Where do MoCo council members live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Regarding “hand-picked,” I think that poster is saying that the council and previous planning board had already shoved Thrive through and then the council specifically chose planning board members that they knew would continue to grease those wheels rather than anyone that would be critical of that plan.

In other words, the County Council duly adopted the general plan update (Thrive), and then chose to appoint people to the Planning Board who support the County Council's policy directions. Which...yeah? Why should the County Council choose to appoint people to the Planning Board who oppose the County Council's policy directions?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Regarding “hand-picked,” I think that poster is saying that the council and previous planning board had already shoved Thrive through and then the council specifically chose planning board members that they knew would continue to grease those wheels rather than anyone that would be critical of that plan.

In other words, the County Council duly adopted the general plan update (Thrive), and then chose to appoint people to the Planning Board who support the County Council's policy directions. Which...yeah? Why should the County Council choose to appoint people to the Planning Board who oppose the County Council's policy directions?

I guess that’s one interpretation. Another is that they pushed through a vague and poorly vetted “Plan” that was dreamed up by a former planning board that had to resign in disgrace, picked up that plan right where they left off and assembled a new group of lackeys and yes people to push it right along.

Legal? Sure, I suppose.

Sleazy, definitely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Regarding “hand-picked,” I think that poster is saying that the council and previous planning board had already shoved Thrive through and then the council specifically chose planning board members that they knew would continue to grease those wheels rather than anyone that would be critical of that plan.

In other words, the County Council duly adopted the general plan update (Thrive), and then chose to appoint people to the Planning Board who support the County Council's policy directions. Which...yeah? Why should the County Council choose to appoint people to the Planning Board who oppose the County Council's policy directions?

I guess that’s one interpretation. Another is that they pushed through a vague and poorly vetted “Plan” that was dreamed up by a former planning board that had to resign in disgrace, picked up that plan right where they left off and assembled a new group of lackeys and yes people to push it right along.

Legal? Sure, I suppose.

Sleazy, definitely.

Here are the people that conceptualized the plan.

I’m sure that everything was done on the up and up

https://ggwash.org/view/87010/what-does-the-recent-resignation-of-montgomerys-planning-board-mean-for-the-countys-future

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Regarding “hand-picked,” I think that poster is saying that the council and previous planning board had already shoved Thrive through and then the council specifically chose planning board members that they knew would continue to grease those wheels rather than anyone that would be critical of that plan.

In other words, the County Council duly adopted the general plan update (Thrive), and then chose to appoint people to the Planning Board who support the County Council's policy directions. Which...yeah? Why should the County Council choose to appoint people to the Planning Board who oppose the County Council's policy directions?

I guess that’s one interpretation. Another is that they pushed through a vague and poorly vetted “Plan” that was dreamed up by a former planning board that had to resign in disgrace, picked up that plan right where they left off and assembled a new group of lackeys and yes people to push it right along.

Legal? Sure, I suppose.

Sleazy, definitely.

The general plan update began in July 2018, and it was approved in October 2022. The last time the general plan was fully updated was in 1964.

It's the general plan.

I don't know what you mean by "poorly vetted" or who - in your opinion - should have been doing the vetting but didn't.

I don't know why you put square quotes around the word "plan", given that it literally is a plan.

The Planning Board did not dream it up.

Maybe you can explain why you think the Planning Department should have had to start over from the beginning after the County Council asked the members of the Planning Board to resign.

The County Council appointed qualified people to serve on the Planning Board and as Planning Director. The Planning Director serves at will, so I suppose in that sense, all at-will employees are yes people. The Planning Board members might be surprised to hear that they are the County Council's lackeys.

And finally, y'all need to get over this. How can you be properly infuriated by the attainable housing initiative, if you're still using up your infuriation on the general plan update?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Regarding “hand-picked,” I think that poster is saying that the council and previous planning board had already shoved Thrive through and then the council specifically chose planning board members that they knew would continue to grease those wheels rather than anyone that would be critical of that plan.

In other words, the County Council duly adopted the general plan update (Thrive), and then chose to appoint people to the Planning Board who support the County Council's policy directions. Which...yeah? Why should the County Council choose to appoint people to the Planning Board who oppose the County Council's policy directions?

I guess that’s one interpretation. Another is that they pushed through a vague and poorly vetted “Plan” that was dreamed up by a former planning board that had to resign in disgrace, picked up that plan right where they left off and assembled a new group of lackeys and yes people to push it right along.

Legal? Sure, I suppose.

Sleazy, definitely.

The general plan update began in July 2018, and it was approved in October 2022. The last time the general plan was fully updated was in 1964.

It's the general plan.

I don't know what you mean by "poorly vetted" or who - in your opinion - should have been doing the vetting but didn't.

I don't know why you put square quotes around the word "plan", given that it literally is a plan.

The Planning Board did not dream it up.

Maybe you can explain why you think the Planning Department should have had to start over from the beginning after the County Council asked the members of the Planning Board to resign.

The County Council appointed qualified people to serve on the Planning Board and as Planning Director. The Planning Director serves at will, so I suppose in that sense, all at-will employees are yes people. The Planning Board members might be surprised to hear that they are the County Council's lackeys.

