More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

A bunch of nonsensical. Post the BRT plans too and the housing. With all the budget shortfalls for MCPS where is this $$ coming from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A bunch of nonsensical. Post the BRT plans too and the housing. With all the budget shortfalls for MCPS where is this $$ coming from?

The infrastructure will never get built unless there is a funding mechanism through the plan and there are no deep pockets in this plan area. There is a laundry list of infrastructure that has been sitting for years upon years in the CIP that has gone unfunded and patient communities waiting for that infrastructure. However, this will not net new housing construction unless there is a change to the structure of the impact fees or they claim that the future planned BRT is equivalent to current, existing metro stations for purposes of impact fees. I’m guessing this is what we will get. Lots of planned new housing all over the county in odd locations due to political influence of developers and associated with fictional BRTs to avoid impact fees. They’ll call it transit-oriented development.

[Anonymous]

So basically eyesore development crammed in?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here's a hint for all your NIMBYs: if you don't like apartments, don't live in them. Radical idea! And spend some of your energy on something more productive than hand-wringing about how some people want to live in something other than some ugly SFH.

Don't like the changes we impose upon you? Move, then!

It's a light version of ethnic cleansing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a hint for all your NIMBYs: if you don't like apartments, don't live in them. Radical idea! And spend some of your energy on something more productive than hand-wringing about how some people want to live in something other than some ugly SFH.

Don't like the changes we impose upon you? Move, then!

It's a light version of ethnic cleansing.

This is what the person actually said: "If you don't like apartments, don't live in them."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically eyesore development crammed in?

The University Boulevard corridor between the Wheaton Triangle and Four Corners is currently lots of things, but I've never heard anyone describe it as an aesthetic pleasure or architectural marvel. In fact, eyesore development seems like an accurate description of its current state.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The University Boulevard Corridor (UBC) Plan will build on previous initiatives, such as the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, Thrive Montgomery 2050, and Vision Zero. The UBC Plan focuses on a three-mile stretch of University Boulevard (MD 193), with the aim to understand community needs in relation to traffic safety, regional connectivity, environmental sustainability, and economic development. The plan explores opportunities for new development, bikeways, and bus rapid transit (BRT), as well as the creation of a complete street with wider sidewalks, comfortable public transportation stops, and safe access. Community involvement is key to the success of the process, and Montgomery Planning is offering virtual and in-person opportunities for feedback. The University Boulevard Corridor Plan is part of a larger vision for compact growth, supported by an excellent transit system and a safe, appealing network for walking, biking, and rolling.


Where are the low-income residents supposed to go once this all gets upzoned?

In some of the corridor they will get priced out, but luckily, the remainder will be a sea of lower income rental units that they can move in to. No one really knows for sure because the plan doesn’t seem to involve much in the way of planning.

Let us remember that the important part is that some white people will be able to ride their bikes to some “third place” coffee shop to pat themselves on the back.

Looking at the boundary and it’s pretty clear what’s going to happen. The Kemp Mill shopping center gets redeveloped with townhouses, like Cabin John Mall. Everything south of University is rezoned “missing middle”, which means that the preexisting SFHs that are predominantly rented by middle class immigrant families will get broken up into smaller apartments. Not building new housing, just cheaply and dangerously chopping up existing houses like a college town. The roadway changes will turn traffic into a disaster. Planning will submit applications to the APA for professional awards by hitting all the buzzwords, “walkable”, “missing middle”, “complete streets”. These are the most cynical, self-serving people you could ever meet.

A+ for fear-mongering, PP.

What about it is “fear mongering”? It’s is all based on real world, existing precedent.

Kemp Mill Mall owners don’t want to add housing? It’s already been done at other strip malls in the county.

Creating “missing middle” by chopping up existing SFHs is already legal by right as ADUs. And the cheapest way to do it. Look at all the cut up townhouses in DC.

