Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The building the developer wants to build across from the Forest Glen metro station has significantly more parking spaces than units. And the minimum amount of affordable housing. The county apparently wants to approve it without changes.

What's there now? What's the minimum percentage of MPDUs?

I don't remember what the county has done about minimum parking requirements near Metro stations. I don't think there should be any minimum parking requirements. But if the developer wants to build the parking, the developer can do so.

A medical office building is there now

[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:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

Are these housing buildings providing housing? Yes, they are.

But good news for you - if you don't think anyone is going to live in those housing buildings, then there also won't be any kids living in those housing buildings, so you don't have to worry about where those kids will go to school.

[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:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

Are these housing buildings providing housing? Yes, they are.

But good news for you - if you don't think anyone is going to live in those housing buildings, then there also won't be any kids living in those housing buildings, so you don't have to worry about where those kids will go to school.

I'm not the PP, but the entire argument for people to just shup up and deal with overcrowded schools is the so-called housing crisis. We are told that we need to just deal with our kids losing their playgrounds and outdoor space because "it will help low income neighbors." Except it won't. It will help developers get rich, and a few UMC folks live closer to Metro while being able to walk to the specialty grocery store for their wine and crackers. That's actually not a strong argument for decisions that make life materially worse for our children.

YIMBY-ism has become a religion, and one where actual facts are discarded in favor of faith. The tenets are:

1) New residents don't drive
2) New residents don't use schools
3) If you make people miserable enough, infrastructure will follow
4) Enriching developers makes life better for poor/working classs residents, somehow

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

Are these housing buildings providing housing? Yes, they are.

But good news for you - if you don't think anyone is going to live in those housing buildings, then there also won't be any kids living in those housing buildings, so you don't have to worry about where those kids will go to school.

I'm not the PP, but the entire argument for people to just shup up and deal with overcrowded schools is the so-called housing crisis. We are told that we need to just deal with our kids losing their playgrounds and outdoor space because "it will help low income neighbors." Except it won't. It will help developers get rich, and a few UMC folks live closer to Metro while being able to walk to the specialty grocery store for their wine and crackers. That's actually not a strong argument for decisions that make life materially worse for our children.

YIMBY-ism has become a religion, and one where actual facts are discarded in favor of faith. The tenets are:

1) New residents don't drive
2) New residents don't use schools
3) If you make people miserable enough, infrastructure will follow
4) Enriching developers makes life better for poor/working classs residents, somehow

This. It drives me crazy. I live near the previously mentioned development near the Forest Glen metro and some of the YIMBYs just come across as unhinged every time someone dares to bring up a valid concern. Even POC neighbors are getting accused by the white YIMBYs as being “racist” when they bring up the lack of planned affordable units as a concern.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

Are these housing buildings providing housing? Yes, they are.

But good news for you - if you don't think anyone is going to live in those housing buildings, then there also won't be any kids living in those housing buildings, so you don't have to worry about where those kids will go to school.

I'm not the PP, but the entire argument for people to just shup up and deal with overcrowded schools is the so-called housing crisis. We are told that we need to just deal with our kids losing their playgrounds and outdoor space because "it will help low income neighbors." Except it won't. It will help developers get rich, and a few UMC folks live closer to Metro while being able to walk to the specialty grocery store for their wine and crackers. That's actually not a strong argument for decisions that make life materially worse for our children.

YIMBY-ism has become a religion, and one where actual facts are discarded in favor of faith. The tenets are:

1) New residents don't drive
2) New residents don't use schools
3) If you make people miserable enough, infrastructure will follow
4) Enriching developers makes life better for poor/working classs residents, somehow

Nobody has said "just shut up and deal with it". You are arguing with people who don't exist.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

Are these housing buildings providing housing? Yes, they are.

But good news for you - if you don't think anyone is going to live in those housing buildings, then there also won't be any kids living in those housing buildings, so you don't have to worry about where those kids will go to school.

I'm not the PP, but the entire argument for people to just shup up and deal with overcrowded schools is the so-called housing crisis. We are told that we need to just deal with our kids losing their playgrounds and outdoor space because "it will help low income neighbors." Except it won't. It will help developers get rich, and a few UMC folks live closer to Metro while being able to walk to the specialty grocery store for their wine and crackers. That's actually not a strong argument for decisions that make life materially worse for our children.

YIMBY-ism has become a religion, and one where actual facts are discarded in favor of faith. The tenets are:

1) New residents don't drive
2) New residents don't use schools
3) If you make people miserable enough, infrastructure will follow
4) Enriching developers makes life better for poor/working classs residents, somehow

This is SO true. And so unfortunate. Very frustrating and has definitely led to a decreased quality of life for current residents of Montgomery County, while increasing profits for developers.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

Are these housing buildings providing housing? Yes, they are.