And finally, y'all need to get over this. How can you be properly infuriated by the attainable housing initiative, if you're still using up your infuriation on the general plan update?

Um, because it's a coordinated and multi-faceted approach, including elements at the state level, that relied on the understanding of each element's impact being poorly understood by the general public due to their being presented in relative vacuums and that took advantage of the exigencies of the pandemic to limit typical public engagement processes. That's not to mention the utter lack of public engagement/review of the deeper and more sweeping aspects of the AHS prior to its being presented to the Council. The whole effort has been to ensure things are effectively faits accomplis, with the resistance during later pro-forma engagement being met with claims of no viable alternatives when those alternatives that might have addressed concerns would have to have been worked up in the time when there was neither impact awareness nor engagement opportunity that would have encouraged more robust options analyses (and galvanized political opposition at an appropriate time had those options/analyses not materialized).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Regarding “hand-picked,” I think that poster is saying that the council and previous planning board had already shoved Thrive through and then the council specifically chose planning board members that they knew would continue to grease those wheels rather than anyone that would be critical of that plan.

In other words, the County Council duly adopted the general plan update (Thrive), and then chose to appoint people to the Planning Board who support the County Council's policy directions. Which...yeah? Why should the County Council choose to appoint people to the Planning Board who oppose the County Council's policy directions?

I guess that’s one interpretation. Another is that they pushed through a vague and poorly vetted “Plan” that was dreamed up by a former planning board that had to resign in disgrace, picked up that plan right where they left off and assembled a new group of lackeys and yes people to push it right along.

Legal? Sure, I suppose.

Sleazy, definitely.

The general plan update began in July 2018, and it was approved in October 2022. The last time the general plan was fully updated was in 1964.

It's the general plan.

I don't know what you mean by "poorly vetted" or who - in your opinion - should have been doing the vetting but didn't.

I don't know why you put square quotes around the word "plan", given that it literally is a plan.

The Planning Board did not dream it up.

Maybe you can explain why you think the Planning Department should have had to start over from the beginning after the County Council asked the members of the Planning Board to resign.

The County Council appointed qualified people to serve on the Planning Board and as Planning Director. The Planning Director serves at will, so I suppose in that sense, all at-will employees are yes people. The Planning Board members might be surprised to hear that they are the County Council's lackeys.

And finally, y'all need to get over this. How can you be properly infuriated by the attainable housing initiative, if you're still using up your infuriation on the general plan update?

Um, because it's a coordinated and multi-faceted approach, including elements at the state level, that relied on the understanding of each element's impact being poorly understood by the general public due to their being presented in relative vacuums and that took advantage of the exigencies of the pandemic to limit typical public engagement processes. That's not to mention the utter lack of public engagement/review of the deeper and more sweeping aspects of the AHS prior to its being presented to the Council. The whole effort has been to ensure things are effectively faits accomplis, with the resistance during later pro-forma engagement being met with claims of no viable alternatives when those alternatives that might have addressed concerns would have to have been worked up in the time when there was neither impact awareness nor engagement opportunity that would have encouraged more robust options analyses (and galvanized political opposition at an appropriate time had those options/analyses not materialized).

I ain't reading all that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Side question - are these listening sessions being recorded? Minutes taken and distributed? As far as I know they are not being recorded, and that strikes me as very odd that in 2024 that these sessions are each just one and done with no record of what transpired.

Happy to be wrong here if they are available.

The recordings are available on this page: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/resources/AttainableHousingStrategies.html
A summary of the concerns raised can be found here: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/

Thanks for the link to the recordings. The "What we're hearing" page does not cover those, having been posted before the listening sessions, and, though some of the concerns from those sessions are reflected, the undetailed summaries are hand-waived away in the same breath, without opportunity for response to the hand-waving.

For instance, the concern about school undercapacity is dismissed both by claiming that additional numbers will be too small to matter and by claiming that existing processes will cover that, without detailed analysis offered. Meanwhile, there is no mechanism offered to ensure such limited numbers within a school catchment or neighborhood, and the lived experience of county residents is locally lumpy overcapacity of schools going unaddressed for decades while the Council continually underfunds associated MCPS budget requests, while they reduce school-related impact taxes that might help close the gap. Neither of these considerations is given voice, and the same might be said for the rest of the items on that page, giving it the flavor of a propaganda piece.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Regarding “hand-picked,” I think that poster is saying that the council and previous planning board had already shoved Thrive through and then the council specifically chose planning board members that they knew would continue to grease those wheels rather than anyone that would be critical of that plan.

In other words, the County Council duly adopted the general plan update (Thrive), and then chose to appoint people to the Planning Board who support the County Council's policy directions. Which...yeah? Why should the County Council choose to appoint people to the Planning Board who oppose the County Council's policy directions?

I guess that’s one interpretation. Another is that they pushed through a vague and poorly vetted “Plan” that was dreamed up by a former planning board that had to resign in disgrace, picked up that plan right where they left off and assembled a new group of lackeys and yes people to push it right along.

