areas whiter. It MAY slow the growth of rent. But maybe not.

I’ve said so many times before, it’s not about providing housing at all, that’s just YImBY BS sales talk. It’s an idealogical war to convert the suburbs, where other people chose to live, into their vision of a “walkable urban environment,” and the fools on the council have bought into it. It’s been sold as some higher good to society, when it’s just a petty and selfish way for YImBYs (which are just dorky neo-YUPPIES) to get their perfect urban mix without the work of living in an actual city.

Here’s an article from StrongTowns that lays it all out in their own words. Please read and share:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway

The metric for good is: does it increase the supply of housing?

The end goal is: increasing the supply of housing.

Yes, it actually is about housing. "Walkable urban neighborhoods should be legal" is not some mythical War On The Suburbs. There is no mythical YIMBY hive mind which speaks in one voice.

[Anonymous]

^^^I'm also curious about how much time you spend hate-reading blogs about transportation, housing, and land use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

What’s your metric for “good?”

What’s the end goal?

Even the YIMBYs aren’t sure what will happen. It probably won’t produce cheaper housing. It will most certainly gentrify certain areas. It will make certain areas whiter. It MAY slow the growth of rent. But maybe not.

I’ve said so many times before, it’s not about providing housing at all, that’s just YImBY BS sales talk. It’s an idealogical war to convert the suburbs, where other people chose to live, into their vision of a “walkable urban environment,” and the fools on the council have bought into it. It’s been sold as some higher good to society, when it’s just a petty and selfish way for YImBYs (which are just dorky neo-YUPPIES) to get their perfect urban mix without the work of living in an actual city.

Here’s an article from StrongTowns that lays it all out in their own words. Please read and share:

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2023/4/26/upzoning-might-not-lower-housing-costs-do-it-anyway

The metric for good is: does it increase the supply of housing?

The end goal is: increasing the supply of housing.

Yes, it actually is about housing. "Walkable urban neighborhoods should be legal" is not some mythical War On The Suburbs. There is no mythical YIMBY hive mind which speaks in one voice.

Look everybody, point and laugh!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^I'm also curious about how much time you spend hate-reading blogs about transportation, housing, and land use.

And yet here you are, being embarrassed again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^I'm also curious about how much time you spend hate-reading blogs about transportation, housing, and land use.

Educating yourself about a topic = hate reading.

In that case, I see that you are free of hate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Side question - are these listening sessions being recorded? Minutes taken and distributed? As far as I know they are not being recorded, and that strikes me as very odd that in 2024 that these sessions are each just one and done with no record of what transpired.

Happy to be wrong here if they are available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Side question - are these listening sessions being recorded? Minutes taken and distributed? As far as I know they are not being recorded, and that strikes me as very odd that in 2024 that these sessions are each just one and done with no record of what transpired.

Happy to be wrong here if they are available.

The recordings are available on this page: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/resources/AttainableHousingStrategies.html
A summary of the concerns raised can be found here: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Regarding “hand-picked,” I think that poster is saying that the council and previous planning board had already shoved Thrive through and then the council specifically chose planning board members that they knew would continue to grease those wheels rather than anyone that would be critical of that plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Regarding “hand-picked,” I think that poster is saying that the council and previous planning board had already shoved Thrive through and then the council specifically chose planning board members that they knew would continue to grease those wheels rather than anyone that would be critical of that plan.

The planning Board director has worked for the county in planning for 8 years: https://moco360.media/2023/10/26/montgomery-planning-appoints-jason-sartori-as-new-planning-director/
All of the members were appointed after interviews in a public meeting and listening sessions.
They serve four year terms. Half were selected before five members of the council were elected.