Creating traffic nightmares seems to be a recent passion of Planning. Not sure how they are allowed to get so much power over our streets but that’s what they’re doing.

Is there anything that Planning hasn’t done in recent years where they didn’t submit an award application?

No, it's not. As you yourself explain. If "chopping up existing SFHs is already legal by right as ADUs," then it doesn't need zoning to allow duplexes or triplexes. There have been no "traffic nightmares" created by Planning. And Planning has no power over our streets.

You have not refuted anything I’ve posted, you just find it embarrassing. I’m not sure why you’re anonymously defending Planning online, unless you work for them which means that you’re lying. Otherwise, you’re not familiar with MNCPPC so it makes me wonder what you’re doing.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I guess I do find it embarrassing for you that you would post such fear-mongering misinformation?

I asked questions, which you haven't answered. I will repeat:

1. If ADUs are already legal to "chop up" existing houses (uniplexes) into two units, why the alarmism about rezoning to allow duplexes or triplexes?
2. What traffic nightmares has Planning created?
3. What changes over "our streets" has Planning made?

As the PP, I would respond but you cannot even use quotation marks correctly. You’re literally arguing with yourself.

Literally, meaning figuratively?

Here's what you said.

1. "Everything south of University is rezoned “missing middle”, which means that the preexisting SFHs that are predominantly rented by middle class immigrant families will get broken up into smaller apartments." AND "Creating “missing middle” by chopping up existing SFHs is already legal by right as ADUs. And the cheapest way to do it." My question for you: if this is already happening, what would a change in zoning change?

2. "The roadway changes will turn traffic into a disaster." AND "Creating traffic nightmares seems to be a recent passion of Planning. Not sure how they are allowed to get so much power over our streets but that’s what they’re doing." My question for you: what traffic nightmares has Planning created?

3. "Creating traffic nightmares seems to be a recent passion of Planning. Not sure how they are allowed to get so much power over our streets but that’s what they’re doing." My question for you: what changes over our streets has Planning made?

DP.

1. 3 > 2. Also, 4 > 2. Also, 2 > 1, and PP indicated many are 1 which could be made 2 without the proposed zoning change -- suggesting the change just isn't needed to address any "crisis."

2. Oh, I dunno. Um, smaller things like more crowded parking on local streets leading to more traffic negotiating passage to larger things like more population in the kinds of housing proposed not leading to fewer cars, but more (if possibly fewer per capita among the additional population), meaning (clap-clap) greater traffic on all roads. Ya know, like, things that have been suggested plenty of times in this thread, but you keep ignoring to set up strawmen.

3. Seriously? (Obviously not, but directed at those knowing little who might be influenced upon reading your post -- unless they took three seconds to think about it.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically eyesore development crammed in?

The University Boulevard corridor between the Wheaton Triangle and Four Corners is currently lots of things, but I've never heard anyone describe it as an aesthetic pleasure or architectural marvel. In fact, eyesore development seems like an accurate description of its current state.

So clearly it deserves worse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a hint for all your NIMBYs: if you don't like apartments, don't live in them. Radical idea! And spend some of your energy on something more productive than hand-wringing about how some people want to live in something other than some ugly SFH.

Don't like the changes we impose upon you? Move, then!

It's a light version of ethnic cleansing.

This is what the person actually said: "If you don't like apartments, don't live in them."

Yeah, but we know what that person meant: "Suck it up!"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically eyesore development crammed in?

The University Boulevard corridor between the Wheaton Triangle and Four Corners is currently lots of things, but I've never heard anyone describe it as an aesthetic pleasure or architectural marvel. In fact, eyesore development seems like an accurate description of its current state.

So clearly it deserves worse

It's already an eyesore, right now. So it's at least equally likely that the new development would make it better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a hint for all your NIMBYs: if you don't like apartments, don't live in them. Radical idea! And spend some of your energy on something more productive than hand-wringing about how some people want to live in something other than some ugly SFH.

Don't like the changes we impose upon you? Move, then!

