Investors Steering Clear Of Maryland Suburbs Due To Regulatory Concerns

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If people are worried about affordable housing, is there anything to be done about the developers in our neighborhood that tear down houses in the 800K range and replace them with ugly monstrous houses that they are trying to charge 2.4M for? When we moved here 15 years ago it was such a nice neighborhood with nice normal houses and every year the new hosing just gets bigger and bigger. I think it’s finally hit a ceiling as the last two houses are just sitting there with no buyers.

People will go with whatever makes the most money. You can't really stop people from building nicer houses, so the only thing you can really do is to provide similarly lucrative ways to build smaller, cheaper homes. More specifically, build multiple townhomes, duplexes, etc. on a single lot.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not “Maryland Suburbs” it’s Montgomery County. And it’s not “regulatory concerns” it’s rent control.

It has nothing to do with the new law limiting rent increases. That law exempts new/recent construction.

Actually the rent control law is a large part of the problem.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/09/19/more-evidence-that-rent-control-is-preventing-housing-construction/

Yup.

Parts of the rest of Maryland also have rent control! Within Montgomery County, Rockville and Gaithersburg don’t have rent control. If this market were ripe for more multifamily, permitting would be through the roof in those places because they’re the only places in the county you can build rentals without rent control (23 years from now).

Rents have fallen in Montgomery County since the rent control regulations have taken effect. That’s a hard fact for those opposed to it. Was that all rent control? Of course not. In that time, more landlords settled price fixing cases with the government, and the local economy has weakened. But rent control is a part of the story because it banned very high rent increases, which were distorting the average rent statistics.

Rent control has probably also helped force landlords make repairs because of special restrictions on rent increases at troubled properties. Invariably; the landlords screaming the loudest about the law have troubled properties or near-troubled properties. They’re not good actors in the market. If your business plan depends on annual rent increases exceeding 6 percent a year, you never were going to build enough housing to make prices go down.

I was a skeptic of the county’s rent control law when it was introduced but the landlords have proven it necessary and time has proven it effective.

For this to be true, economists everywhere must be wrong. Rent control is negative in the long term. It was just passed, so even if your facts are true (I have no idea if they are) it is way too early to declare victory.

Not economists everywhere. Just the ones you choose to read. The other factor is that rent control isn’t binary. The policies differ.

For the other poster, Rockville and Gaithersburg have to pass their own laws. They haven’t done that.

Rent control has done better so far than 20 years of supply side policy.

Where has rent control been a success?

Montgomery County.

+1. If developers no longer want to build multi family housing in Montgomery county, that’s a huge success.

More importantly, rents are falling. Falling rents is the best reason of all that developers don’t want to build multi family housing in Montgomery County.

Falling rents would explain a decrease, not a halt.

Seriously, though- can anyone point to an example where they think rent control is working well?

Can you define "working well"? This thread is about an article indicating that rent control has led to less multifamily housing development, and many people in this thread have indicated that this means rent control is "working well." It sounds like you have a different definition.

“Working well” means rents have fallen since the regulations came into force. The main point of supply side housing policy — as articulated by its supporters — has been to lower housing costs. Rents have fallen more since the regulations came into force than they have in all the years of supply side policy.

As for whether production slowing is wholly attributable to rent control or rents falling, it has been this county’s experience that production stops when rents fall. In this case, rents have fallen, vacancy has increased, and unemployment has increased. All of this has happened even as the market continues to deliver more units. No one in their right mind would start a project now with or without rent control.

But they economic conditions are similar elsewhere, yet other places are still seeing projects move forward. What else is unique to MoCo other than rent control?

There are more stringent stormwater management regulations as well as fire, utilities, and road widths.

[Anonymous]

It is hilarious to see developers lose their minds over a law that limits rent increases on 23-year-old buildings to almost 3x the historical norm. It is almost as if they never really meant all that talk about lowering prices by building more housing and that they don’t really believe in filtering. If anything they said had been true, the rent increases in these 23–year-old buildings wouldn’t even be close to the cap. You’ve all shown your true colors. If only you hadn’t colluded illegally to raise prices. If only people like Equity hadn’t come in with double-digit rent increases after buying older buildings. You’d still have your nice setup here.

