He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
It doesn't have a divine mandate. It has a federal mandate.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
This zoning proposal will not even be effective at meeting MWCOG goals. Allowing 2-4 plex units all over the county encourage population growth where there is minimal access to public transit. There is no way that MOCO will meet the goal set by MWCOG to ensure the most new housing is built in high capacity transit activity centers under this proposal. It doesn’t even accomplish the goals set by MWCOG if you consider them reasonable.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
It doesn't have a divine mandate. It has a federal mandate.
Transportation planning involves housing.
A federal law that is for transportation planning and does not have any legally binding provisions that impact local zoning.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
It doesn't have a divine mandate. It has a federal mandate.
Transportation planning involves housing.
A federal law that is for transportation planning and does not have any legally binding provisions that impact local zoning.
I think you should learn more about transportation planning.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
Why do you think MWCOG is only about transit?
There is nothing in this legal source that explicitly mentions housing and their guidance is a suggestion. It is not legally binding and the county can ignore it without any legal consequences.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
This zoning proposal will not even be effective at meeting MWCOG goals. Allowing 2-4 plex units all over the county encourage population growth where there is minimal access to public transit. There is no way that MOCO will meet the goal set by MWCOG to ensure the most new housing is built in high capacity transit activity centers under this proposal. It doesn’t even accomplish the goals set by MWCOG if you consider them reasonable.
Buses are public transit. Public transit includes buses.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
It doesn't have a divine mandate. It has a federal mandate.
Transportation planning involves housing.
A federal law that is for transportation planning and does not have any legally binding provisions that impact local zoning.
I think you should learn more about transportation planning.
My statement is factually accurate that we have no legal obligation to follow the suggestions with housing production goals.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
It doesn't have a divine mandate. It has a federal mandate.
Transportation planning involves housing.
A federal law that is for transportation planning and does not have any legally binding provisions that impact local zoning.
I think you should learn more about transportation planning.
My statement is factually accurate that we have no legal obligation to follow the suggestions with housing production goals.
Your statement demonstrates that you know very little about the regional transportation planning process.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
This zoning proposal will not even be effective at meeting MWCOG goals. Allowing 2-4 plex units all over the county encourage population growth where there is minimal access to public transit. There is no way that MOCO will meet the goal set by MWCOG to ensure the most new housing is built in high capacity transit activity centers under this proposal. It doesn’t even accomplish the goals set by MWCOG if you consider them reasonable.
Buses are public transit. Public transit includes buses.
Yes, but most people don’t ride the bus. So 90%+ of the new units are going to add traffic to the road. Transit oriented development is meaningless if most people don’t use it. A much larger proportion of people actually use the metro it they are in walking distance. I support quadplexes in the 1 mile radius around metro stations, but allowing them in places not close to the metro where the vast majority of residents will use private vehicles is a bad policy decision.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
This zoning proposal will not even be effective at meeting MWCOG goals. Allowing 2-4 plex units all over the county encourage population growth where there is minimal access to public transit. There is no way that MOCO will meet the goal set by MWCOG to ensure the most new housing is built in high capacity transit activity centers under this proposal. It doesn’t even accomplish the goals set by MWCOG if you consider them reasonable.
Buses are public transit. Public transit includes buses.
Yes, but most people don’t ride the bus. So 90%+ of the new units are going to add traffic to the road. Transit oriented development is meaningless if most people don’t use it. A much larger proportion of people actually use the metro it they are in walking distance. I support quadplexes in the 1 mile radius around metro stations, but allowing them in places not close to the metro where the vast majority of residents will use private vehicles is a bad policy decision.
There are a lot of foolish arguments on this thread, but the idea that buses don't count as public transportation is probably the single most foolish one. And the second most foolish argument is that people don't ride buses.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
Why do you think MWCOG is only about transit?
There is nothing in this legal source that explicitly mentions housing and their guidance is a suggestion. It is not legally binding and the county can ignore it without any legal consequences.
But I am wondering why you think the only source or basis for housing targets and the need to create more attainable housing is MWCOG? Even if MWCOG did not exist, don't you think the County (and state and nation) would still have this policy goal?