It's a light version of ethnic cleansing.

This is what the person actually said: "If you don't like apartments, don't live in them."

Yeah, but we know what that person meant: "Suck it up!"

Suck what up? Living where you live, even if apartments are built nearby? And you're calling that a light version of genocide, which is what ethnic cleansing is? Wow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The University Boulevard Corridor (UBC) Plan will build on previous initiatives, such as the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, Thrive Montgomery 2050, and Vision Zero. The UBC Plan focuses on a three-mile stretch of University Boulevard (MD 193), with the aim to understand community needs in relation to traffic safety, regional connectivity, environmental sustainability, and economic development. The plan explores opportunities for new development, bikeways, and bus rapid transit (BRT), as well as the creation of a complete street with wider sidewalks, comfortable public transportation stops, and safe access. Community involvement is key to the success of the process, and Montgomery Planning is offering virtual and in-person opportunities for feedback. The University Boulevard Corridor Plan is part of a larger vision for compact growth, supported by an excellent transit system and a safe, appealing network for walking, biking, and rolling.


Where are the low-income residents supposed to go once this all gets upzoned?

In some of the corridor they will get priced out, but luckily, the remainder will be a sea of lower income rental units that they can move in to. No one really knows for sure because the plan doesn’t seem to involve much in the way of planning.

Let us remember that the important part is that some white people will be able to ride their bikes to some “third place” coffee shop to pat themselves on the back.

Looking at the boundary and it’s pretty clear what’s going to happen. The Kemp Mill shopping center gets redeveloped with townhouses, like Cabin John Mall. Everything south of University is rezoned “missing middle”, which means that the preexisting SFHs that are predominantly rented by middle class immigrant families will get broken up into smaller apartments. Not building new housing, just cheaply and dangerously chopping up existing houses like a college town. The roadway changes will turn traffic into a disaster. Planning will submit applications to the APA for professional awards by hitting all the buzzwords, “walkable”, “missing middle”, “complete streets”. These are the most cynical, self-serving people you could ever meet.

A+ for fear-mongering, PP.

What about it is “fear mongering”? It’s is all based on real world, existing precedent.

Kemp Mill Mall owners don’t want to add housing? It’s already been done at other strip malls in the county.

Creating “missing middle” by chopping up existing SFHs is already legal by right as ADUs. And the cheapest way to do it. Look at all the cut up townhouses in DC.

Creating traffic nightmares seems to be a recent passion of Planning. Not sure how they are allowed to get so much power over our streets but that’s what they’re doing.

Is there anything that Planning hasn’t done in recent years where they didn’t submit an award application?

No, it's not. As you yourself explain. If "chopping up existing SFHs is already legal by right as ADUs," then it doesn't need zoning to allow duplexes or triplexes. There have been no "traffic nightmares" created by Planning. And Planning has no power over our streets.

You have not refuted anything I’ve posted, you just find it embarrassing. I’m not sure why you’re anonymously defending Planning online, unless you work for them which means that you’re lying. Otherwise, you’re not familiar with MNCPPC so it makes me wonder what you’re doing.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I guess I do find it embarrassing for you that you would post such fear-mongering misinformation?

I asked questions, which you haven't answered. I will repeat:

1. If ADUs are already legal to "chop up" existing houses (uniplexes) into two units, why the alarmism about rezoning to allow duplexes or triplexes?
2. What traffic nightmares has Planning created?
3. What changes over "our streets" has Planning made?

As the PP, I would respond but you cannot even use quotation marks correctly. You’re literally arguing with yourself.

Literally, meaning figuratively?

Here's what you said.

1. "Everything south of University is rezoned “missing middle”, which means that the preexisting SFHs that are predominantly rented by middle class immigrant families will get broken up into smaller apartments." AND "Creating “missing middle” by chopping up existing SFHs is already legal by right as ADUs. And the cheapest way to do it." My question for you: if this is already happening, what would a change in zoning change?