Sorry not sorry you’re going to have to figure out a different way to extract rent from the land you overpaid for. Maybe just sell it at a loss so building something has a better chance of penciling out for someone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people are worried about affordable housing, is there anything to be done about the developers in our neighborhood that tear down houses in the 800K range and replace them with ugly monstrous houses that they are trying to charge 2.4M for? When we moved here 15 years ago it was such a nice neighborhood with nice normal houses and every year the new hosing just gets bigger and bigger. I think it’s finally hit a ceiling as the last two houses are just sitting there with no buyers.

People will go with whatever makes the most money. You can't really stop people from building nicer houses, so the only thing you can really do is to provide similarly lucrative ways to build smaller, cheaper homes. More specifically, build multiple townhomes, duplexes, etc. on a single lot.

***Developer alert, developer alert***. We don't want your multifamily housing where SFHs are currently. Go take that nonsense to Arlington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people are worried about affordable housing, is there anything to be done about the developers in our neighborhood that tear down houses in the 800K range and replace them with ugly monstrous houses that they are trying to charge 2.4M for? When we moved here 15 years ago it was such a nice neighborhood with nice normal houses and every year the new hosing just gets bigger and bigger. I think it’s finally hit a ceiling as the last two houses are just sitting there with no buyers.

People will go with whatever makes the most money. You can't really stop people from building nicer houses, so the only Ithing you can really do is to provide similarly lucrative ways to build smaller, cheaper homes. More specifically, build multiple townhomes, duplexes, etc. on a single lot.

Ok, I don’t want to stop people from building nicer houses. Why are you interfering in the market?

I thought that the YImBYs were all “, “iT’s eCOnom S 101 Durr?”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people are worried about affordable housing, is there anything to be done about the developers in our neighborhood that tear down houses in the 800K range and replace them with ugly monstrous houses that they are trying to charge 2.4M for? When we moved here 15 years ago it was such a nice neighborhood with nice normal houses and every year the new hosing just gets bigger and bigger. I think it’s finally hit a ceiling as the last two houses are just sitting there with no buyers.

People will go with whatever makes the most money. You can't really stop people from building nicer houses, so the only Ithing you can really do is to provide similarly lucrative ways to build smaller, cheaper homes. More specifically, build multiple townhomes, duplexes, etc. on a single lot.

Ok, I don’t want to stop people from building nicer houses. Why are you interfering in the market?

I thought that the YImBYs were all “, “iT’s eCOnom S 101 Durr?”

Um... you understand that many places forbid anything but a SFH, right?

You really can't be this stupid... but NIMBYs gonna NIMBY I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people are worried about affordable housing, is there anything to be done about the developers in our neighborhood that tear down houses in the 800K range and replace them with ugly monstrous houses that they are trying to charge 2.4M for? When we moved here 15 years ago it was such a nice neighborhood with nice normal houses and every year the new hosing just gets bigger and bigger. I think it’s finally hit a ceiling as the last two houses are just sitting there with no buyers.

People will go with whatever makes the most money. You can't really stop people from building nicer houses, so the only Ithing you can really do is to provide similarly lucrative ways to build smaller, cheaper homes. More specifically, build multiple townhomes, duplexes, etc. on a single lot.

Ok, I don’t want to stop people from building nicer houses. Why are you interfering in the market?

I thought that the YImBYs were all “, “iT’s eCOnom S 101 Durr?”

Um... you understand that many places forbid anything but a SFH, right?

You really can't be this stupid... but NIMBYs gonna NIMBY I guess.

Thank god. And really it's a few small municipalities with their own zoning. MoCo govt lets you do nearly anything which is why Bethesda, North Bethesda, Germantown and Clarksburg are a mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people are worried about affordable housing, is there anything to be done about the developers in our neighborhood that tear down houses in the 800K range and replace them with ugly monstrous houses that they are trying to charge 2.4M for? When we moved here 15 years ago it was such a nice neighborhood with nice normal houses and every year the new hosing just gets bigger and bigger. I think it’s finally hit a ceiling as the last two houses are just sitting there with no buyers.

People will go with whatever makes the most money. You can't really stop people from building nicer houses, so the only Ithing you can really do is to provide similarly lucrative ways to build smaller, cheaper homes. More specifically, build multiple townhomes, duplexes, etc. on a single lot.

Ok, I don’t want to stop people from building nicer houses. Why are you interfering in the market?

I thought that the YImBYs were all “, “iT’s eCOnom S 101 Durr?”

Um... you understand that many places forbid anything but a SFH, right?

You really can't be this stupid... but NIMBYs gonna NIMBY I guess.

