Moco’s glass introducing bill to limit parking near public transit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll need to read this bill myself but this sounds discriminatory or eliteist (I’m searching for the right word). How are the people supposed to get to work, shop, visit family, go to places not accessible to metro? It does not seem like a well thought out bill. It seems like a pat yourself on the back bill.

You know how, when you're driving around in your car, and you look through your windshield, you sometimes see people out and about who aren't in cars? Have you ever asked yourself what those people are doing?

Not taking their two kids to daycare before heading to work? Not doing a big grocery shop for a family of 4?
Or do just expect the poors to have 2 hour commutes between dropping off their children to school/daycare before heading to work?
I bet you are one of those cyclists that have their wife to do all the labor so you can get into your spandex and ride to work.

Please look again. Especially at people who get on and off those big things that are kind of like cars, but they have professional drivers and stop frequently to let people on and off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

Using transit (for example, Metro or a bus), their feet, a bike or e-bike, an e-scooter, a taxi, a ridehailing service, a rental vehicle, and/or delivery. How is this even a question?

What's more, the proposal would not forbid developers from providing parking spaces, and also would not require people to live in units without parking spaces. So if the developers were worried that people would be unable to shop without having a parking space, all they would have to do is: provide parking spaces. Similarly, if potential residents were worried that they would be unable to shop without having a parking space, all they would have to do is: not move there.

Are you seriously suggesting that the county must continue to require developers to provide parking spaces for condo units within one-half mile of a Metro or Purple Line station (a 10-minute walk) or within a quarter mile of a bus rapid transit station (a 5-minute walk), because otherwise people will be unable to escape from domestic abusers?

There are currently, right now, plenty of people in Montgomery County who don't own a car. If you don't know any, then it might be a good idea for you to get out more and meet some.

https://www.mymcmedia.org/council-considers-reducing-parking-requirements-for-new-housing/

And yet we put bus stops 300 feet apart because otherwise it's too far to walk.

The idea that, if you make parking hard, people will switch to bikes or scooters or whatever from cars is just nutty. No one is going to do that. They'll just go elsewhere. All these kinds of projects do is just change the demographics of who lives there. People with kids or who otherwise need cars go elsewhere and people who don't need cars (invariably, childless white people in their 20s and 30s) will come in.

Being anti-car is the whitest thing ever. It's always white people who can afford to live in the most expensive areas who are like, "no one is allowed to drive near my house."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Where is this parking?

Because according to the language, they are going to include BRT stations as they would a transit center, which is silly.

There was Thrive 2050 with stated goal of increasing density. Most of the density would increase near transit. Oh, how convenient, we can just run a BRT line anywhere we want to claim mass transit and then increase density! Most of this will take place in neighborhoods near what the new pedestrian master plan has designated as a “town center,” essentially larger intersections of neighborhoods with some commercial space. I recommend that everyone read the new master plan, btw.

So, the end result is that they are going to use the intersection of all of these things to try to increase density via “upzoning” in these neighborhood town centers. Now those new builds won’t even be required to have parking? People that live near the BRT stations already have to deal with people parking in their neighborhoods to catch the bus…now you’ll have even more people creating traffic and parking issues once they’ve relaxed the parking requirements.

It all seems very sleazy the way they are staging it. They can prove me wrong by removing the BRT language from this proposal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Where is this parking?

Because according to the language, they are going to include BRT stations as they would a transit center, which is silly.

There was Thrive 2050 with stated goal of increasing density. Most of the density would increase near transit. Oh, how convenient, we can just run a BRT line anywhere we want to claim mass transit and then increase density! Most of this will take place in neighborhoods near what the new pedestrian master plan has designated as a “town center,” essentially larger intersections of neighborhoods with some commercial space. I recommend that everyone read the new master plan, btw.

So, the end result is that they are going to use the intersection of all of these things to try to increase density via “upzoning” in these neighborhood town centers. Now those new builds won’t even be required to have parking? People that live near the BRT stations already have to deal with people parking in their neighborhoods to catch the bus…now you’ll have even more people creating traffic and parking issues once they’ve relaxed the parking requirements.

It all seems very sleazy the way they are staging it. They can prove me wrong by removing the BRT language from this proposal.

BRT literally is transit.

And again, this bill will not prohibit builders from building parking. It will simply no longer require builders to build parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

Because there’s a property tax add-on for building less than the minimum. If the minimum goes away, so will the tax. The developers will just get the county (all taxpayers) to pay for new garages, and the county always overbuilds parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

Because there’s a property tax add-on for building less than the minimum. If the minimum goes away, so will the tax. The developers will just get the county (all taxpayers) to pay for new garages, and the county always overbuilds parking.

Hey, I have an idea. What if we don't require builders to overbuild parking, AND the county also doesn't overbuild parking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

Because there’s a property tax add-on for building less than the minimum. If the minimum goes away, so will the tax. The developers will just get the county (all taxpayers) to pay for new garages, and the county always overbuilds parking.

Hey, I have an idea. What if we don't require builders to overbuild parking, AND the county also doesn't overbuild parking?

We don't require builders to overbuild parking. They do that on their own. Sometimes they have even ask to build more than the maximum allowed parking (even near transit) and planning approves it like the rubber stamp that they are. Maybe we should base taxes on how many parking spaces they build instead of how many units they build?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

Because there’s a property tax add-on for building less than the minimum. If the minimum goes away, so will the tax. The developers will just get the county (all taxpayers) to pay for new garages, and the county always overbuilds parking.

Hey, I have an idea. What if we don't require builders to overbuild parking, AND the county also doesn't overbuild parking?

We don't require builders to overbuild parking. They do that on their own. Sometimes they have even ask to build more than the maximum allowed parking (even near transit) and planning approves it like the rubber stamp that they are. Maybe we should base taxes on how many parking spaces they build instead of how many units they build?

We literally do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

I bet you are younger than 50.