MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
The county is getting a jump start by pre-ruining what’s left of the formerly great school system. If they really work at it, “Attainable Housing” and upzoning can surely finish the job! Together they can work to drag down property values, no problem at all. Let’s hear it for teamwork. https://moco360.media/2024/06/05/mcps-to-increase-class-sizes-lay-off-21-central-office-staffers-to-close-budget-gap/ |
Anonymous
It's fine if you don't like Arlington, but if you knew anything about Langston Blvd, you would understand that "Plan Langston Blvd" is a pipe dream due to the amount of lot consolidation that would need to happen to make it a reality. They would even need VDOT to give up property rights and that's never going to happen. It's literal crazy talk. I'm skeptical that Missing Middle is going to take off, but I suppose that's more realistic than the "vision" for Langston Blvd. |
Anonymous
We have already seen this impact in MCPS across the Board. |
Anonymous
PP here. Person I'm responding to is talking about now, not in the hypothetical future. And nothing in my post indicates I am a YIMBY. Your reading comprehension is really bad. I am totally unaffected by this plan. |
Anonymous
I understand very clearly that this round of upcoming "doesn't impact you". However, 2nd or 3rd round or upzoning almost certainly will. It does not stop here and this is only the beginning. You may not identify as a YIMBY, but the nonchalant attitude is similar to one and the results will be them same. If you let them win now it is game over and your neighborhood is next. The YIMBYs will start arguing that this policy does go far enough and we need to do more almost immediately after this one goes through. Give the YIMBYs an inch and they will take ten miles. |
Anonymous
"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist..." |
Anonymous
Take a look at how bad traffic is with the current metro closures. That's one way to see the benefit of there being a transit alternative. |
Anonymous
Non sequitor, if you are suggesting that is a justification for more density. That marginal benefit is needed with the current density. One of the biggest problems with the currently pursued higher-density infill approach is a terrible lack of requiring the infrastructure needed to serve the impacted communities properly. From a transportation perspective, BRT isn't going to cut it, especially given the point-to-point needs. |
Anonymous
Yes, this is absolutely correct. Increasing density will (almost) always in traffic, because new residents still use cars. Unless the new residents are banned from having and using cars traffic congestion is going to increase. |
Anonymous
I am strongly in favor of the increase density and I agree with you....at least in the short run. But, two things- 1. Over time and with increased/enhanced mass transit options and walkable community-serving services, people will use cars less frequently. This is a long game, but you have to create the conditions where people need to drive less before people can actually start driving less. 2. Increased traffic isn't bad, or at least not bad enough to outweigh the other benefits of walkability/density. The slower a driver goes, and the more attention they need to pay while driving, the less fatalities. |
Anonymous
1. So create the conditions first, then increase density, if it must be so. Or plan for that in greenfield areas rather than existing suburban developments. 2. Instead, invest in pedestrian improvements -- better sidewalks & crossings, more crossings with discouragement of jaywalking otherwise, etc. "Increased traffic isn't bad" is a pretty poor lead statement, even if followed by the tradeoff caveat. The long game as being suggested really sticks it to the current residents of those areas. They made among the most significant and burdensome-to-change life choices when deciding to reside there. When planners don't require the necessary infrastructure to support infill that happens with zoning change, those residents have to deal not only with undesired changes to neighborhood character but also with waiting out that result. A result that is aspirational, rather than determined, and the benefits of which might not come to pass at all. And even if those benefits materialize a decase or two later, the overall result, with the increased density, larger buildings, etc., may well not be as good for them as would be the case if zoning remained unchanged. |
Anonymous
I believe it |
Anonymous
PP here. Two thoughts: 1. All pedestrian improvements are in the end a way to make traffic move slower and make drivers pay more attention. More cars on the road does this. 2. I agree that current residents pay a price with increased density. But there are two sides to that equation. It is a strong benefit to newer residents that come in. The question is whether that matters. I think it does. |
Anonymous
This. MoCo has been a nightmare from public works projects that take decades to complete and are an eyesore (is Silver Spring parking even finished?) to lumping all the density housing projects in the east county where they are literally building “no go” zones that won’t end well. they are adding more “affordable” housing to attract all the people priced out from the District. Dc should house its own people and stop pushing the responsibility for their trash schools and poorly raised people on Maryland by closing their housing developments and replacing them with $3,000/mo apartments. |
Anonymous
Until the next pandemic is released then density will only translate into more deaths and increased spread. Density is dangerous |