Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro. Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no? And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas. I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything... ![]() |
I suppoae that ia density, but I don't know if advocates for density were talking about just living with your parents as a grown up. |
The way this is supposed to work is that if you live in a building without off-street parking, you're not eligible to get a residential parking permit, period — so you're discouraged from having a car. That way, the only people who want to move to the building will be people without cars, and parking for everyone else won't be affected. Sounds fine to me. Want to make sure you have parking? Don't live there. |
Except that's not how it works in practice. |
+1 and the formulas they use to predict the amount of new students in schools is always woefully low too. |
Is this real, or are you acting this naive to make the YIMBYs look bad? |
Yep. When 5333 Connecticut Ave opened about 10 years ago, the residents were not supposed to be able to get Zone 3 RPP passes. Naturally, like half the building was able to procure them because of a very convenient "glitch" at the DMV. It took a few years to fix the problem. |
I mean, I agree that many would not want to live in the same building as their parents, though some might. That doesn't mean that the option wouldn't solve the "North Carolina" problem noted by the above poster, presenting an alternative to the current proposal for density for that use case. |
Like such responses on most of these threads, it approaches the conditions imposed as though everyone who might live there is making the choice from the outside. Want to live there with yhe new reality? Great! You can! Don't want to live there with the new reality? Great! You don't have to! (but you'll need to move, disrupt your family and neighbor relationships, etc., etc. -- and let's just not mention that) You know where that kind of choice works? Greenfield development. |
More offensive is their "Legalize Housing" and "Illegal Housing." They are trying to do what "pro-choice" did for "pro-abortion," but haven't gotten it right. |
Actually, they are not eliminating single family zoning. If a lot is zoned R-8, a single family house being built on the lot and has to conform to the R-8 zoning requirements. They are allowing other types of housing to be built on a lot zoned R-8. As long as 6 plex conforms to the R-8 requirements it can be built on the lot. |
Or they are old, set in their ways, and do not want to move to a retirement community or assisted living as needed. Staying in the neighborhood is an excuse for annoying their kids. |
That is redefining what most people would consider to be multi-family as single family. But, sure, go defend that hill since the past poster didn't say "detached single family zoning" when, again, common parlance is to refer to detached homes as "single family" (as opposed to "townhouses", "duplexes" and the like). |
Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density". |
Not sure if this logic is Orwellian … or Trumpian. |