More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why not do this in Chevy Chase and Takoma Park? Makes more sense

They are proposing to do just that: https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attainable-Housing-Strategies-Work-Session-10_05.30.24-Staff-Report_Final.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not do this in Chevy Chase and Takoma Park? Makes more sense

They are proposing to do just that: https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attainable-Housing-Strategies-Work-Session-10_05.30.24-Staff-Report_Final.pdf

What a massive waste of time and money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not do this in Chevy Chase and Takoma Park? Makes more sense

They are proposing to do just that: https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attainable-Housing-Strategies-Work-Session-10_05.30.24-Staff-Report_Final.pdf

What a massive waste of time and money.

I think this idea is terrible, but I will give them credit for doing a detailed analysis on potential impact of this proposals. Arlington did a much sloppier job with analyzing this before they pushed it through.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not do this in Chevy Chase and Takoma Park? Makes more sense

They are proposing to do just that: https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attainable-Housing-Strategies-Work-Session-10_05.30.24-Staff-Report_Final.pdf

What a massive waste of time and money.

I think this idea is terrible, but I will give them credit for doing a detailed analysis on potential impact of this proposals. Arlington did a much sloppier job with analyzing this before they pushed it through.

The fact that they recommend 4-plexes on 5,000 sq ft lots and removing set back requirements just reinforces that “detailed analysis” by dumb people produces dumb results.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not do this in Chevy Chase and Takoma Park? Makes more sense

They are proposing to do just that: https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attainable-Housing-Strategies-Work-Session-10_05.30.24-Staff-Report_Final.pdf

What a massive waste of time and money.

I think this idea is terrible, but I will give them credit for doing a detailed analysis on potential impact of this proposals. Arlington did a much sloppier job with analyzing this before they pushed it through.

The fact that they recommend 4-plexes on 5,000 sq ft lots and removing set back requirements just reinforces that “detailed analysis” by dumb people produces dumb results.

You sound nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not do this in Chevy Chase and Takoma Park? Makes more sense

They are proposing to do just that: https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attainable-Housing-Strategies-Work-Session-10_05.30.24-Staff-Report_Final.pdf

What a massive waste of time and money.

I think this idea is terrible, but I will give them credit for doing a detailed analysis on potential impact of this proposals. Arlington did a much sloppier job with analyzing this before they pushed it through.

The fact that they recommend 4-plexes on 5,000 sq ft lots and removing set back requirements just reinforces that “detailed analysis” by dumb people produces dumb results.

I didn't say that I agree with the conclusions of the analysis, but it is more thorough in comparison to the NOVA planning offices. I asked my local planing office how many parcels would be eligible for a proposed zoning ordinance they have been working on "analyzing" for more than a year and they didn't know. They basically did not do any analysis at all, they only explained why they believe that they need it, based on stale housing market data from 2019. They did not have any information on the distributional impact on different regions of the county, traffic, schools, or even the number of parcel/units that would be subject to the zoning change. It is a half-baked solution to a problem that they don't have current data on and they did not evaluate whether it will even solve the problem they are claiming the county has.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not do this in Chevy Chase and Takoma Park? Makes more sense

They are proposing to do just that: https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attainable-Housing-Strategies-Work-Session-10_05.30.24-Staff-Report_Final.pdf

What a massive waste of time and money.

I think this idea is terrible, but I will give them credit for doing a detailed analysis on potential impact of this proposals. Arlington did a much sloppier job with analyzing this before they pushed it through.

Which is why the city is having to hire a very expensive law firm with taxpayer dollars to defend that sloppy job.

[Anonymous]

Why did they kind of sweep it under the carpet as BRT routes first catching many of us unaware that it was significant changes to our neighborhoods?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did they kind of sweep it under the carpet as BRT routes first catching many of us unaware that it was significant changes to our neighborhoods?

It’s the boiling frog.

If they put it all out there at once people would say absolutely not. Instead, they break it into 1000 parts over several years. A corridor here, a transportation plan there, a little zoning text amendment, a magic bus stop…they sell them all individually and to specific areas in any one time period. It’s deliberate subterfuge to keep people from seeing the big picture. I’m sure that a Colesville Corridor plan will be along shortly after they push their University plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why did they kind of sweep it under the carpet as BRT routes first catching many of us unaware that it was significant changes to our neighborhoods?

Because nobody is opposed to rebranding an existing bus line. It's been the same pattern everywhere, some innocuous trojan horse is proposed that people broadly support and then deep in the weeds it turns to be something far different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did they kind of sweep it under the carpet as BRT routes first catching many of us unaware that it was significant changes to our neighborhoods?

Because nobody is opposed to rebranding an existing bus line. It's been the same pattern everywhere, some innocuous trojan horse is proposed that people broadly support and then deep in the weeds it turns to be something far different.

Exactly. Then when people complain they say that you missed your opportunity to provide input when the “we all like good things plan” was approved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why did they kind of sweep it under the carpet as BRT routes first catching many of us unaware that it was significant changes to our neighborhoods?

Because nobody is opposed to rebranding an existing bus line. It's been the same pattern everywhere, some innocuous trojan horse is proposed that people broadly support and then deep in the weeds it turns to be something far different.

BRT is not rebranding an existing bus line. If that's what they end up doing, it won't be BRT.

Plus it's nonsense to say nobody is opposed to rebranding an existing bus line. To go from some people's comments, in public hearings as well as on NextDoor, the bike lanes then and the bus lanes now are the End. Of. The. World.

[Anonymous]

All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

Not everyone wants to live the biker bro, vegetarian, apartment lifestyle. The crazy urbanists and YIMBYs are trying to force this on communities that don't want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

Not everyone wants to live the biker bro, vegetarian, apartment lifestyle. The crazy urbanists and YIMBYs are trying to force this on communities that don't want it.

You all seem to insistent in this fantasy that some biker dude is gonna break into your house and forcible throw you into some apartment like the movie Saw.

In case you don't understand, literally nobody is talking about tearing down your special little house dude. Nobody cares about what you have or want, this is about what everyone else (by large margins, based on the elections) wants. You can keep your little house, I promise you. What you don't get to do is live near transit and FORCE others to live a lifestyle that is more polluting, wasteful, and anti-social.