More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

When I said Communism Im referring to the progressives unrealistic hope of getting their share of the American dream handed to them

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Planning has done a lot of studies, including one that found that almost none of these small multifamily projects will be commercially viable, especially in TP and Chevy Chase because the land costs and demand for single family rebuilds are simply too high. But Planning pressed ahead anyway, because apparently it’s better to implement planning fads than it is to put resources behind driving economic growth. To be clear, I’m not complaining about zoning changes. I’m complaining that Planning is investing time and resources in the wrong things.

Then you should apply for the next vacancy on the Planning Board.

However, the purpose of the Planning Board is not to put resources behind driving economic growth. The purpose of the Planning Board is to

-Consider large- and small-scale plans for new development [which, in practice, means to approve development applications from landowners]
-Provide guidelines for the pattern and pace of future development [i.e., master plans, sector plans, corridor plans, functional plans, etc.]
-Develop and manage Montgomery County’s nationally recognized 32,900-acre park system [i.e., Montgomery Parks]
-Recommend to the County Council which sites receive historic designations [that's the Historic Preservation Commission]

All of that is in Maryland statute (Land Use, Division II - Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission).

The purpose of the Montgomery County Economic Development Corporation is to put resources behind driving economic growth.

Nice try.

Planning put itself out it in charge of writing the county’s growth policy, later renamed the growth and infrastructure policy by the council, and planning sets growth goals. Planning also weighs in on tax policy, transportation policy, and school construction.

If you think that the responsibilities that you enumerated have nothing to do with economic growth, then you need to resign from planning. Doing those things well results in growth. Failing to do those things well absolutely kills growth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I said Communism Im referring to the progressives unrealistic hope of getting their share of the American dream handed to them

Next you'll also explain that by Fascism you meant speed limits and bike lanes.

[Anonymous]

The discussion has now started in the real estate forum:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1208578.page

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The discussion has now started in the real estate forum:

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1208578.page

Good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level[/quote]

How many times do people cross the street per day ? per how many times is someone killed doing this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good. I’m a YIMBY. We need more housing.

Post your address. They can build it all in your yard.

TIA!

Turning your house into a multiplex is a good retirement plan.

Really? My impression was that the movie theater industry is not doing so well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I said Communism Im referring to the progressives unrealistic hope of getting their share of the American dream handed to them

‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.’

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

Weird, because Trump is the one supporting the "suburbs" and rails agains the "urban youth".

I think you need to realize who is on your side lol.

DP. No, because your saying, "go buy a farm," if they don't like County Council development agendas after their election is similar to saying, "move to Canada," if you didn't like the recent decisions following from the conservative packing of SCOTUS (among other distasteful things) with Trump's election.

Last I looked, the County Council, as party-packed as it is with the ridiculous at-large seats, was not elected on this one issue. Just because they are elected doesn't mean they represent the county-resident-majority view on every issue. Even when representing a majority view, one might consider it unjust when that view would trample a minority.

I'm sure anyone thinking about it for half a second might identify enough past real-world analogues to comprehend the message.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.