Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.
There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.
No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.
The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.
Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.
You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?
Once again, not rational for the county to pursue polices that will result in massive increases in school enrollment. The county share of school spending is $21,113 per year for each student. Policies that significantly increase student enrollment without a commensurate increase in tax revenue will bankrupt the county. This includes MM housing units, if they are truly "affordable" the tax additional property tax revenue will not come close to covering cost of educating additional students.
Anti natalist MoCo boomers.
I am not a boomer and I’m literally having a baby next year. The county cannot afford to import a bunch of tax negative residents that will create a fiscal deficit. A SFH house needs an assessed value of 1.685M for property taxes to cover the cost if providing local government services to those residents. A MM unit needs an assessed value of 1.37M to fund the cost fi providing local government services to those residents. This MM policy will bankrupt the county by producing housing units that don’t cover their share of government spending and overwhelming local infrastructure.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.
There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.
No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.
The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.
Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.
You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?
Once again, not rational for the county to pursue polices that will result in massive increases in school enrollment. The county share of school spending is $21,113 per year for each student. Policies that significantly increase student enrollment without a commensurate increase in tax revenue will bankrupt the county. This includes MM housing units, if they are truly "affordable" the tax additional property tax revenue will not come close to covering cost of educating additional students.
Anti natalist MoCo boomers.
I am not a boomer and I’m literally having a baby next year. The county cannot afford to import a bunch of tax negative residents that will create a fiscal deficit. A SFH house needs an assessed value of 1.685M for property taxes to cover the cost if providing local government services to those residents. A MM unit needs an assessed value of 1.37M to fund the cost fi providing local government services to those residents. This MM policy will bankrupt the county by producing housing units that don’t cover their share of government spending and overwhelming local infrastructure.
The worst offenders for creating a fiscal deficit are the committed affordable units. They literally have higher student generation factors than brand new single family houses and they contribute minimal property tax revenue . The student generation. Factor for commuted affordable units is so high that each unit cost the county $14,525 per year to provide school services. The assessed value at most is around 300k so the county collects $3,100 for property tax revenue and loses $11,425 per affordable unit each year. Including the costs of other local government services, the county loses $18,838 per year (net of property tax revenue) for each committed affordable unit. Wake up committed affordable units will destroy the Arlington. The budget impact from low income housing units is completely unsustainable. https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/projects/documents/data-and-research/profile/profile_report_2024_final_4_3_24.pdf
We get it. You don't want more kids in schools. Those of us who came here as kids and went to school? We don't mind so much that others get this opportunity as well.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.
There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.
No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.
The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.
Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.
You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?
Once again, not rational for the county to pursue polices that will result in massive increases in school enrollment. The county share of school spending is $21,113 per year for each student. Policies that significantly increase student enrollment without a commensurate increase in tax revenue will bankrupt the county. This includes MM housing units, if they are truly "affordable" the tax additional property tax revenue will not come close to covering cost of educating additional students.
Anti natalist MoCo boomers.
I am not a boomer and I’m literally having a baby next year. The county cannot afford to import a bunch of tax negative residents that will create a fiscal deficit. A SFH house needs an assessed value of 1.685M for property taxes to cover the cost if providing local government services to those residents. A MM unit needs an assessed value of 1.37M to fund the cost fi providing local government services to those residents. This MM policy will bankrupt the county by producing housing units that don’t cover their share of government spending and overwhelming local infrastructure.
The worst offenders for creating a fiscal deficit are the committed affordable units. They literally have higher student generation factors than brand new single family houses and they contribute minimal property tax revenue . The student generation. Factor for commuted affordable units is so high that each unit cost the county $14,525 per year to provide school services. The assessed value at most is around 300k so the county collects $3,100 for property tax revenue and loses $11,425 per affordable unit each year. Including the costs of other local government services, the county loses $18,838 per year (net of property tax revenue) for each committed affordable unit. Wake up committed affordable units will destroy the Arlington. The budget impact from low income housing units is completely unsustainable. https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/projects/documents/data-and-research/profile/profile_report_2024_final_4_3_24.pdf
We get it. You don't want more kids in schools. Those of us who came here as kids and went to school? We don't mind so much that others get this opportunity as well.
You did not provide any solutions to this funding problem. Magical beliefs and ignoring these very real issues will lead the county to fiscal ruin. Those “opportunities” you speak of won’t exist anymore if the county doesn’t have enough money to fully fund schools.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.
There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.
No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.
The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.
Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.
You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?
Once again, not rational for the county to pursue polices that will result in massive increases in school enrollment. The county share of school spending is $21,113 per year for each student. Policies that significantly increase student enrollment without a commensurate increase in tax revenue will bankrupt the county. This includes MM housing units, if they are truly "affordable" the tax additional property tax revenue will not come close to covering cost of educating additional students.
Anti natalist MoCo boomers.
I am not a boomer and I’m literally having a baby next year. The county cannot afford to import a bunch of tax negative residents that will create a fiscal deficit. A SFH house needs an assessed value of 1.685M for property taxes to cover the cost if providing local government services to those residents. A MM unit needs an assessed value of 1.37M to fund the cost fi providing local government services to those residents. This MM policy will bankrupt the county by producing housing units that don’t cover their share of government spending and overwhelming local infrastructure.