2. "The roadway changes will turn traffic into a disaster." AND "Creating traffic nightmares seems to be a recent passion of Planning. Not sure how they are allowed to get so much power over our streets but that’s what they’re doing." My question for you: what traffic nightmares has Planning created?

3. "Creating traffic nightmares seems to be a recent passion of Planning. Not sure how they are allowed to get so much power over our streets but that’s what they’re doing." My question for you: what changes over our streets has Planning made?

DP.

1. 3 > 2. Also, 4 > 2. Also, 2 > 1, and PP indicated many are 1 which could be made 2 without the proposed zoning change -- suggesting the change just isn't needed to address any "crisis."

2. Oh, I dunno. Um, smaller things like more crowded parking on local streets leading to more traffic negotiating passage to larger things like more population in the kinds of housing proposed not leading to fewer cars, but more (if possibly fewer per capita among the additional population), meaning (clap-clap) greater traffic on all roads. Ya know, like, things that have been suggested plenty of times in this thread, but you keep ignoring to set up strawmen.

3. Seriously? (Obviously not, but directed at those knowing little who might be influenced upon reading your post -- unless they took three seconds to think about it.)

Yes, seriously. What changes over our streets has Planning made? Please list 3. Not including Sligo Creek Parkway or Little Falls Parkway, which are both actually Parks, not Planning, but Parks and Planning are both part of the same state-level agency, so I'll accept those two even though it's not really accurate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A bunch of nonsensical. Post the BRT plans too and the housing. With all the budget shortfalls for MCPS where is this $$ coming from?

The infrastructure will never get built unless there is a funding mechanism through the plan and there are no deep pockets in this plan area. There is a laundry list of infrastructure that has been sitting for years upon years in the CIP that has gone unfunded and patient communities waiting for that infrastructure. However, this will not net new housing construction unless there is a change to the structure of the impact fees or they claim that the future planned BRT is equivalent to current, existing metro stations for purposes of impact fees. I’m guessing this is what we will get. Lots of planned new housing all over the county in odd locations due to political influence of developers and associated with fictional BRTs to avoid impact fees. They’ll call it transit-oriented development.

bingo

[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:The University Boulevard Corridor (UBC) Plan will build on previous initiatives, such as the Countywide Transit Corridors Functional Master Plan, Thrive Montgomery 2050, and Vision Zero. The UBC Plan focuses on a three-mile stretch of University Boulevard (MD 193), with the aim to understand community needs in relation to traffic safety, regional connectivity, environmental sustainability, and economic development. The plan explores opportunities for new development, bikeways, and bus rapid transit (BRT), as well as the creation of a complete street with wider sidewalks, comfortable public transportation stops, and safe access. Community involvement is key to the success of the process, and Montgomery Planning is offering virtual and in-person opportunities for feedback. The University Boulevard Corridor Plan is part of a larger vision for compact growth, supported by an excellent transit system and a safe, appealing network for walking, biking, and rolling.


Where are the low-income residents supposed to go once this all gets upzoned?

In some of the corridor they will get priced out, but luckily, the remainder will be a sea of lower income rental units that they can move in to. No one really knows for sure because the plan doesn’t seem to involve much in the way of planning.

Let us remember that the important part is that some white people will be able to ride their bikes to some “third place” coffee shop to pat themselves on the back.

Looking at the boundary and it’s pretty clear what’s going to happen. The Kemp Mill shopping center gets redeveloped with townhouses, like Cabin John Mall. Everything south of University is rezoned “missing middle”, which means that the preexisting SFHs that are predominantly rented by middle class immigrant families will get broken up into smaller apartments. Not building new housing, just cheaply and dangerously chopping up existing houses like a college town. The roadway changes will turn traffic into a disaster. Planning will submit applications to the APA for professional awards by hitting all the buzzwords, “walkable”, “missing middle”, “complete streets”. These are the most cynical, self-serving people you could ever meet.