Legal? Sure, I suppose.

Sleazy, definitely.

The general plan update began in July 2018, and it was approved in October 2022. The last time the general plan was fully updated was in 1964.

It's the general plan.

I don't know what you mean by "poorly vetted" or who - in your opinion - should have been doing the vetting but didn't.

I don't know why you put square quotes around the word "plan", given that it literally is a plan.

The Planning Board did not dream it up.

Maybe you can explain why you think the Planning Department should have had to start over from the beginning after the County Council asked the members of the Planning Board to resign.

The County Council appointed qualified people to serve on the Planning Board and as Planning Director. The Planning Director serves at will, so I suppose in that sense, all at-will employees are yes people. The Planning Board members might be surprised to hear that they are the County Council's lackeys.

And finally, y'all need to get over this. How can you be properly infuriated by the attainable housing initiative, if you're still using up your infuriation on the general plan update?

Um, because it's a coordinated and multi-faceted approach, including elements at the state level, that relied on the understanding of each element's impact being poorly understood by the general public due to their being presented in relative vacuums and that took advantage of the exigencies of the pandemic to limit typical public engagement processes. That's not to mention the utter lack of public engagement/review of the deeper and more sweeping aspects of the AHS prior to its being presented to the Council. The whole effort has been to ensure things are effectively faits accomplis, with the resistance during later pro-forma engagement being met with claims of no viable alternatives when those alternatives that might have addressed concerns would have to have been worked up in the time when there was neither impact awareness nor engagement opportunity that would have encouraged more robust options analyses (and galvanized political opposition at an appropriate time had those options/analyses not materialized).

I ain't reading all that.

Buuuuttt...you bothered to read the equally long post before and to take the time to post "I ain't reading all that." Suuuuurrrre.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Side question - are these listening sessions being recorded? Minutes taken and distributed? As far as I know they are not being recorded, and that strikes me as very odd that in 2024 that these sessions are each just one and done with no record of what transpired.

Happy to be wrong here if they are available.

The recordings are available on this page: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/resources/AttainableHousingStrategies.html
A summary of the concerns raised can be found here: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/

Thanks for the link to the recordings. The "What we're hearing" page does not cover those, having been posted before the listening sessions, and, though some of the concerns from those sessions are reflected, the undetailed summaries are hand-waived away in the same breath, without opportunity for response to the hand-waving.

For instance, the concern about school undercapacity is dismissed both by claiming that additional numbers will be too small to matter and by claiming that existing processes will cover that, without detailed analysis offered. Meanwhile, there is no mechanism offered to ensure such limited numbers within a school catchment or neighborhood, and the lived experience of county residents is locally lumpy overcapacity of schools going unaddressed for decades while the Council continually underfunds associated MCPS budget requests, while they reduce school-related impact taxes that might help close the gap. Neither of these considerations is given voice, and the same might be said for the rest of the items on that page, giving it the flavor of a propaganda piece.

PP here, and I agree the "What We're Hearing" should be updated. And I think it likely will be after the Listening Sessions. I don't object to them highlighting the issues and giving them a summary response. It at a minimum elevates areas of concern so people that are just learning about this know where they might have concerns. And they are not including the positive comments, of which there have been many, which they would absolutely do if it were just a propaganda piece.

And the sessions are there in their entirety. The community engagement *since the proposal was announced* has not been bad. In fact, as someone who has followed local political issues for a while, I would say it is above average.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

It does make it seem very suspicious that whomever is pushing this has chosen to begin with the most contentious, least effective option for building additional housing. One they they fully admit probably won’t make much of a dent in housing. It’s because, again, they don’t care about housing, it’s a bizarre idealogical battle over SFH zoning.

Had this been a part of a multi-pronged approach that put a scaled down version of this farther down the continuum, we probably wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

It does make it seem very suspicious that whomever is pushing this has chosen to begin with the most contentious, least effective option for building additional housing. One they they fully admit probably won’t make much of a dent in housing. It’s because, again, they don’t care about housing, it’s a bizarre idealogical battle over SFH zoning.

Had this been a part of a multi-pronged approach that put a scaled down version of this farther down the continuum, we probably wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

?????

This is not the first housing policy action, and it won't be the last.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

It does make it seem very suspicious that whomever is pushing this has chosen to begin with the most contentious, least effective option for building additional housing. One they they fully admit probably won’t make much of a dent in housing. It’s because, again, they don’t care about housing, it’s a bizarre idealogical battle over SFH zoning.

Had this been a part of a multi-pronged approach that put a scaled down version of this farther down the continuum, we probably wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

As mentioned above, this IS part of a multi-pronged approach. The county has a whole array of programs to boost supply, to subsidize housing, to support home ownership, etc. They even have whole departments all about it.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DHCA/
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DHCA/housing/multifamily/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

[Anonymous]

Reminder!

Sign up for a session:

https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z1x6zubk1qub83c/

Let them know your thoughts:

https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/

Only two left!

Inscríbete para una sesión:

https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z1x6zubk1qub83c/

Hazles saber lo que piensas:

https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/

¡No hay mucho tiempo!