But good news for you - if you don't think anyone is going to live in those housing buildings, then there also won't be any kids living in those housing buildings, so you don't have to worry about where those kids will go to school.

I'm not the PP, but the entire argument for people to just shup up and deal with overcrowded schools is the so-called housing crisis. We are told that we need to just deal with our kids losing their playgrounds and outdoor space because "it will help low income neighbors." Except it won't. It will help developers get rich, and a few UMC folks live closer to Metro while being able to walk to the specialty grocery store for their wine and crackers. That's actually not a strong argument for decisions that make life materially worse for our children.

YIMBY-ism has become a religion, and one where actual facts are discarded in favor of faith. The tenets are:

1) New residents don't drive
2) New residents don't use schools
3) If you make people miserable enough, infrastructure will follow
4) Enriching developers makes life better for poor/working classs residents, somehow

Nobody has said "just shut up and deal with it". You are arguing with people who don't exist.

That is EXACTLY what people are saying. They're saying don't worry that your already overcrowded schools will get even worse. Just shut up and deal with the fact that traffic will get even worse.

[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:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

It most definitely is not thoughtful development.

There are plenty of vacant apartments and condos in MoCo. No great need for more.

[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:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

It most definitely is not thoughtful development.

There are plenty of vacant apartments and condos in MoCo. No great need for more.

It is not possible to have a serious discussion about housing policy with anyone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

Are these housing buildings providing housing? Yes, they are.

But good news for you - if you don't think anyone is going to live in those housing buildings, then there also won't be any kids living in those housing buildings, so you don't have to worry about where those kids will go to school.

I'm not the PP, but the entire argument for people to just shup up and deal with overcrowded schools is the so-called housing crisis. We are told that we need to just deal with our kids losing their playgrounds and outdoor space because "it will help low income neighbors." Except it won't. It will help developers get rich, and a few UMC folks live closer to Metro while being able to walk to the specialty grocery store for their wine and crackers. That's actually not a strong argument for decisions that make life materially worse for our children.

YIMBY-ism has become a religion, and one where actual facts are discarded in favor of faith. The tenets are:

1) New residents don't drive
2) New residents don't use schools
3) If you make people miserable enough, infrastructure will follow
4) Enriching developers makes life better for poor/working classs residents, somehow

Nobody has said "just shut up and deal with it". You are arguing with people who don't exist.

That is EXACTLY what people are saying. They're saying don't worry that your already overcrowded schools will get even worse. Just shut up and deal with the fact that traffic will get even worse.

"People" who? Who, specifically, has said this? Where, specifically, have they said it? When, specifically, did they say it?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

It most definitely is not thoughtful development.

There are plenty of vacant apartments and condos in MoCo. No great need for more.

It is not possible to have a serious discussion about housing policy with anyone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

DP. It is also not possible to have a serious discussion about housing policy with anyone who fails to recognize that developers’ greed and governments’ willingness to satisfy that greed has contributed heavily to the housing shortage. The market is failing for reasons that have nothing to do with zoning. There’s no denying that.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

It most definitely is not thoughtful development.

There are plenty of vacant apartments and condos in MoCo. No great need for more.

It is not possible to have a serious discussion about housing policy with anyone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

DP. It is also not possible to have a serious discussion about housing policy with anyone who fails to recognize that developers’ greed and governments’ willingness to satisfy that greed has contributed heavily to the housing shortage. The market is failing for reasons that have nothing to do with zoning. There’s no denying that.

Of course there's denying it. I deny it. Zoning has a lot to do with it.

Are for-profit developers in it for the profit? Of course they are. Almost all of the housing in Montgomery County was built by for-profit developers.

[Anonymous]

Guys, this argument about luxury apartments is way off base.

The actual bill in question that encourages development near transit SPECIFICALLY only applies to development that will be comprised of at least 50% affordable units.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

It most definitely is not thoughtful development.

There are plenty of vacant apartments and condos in MoCo. No great need for more.

It is not possible to have a serious discussion about housing policy with anyone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

No one is denying there is an overall housing shortage- of SFHs and townhouses. I’ve seen no data to show there is a shortage of 1-2 BR condos and apts. Do you have some? Because these are what primary are being built. If you look in Redfin there are currently hundreds of apts available for rent in silver spring and Wheaton. A better use for that Forest Glen plot would be a smaller townhome development- but I’m guessing that fewer units would mean less profits?

[Anonymous]

The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.