Where are the places that forbid building of such things, sport?

Montgomery county, where there are nearly 1,000 townhomes and condos for sale right now?

Are you folks ever self aware enough to be embarrassed by your ignorance?

Please grease the wheels on your goalpost so that you can move them easily behind your bike.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people are worried about affordable housing, is there anything to be done about the developers in our neighborhood that tear down houses in the 800K range and replace them with ugly monstrous houses that they are trying to charge 2.4M for? When we moved here 15 years ago it was such a nice neighborhood with nice normal houses and every year the new hosing just gets bigger and bigger. I think it’s finally hit a ceiling as the last two houses are just sitting there with no buyers.

People will go with whatever makes the most money. You can't really stop people from building nicer houses, so the only Ithing you can really do is to provide similarly lucrative ways to build smaller, cheaper homes. More specifically, build multiple townhomes, duplexes, etc. on a single lot.

Ok, I don’t want to stop people from building nicer houses. Why are you interfering in the market?

I thought that the YImBYs were all “, “iT’s eCOnom S 101 Durr?”

Um... you understand that many places forbid anything but a SFH, right?

You really can't be this stupid... but NIMBYs gonna NIMBY I guess.

Thank god. And really it's a few small municipalities with their own zoning. MoCo govt lets you do nearly anything which is why Bethesda, North Bethesda, Germantown and Clarksburg are a mess.

To them zoning is an impediment rather of a safeguard. They deserve, they are ENTITLED TO, build whatever they want wherever they want. Watch, now they will respond that it’s not fair that they can’t build multifamily wherever they please even though there are are multifamily properties available in every part of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If people are worried about affordable housing, is there anything to be done about the developers in our neighborhood that tear down houses in the 800K range and replace them with ugly monstrous houses that they are trying to charge 2.4M for? When we moved here 15 years ago it was such a nice neighborhood with nice normal houses and every year the new hosing just gets bigger and bigger. I think it’s finally hit a ceiling as the last two houses are just sitting there with no buyers.

People will go with whatever makes the most money. You can't really stop people from building nicer houses, so the only Ithing you can really do is to provide similarly lucrative ways to build smaller, cheaper homes. More specifically, build multiple townhomes, duplexes, etc. on a single lot.

Ok, I don’t want to stop people from building nicer houses. Why are you interfering in the market?

I thought that the YImBYs were all “, “iT’s eCOnom S 101 Durr?”

Um... you understand that many places forbid anything but a SFH, right?

You really can't be this stupid... but NIMBYs gonna NIMBY I guess.

Where are the places that forbid building of such things, sport?

Montgomery county, where there are nearly 1,000 townhomes and condos for sale right now?

Are you folks ever self aware enough to be embarrassed by your ignorance?

Please grease the wheels on your goalpost so that you can move them easily behind your bike.

+1. They complain that government intervention in markets while behaving like cartels and seeking government subsidies. The free market is great until you want to collude or get a big tax break, amirite?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not “Maryland Suburbs” it’s Montgomery County. And it’s not “regulatory concerns” it’s rent control.

It has nothing to do with the new law limiting rent increases. That law exempts new/recent construction.

Actually the rent control law is a large part of the problem.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/09/19/more-evidence-that-rent-control-is-preventing-housing-construction/

Yup.

Parts of the rest of Maryland also have rent control! Within Montgomery County, Rockville and Gaithersburg don’t have rent control. If this market were ripe for more multifamily, permitting would be through the roof in those places because they’re the only places in the county you can build rentals without rent control (23 years from now).

Rents have fallen in Montgomery County since the rent control regulations have taken effect. That’s a hard fact for those opposed to it. Was that all rent control? Of course not. In that time, more landlords settled price fixing cases with the government, and the local economy has weakened. But rent control is a part of the story because it banned very high rent increases, which were distorting the average rent statistics.

Rent control has probably also helped force landlords make repairs because of special restrictions on rent increases at troubled properties. Invariably; the landlords screaming the loudest about the law have troubled properties or near-troubled properties. They’re not good actors in the market. If your business plan depends on annual rent increases exceeding 6 percent a year, you never were going to build enough housing to make prices go down.

I was a skeptic of the county’s rent control law when it was introduced but the landlords have proven it necessary and time has proven it effective.

For this to be true, economists everywhere must be wrong. Rent control is negative in the long term. It was just passed, so even if your facts are true (I have no idea if they are) it is way too early to declare victory.