A+ for fear-mongering, PP.

What about it is “fear mongering”? It’s is all based on real world, existing precedent.

Kemp Mill Mall owners don’t want to add housing? It’s already been done at other strip malls in the county.

Creating “missing middle” by chopping up existing SFHs is already legal by right as ADUs. And the cheapest way to do it. Look at all the cut up townhouses in DC.

Creating traffic nightmares seems to be a recent passion of Planning. Not sure how they are allowed to get so much power over our streets but that’s what they’re doing.

Is there anything that Planning hasn’t done in recent years where they didn’t submit an award application?

No, it's not. As you yourself explain. If "chopping up existing SFHs is already legal by right as ADUs," then it doesn't need zoning to allow duplexes or triplexes. There have been no "traffic nightmares" created by Planning. And Planning has no power over our streets.

You have not refuted anything I’ve posted, you just find it embarrassing. I’m not sure why you’re anonymously defending Planning online, unless you work for them which means that you’re lying. Otherwise, you’re not familiar with MNCPPC so it makes me wonder what you’re doing.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I guess I do find it embarrassing for you that you would post such fear-mongering misinformation?

I asked questions, which you haven't answered. I will repeat:

1. If ADUs are already legal to "chop up" existing houses (uniplexes) into two units, why the alarmism about rezoning to allow duplexes or triplexes?
2. What traffic nightmares has Planning created?
3. What changes over "our streets" has Planning made?

As the PP, I would respond but you cannot even use quotation marks correctly. You’re literally arguing with yourself.

Literally, meaning figuratively?

Here's what you said.

1. "Everything south of University is rezoned “missing middle”, which means that the preexisting SFHs that are predominantly rented by middle class immigrant families will get broken up into smaller apartments." AND "Creating “missing middle” by chopping up existing SFHs is already legal by right as ADUs. And the cheapest way to do it." My question for you: if this is already happening, what would a change in zoning change?

2. "The roadway changes will turn traffic into a disaster." AND "Creating traffic nightmares seems to be a recent passion of Planning. Not sure how they are allowed to get so much power over our streets but that’s what they’re doing." My question for you: what traffic nightmares has Planning created?

3. "Creating traffic nightmares seems to be a recent passion of Planning. Not sure how they are allowed to get so much power over our streets but that’s what they’re doing." My question for you: what changes over our streets has Planning made?

DP.

1. 3 > 2. Also, 4 > 2. Also, 2 > 1, and PP indicated many are 1 which could be made 2 without the proposed zoning change -- suggesting the change just isn't needed to address any "crisis."

2. Oh, I dunno. Um, smaller things like more crowded parking on local streets leading to more traffic negotiating passage to larger things like more population in the kinds of housing proposed not leading to fewer cars, but more (if possibly fewer per capita among the additional population), meaning (clap-clap) greater traffic on all roads. Ya know, like, things that have been suggested plenty of times in this thread, but you keep ignoring to set up strawmen.

3. Seriously? (Obviously not, but directed at those knowing little who might be influenced upon reading your post -- unless they took three seconds to think about it.)

Yes, seriously. What changes over our streets has Planning made? Please list 3. Not including Sligo Creek Parkway or Little Falls Parkway, which are both actually Parks, not Planning, but Parks and Planning are both part of the same state-level agency, so I'll accept those two even though it's not really accurate.

As the PPP, this is where you are arguing with yourself. Keep going Planning dude. Your obnoxious posts make MNCPPC look worse and worse. Which is hard to do because there is very little in the county less respected. So congratulations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a hint for all your NIMBYs: if you don't like apartments, don't live in them. Radical idea! And spend some of your energy on something more productive than hand-wringing about how some people want to live in something other than some ugly SFH.

Don't like the changes we impose upon you? Move, then!

It's a light version of ethnic cleansing.

I’d say that it’s more of an ideological colonialism. They don’t like how people have chosen to live so they will decide to change it for us, current residents be damned.