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
This zoning proposal will not even be effective at meeting MWCOG goals. Allowing 2-4 plex units all over the county encourage population growth where there is minimal access to public transit. There is no way that MOCO will meet the goal set by MWCOG to ensure the most new housing is built in high capacity transit activity centers under this proposal. It doesn’t even accomplish the goals set by MWCOG if you consider them reasonable.
Buses are public transit. Public transit includes buses.
Public transit != mass transit.
Very few people are going to start taking the bus. I understand that the YIMBYs are trying to sell this, even on our local Facebook neighborhood groups, but can we all live I the real world for a minute, please?
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
This zoning proposal will not even be effective at meeting MWCOG goals. Allowing 2-4 plex units all over the county encourage population growth where there is minimal access to public transit. There is no way that MOCO will meet the goal set by MWCOG to ensure the most new housing is built in high capacity transit activity centers under this proposal. It doesn’t even accomplish the goals set by MWCOG if you consider them reasonable.
Buses are public transit. Public transit includes buses.
Public transit != mass transit.
Very few people are going to start taking the bus. I understand that the YIMBYs are trying to sell this, even on our local Facebook neighborhood groups, but can we all live I the real world for a minute, please?
Buses are mass transit. Buses are public transit. Buses are public transportation. People take buses. Please live in the real world.
He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.
You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?
No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.
Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.
The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.
It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.
This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.
No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.
PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.
I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.
I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.
How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?
I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.
What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.
You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.
Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.
As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.
“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”
I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.
I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.
Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.
It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.
Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!
The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.
DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.
There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing
PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.
Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:
1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Get it?
DP. Or, more analogously,
Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.
In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?
Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.
I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.
There absolutely is room for debate over this and you are trying to shut down discussion over whether this policy is even needed at all. These allegations of housing shortages are based on numerous assumptions regarding population growth and demographic trends. There is also an even larger question of who the planning department is working for they are making these proposals in the first place. Do they represent the builders lobby and real estate industry or county residents? They should be considering what county residents want and not pursuing policy goals based on some national agenda by special interest groups. They work for MOCO voters, not hypothetical people that don’t live here and might relocate.
PP here. I was trying to show that there has been extensive research and documentation on the housing crisis, at both the national level. I'm open to more information that refutes or undermines this research. But I don't think that Zillow listings is really it. How to you respond to the research and conclusions of career experts at the national, state, and local level?
Not sure how to respond to the rest of what you wrote. You seem to assert that they have ulterior motives and are not credible? And "they" is anyone anywhere that thinks creating more housing is a necessary/good policy goal?
Again, happy to debate whether these particular policy proposals will achieve that goal, and balance that goal against others. But trying to separate issues here...
I have a problem with the planning department making decisions based on arbitrary MWCOG housing targets that use demographic assumptions which are no longer reasonable after the COVID-19 pandemic. They do not work for MWCOG, they work for Montgomery County. They should be focused on protecting quality of life for people that live here, not housing production goals set by some outside organization.
Housing is part of quality of life.
MWCOG is not "some outside organization," regardless of how you might feel (or I might feel) about MWCOG. It's the the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for metropolitan Washington. I.e., required by federal law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/23/450.310
This is a transit planning organization, not a housing planning organization. They have no business telling county how to conduct local zoning decisions and their guidance is not legally binding. It is just a suggestion that we are under no obligation to follow it. Stop acting like this is organization has divine mandate to guide county planning decisions.
This zoning proposal will not even be effective at meeting MWCOG goals. Allowing 2-4 plex units all over the county encourage population growth where there is minimal access to public transit. There is no way that MOCO will meet the goal set by MWCOG to ensure the most new housing is built in high capacity transit activity centers under this proposal. It doesn’t even accomplish the goals set by MWCOG if you consider them reasonable.
Buses are public transit. Public transit includes buses.
Public transit != mass transit.
Very few people are going to start taking the bus. I understand that the YIMBYs are trying to sell this, even on our local Facebook neighborhood groups, but can we all live I the real world for a minute, please?
Buses are mass transit. Buses are public transit. Buses are public transportation. People take buses. Please live in the real world.
The proportion of people that use buses regularly is in the single digits in MOCO. Most people don’t ride them and have no interest in using the bus to buy groceries or get ti work. You are making assumptions that are not consistent with actual behavior. Availability of a transit option that vast majority of quadplex residents won’t use is a very poor argument to justify a major overhaul of existing zoning rules that will allow 4x density.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}