Not economists everywhere. Just the ones you choose to read. The other factor is that rent control isn’t binary. The policies differ.

For the other poster, Rockville and Gaithersburg have to pass their own laws. They haven’t done that.

Rent control has done better so far than 20 years of supply side policy.

Where has rent control been a success?

Montgomery County.

+1. If developers no longer want to build multi family housing in Montgomery county, that’s a huge success.

You have obviously never been taught the principle of supply and demand. Maybe start with a basic economics education before acting like you have a valid opinion. that other people should consider.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not “Maryland Suburbs” it’s Montgomery County. And it’s not “regulatory concerns” it’s rent control.

It has nothing to do with the new law limiting rent increases. That law exempts new/recent construction.

Actually the rent control law is a large part of the problem.

https://montgomeryperspective.com/2025/09/19/more-evidence-that-rent-control-is-preventing-housing-construction/

Yup.

Parts of the rest of Maryland also have rent control! Within Montgomery County, Rockville and Gaithersburg don’t have rent control. If this market were ripe for more multifamily, permitting would be through the roof in those places because they’re the only places in the county you can build rentals without rent control (23 years from now).

Rents have fallen in Montgomery County since the rent control regulations have taken effect. That’s a hard fact for those opposed to it. Was that all rent control? Of course not. In that time, more landlords settled price fixing cases with the government, and the local economy has weakened. But rent control is a part of the story because it banned very high rent increases, which were distorting the average rent statistics.

Rent control has probably also helped force landlords make repairs because of special restrictions on rent increases at troubled properties. Invariably; the landlords screaming the loudest about the law have troubled properties or near-troubled properties. They’re not good actors in the market. If your business plan depends on annual rent increases exceeding 6 percent a year, you never were going to build enough housing to make prices go down.

I was a skeptic of the county’s rent control law when it was introduced but the landlords have proven it necessary and time has proven it effective.

For this to be true, economists everywhere must be wrong. Rent control is negative in the long term. It was just passed, so even if your facts are true (I have no idea if they are) it is way too early to declare victory.

Not economists everywhere. Just the ones you choose to read. The other factor is that rent control isn’t binary. The policies differ.

For the other poster, Rockville and Gaithersburg have to pass their own laws. They haven’t done that.

Rent control has done better so far than 20 years of supply side policy.

Where has rent control been a success?

Montgomery County.

+1. If developers no longer want to build multi family housing in Montgomery county, that’s a huge success.

You have obviously never been taught the principle of supply and demand. Maybe start with a basic economics education before acting like you have a valid opinion. that other people should consider.

You seem oblivious to the fact that under your supply side approach, rents in Montgomery County only went up, regardless of prevailing economic conditions. Maybe start with a course in empirical analysis and brush up on how the law of supply and demand applies to necessary goods. Your arrogance is comical because you grasp neither the theory nor the facts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bravo! Traffic is awful, schools are crowded, and we have tons of multifamily housing already. "Investors" makes them sound benign; they're greedy developers who will pave and build over every inch of land regardless of consequences if you let them.

But you probably complain about a lack of affordable housing, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bravo! Traffic is awful, schools are crowded, and we have tons of multifamily housing already. "Investors" makes them sound benign; they're greedy developers who will pave and build over every inch of land regardless of consequences if you let them.

But you probably complain about a lack of affordable housing, right?

I wrote that comment and no, I don’t. I worked really hard, saved aggressively, and bought a nice SFH many years ago. I think talking about “affordable housing” is the worst pandering; tons of multi family housing has been built, often to house illegal immigrants and poor unemployed people moving from DC, and not to benefit the teachers, firefighters, and others who have no desire to live in a shoebox. Voters have wisened up to the scam, which is why they voted for Elrich (to the great dismay of developers) as the lesser evil.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bravo! Traffic is awful, schools are crowded, and we have tons of multifamily housing already. "Investors" makes them sound benign; they're greedy developers who will pave and build over every inch of land regardless of consequences if you let them.

But you probably complain about a lack of affordable housing, right?

DP. Your supply side market approach doesn’t produce affordable housing. Even the developers have conceded this fact, which has been obvious to anyone paying attention. If you want affordable housing we need to direct subsidies to affordable housing instead of market rate. You’re not any more interested in affordable housing than the PP is so stop using lower income people to try to advance your policies.