The worst offenders for creating a fiscal deficit are the committed affordable units. They literally have higher student generation factors than brand new single family houses and they contribute minimal property tax revenue . The student generation. Factor for commuted affordable units is so high that each unit cost the county $14,525 per year to provide school services. The assessed value at most is around 300k so the county collects $3,100 for property tax revenue and loses $11,425 per affordable unit each year. Including the costs of other local government services, the county loses $18,838 per year (net of property tax revenue) for each committed affordable unit. Wake up committed affordable units will destroy the Arlington. The budget impact from low income housing units is completely unsustainable. https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/projects/documents/data-and-research/profile/profile_report_2024_final_4_3_24.pdf
We get it. You don't want more kids in schools. Those of us who came here as kids and went to school? We don't mind so much that others get this opportunity as well.
Nice mischarachterization of the PP. They want school capacity to match the need. Density proponents need to address this and other infrastructure issues in a far more appropriate manner.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.
Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.
We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.
Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.
Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.
Gee, that's great "analysis" there!
That maintenance and resurfacing cost applies just as much to infrastructure in built-out areas it does to that inherited from a greenfield project, and with the band-aid/half-measure approach that has, as often as not, applied to those areas of older infrastructure, the higher standard of newly built greenfield infrastructure, where the initial cost is, at least, borne more proportionately to the impacts by developers (above-termed "hiding the costs") than is afforded by currently calculated fees for infill, affords a lower projected/NPV cost for that maintenance.
That "cheaper to maintain" for infill of previously built-out applies when existing infrastructure has demonstrated excess current capacity, requiring addition only of minot elements or flows, not when that infrastructure is at capacity and would require system-wide upgrade. That "to a point" aside would be a hugely important consideration, pointing towards a better policy being to place strict limits on the amount of any infill in particular areas, and we've seen nothing much from public officials promoting density to acknowledge this.
The externality of the higher disruption cost of addressing infrastructure needs in previously built-out areas is not included. Nor is a reasonably comprehensive evaluation of the differential environmental costs/benefits that have been noted here and elsewhere.
Sheesh.
So you're argument is that close in neighborhoods are maxed out on the infrastructure side? That it can't handle any upzoning without upgrades? How is replacing an old 2,000 sqf house with a 5,000 one easier on infrastructure than a 2,000 sqf duplex?
Also, are you going to really argue that tearing down an apple orchard to build 5,000 sqf houses is ever going to pencil out better for the environment than a close in plex?
Um...no. That's a rather limited characterization, reflective of the purposefully rather limited analysis that has been offered by planners where this kind of densification of detached single family home neighborhoods has been pushed.
Neighborhoods that are maxed out on the infrastructure side aren't exempted from the densification push, and, yes, by definition, adding units would overbook that capacity (or over-overbook it, in many cases where it previously was maxed out without being addressed). A large detached SFH with one family replacing an existing smaller home will, again, pretty much by definition, present less infrastructure burden than a number of families occupying several attached units of similar size in combination replacing that same home, which is what the densification allowances would envision and permit.
Far more prevalent than apple orchards in greenfield are open crop fields, and why would that have to be replaced by 5000 sf homes? Why not a mix of unit types from the outset? With a local park, areas to be re-wooded, public open spaces and other infrastructure? Robust analyses of that net environmental impact versus the impact of increasing the pace of clear-cuts of closer-in properties as plexes are authorized simply haven't been put forth by those pushing that density.
For that matter, what about green-roofed, mixed-use high-rises replacing older low commercial in areas really close to Metro already planned for high density but underutilized? No comparative environmental analyses versus the plex infill of detached single family offered there, either.
A large SFH replacing a small SFH will definitely impact utilities negatively, especially with impervious surfaces. There was a lot of crying upthread about flooding and run off, and this and people taking down trees are the real culprits there. When you allow ballooning houses, you get all the negatives people complain about, and you still need to find a place for all the other people. There isn't a "movement" against this though.
Have you ever seen a "robust" study that compares the environmental impact of greenfield development in say Aldi, vs densification of Arlington? I would love to see the spin on that. And developers pretty much only build 5,000 sqft houses these days. No one is going to build 2,000 sqft craftsmen anymore.
Also, maybe you aren't aware, but redevelopment of a close-in properties like you suggest is usually accompanied with 10+ year legal battles which far exceed the cost of upgrading 100 feet of sewer line. There are some pretty epic threads in this forum about Cathedral Commons and McMillan just to name a few.
The key denominator being everyone wants "those people" to just live somewhere else.
The entire post, here, does not address any of the prior post.
It isn't that rebuilds resulting in larger SFHs don't add to infrastructure burden. It's that rebuilds resulting in multiple attached homes on that same property would result in a greater infrastructure burden than a large detached rebuild. There's a movement against larger SFHs dominating properties with minimal setbacks, maximal heights/massing, greater impervious area, etc. It just isn't one that comes with a justification, among others, that significant change to zoning is being proposed by the opposition.
The proponents of remodeling detached SFH zoning to promote density are doing so in extraordinary ways/making extraordinary claims. These require considerable evidence, and the kinds of robust analyses suggested regarding differential environmental impact are not terribly extraordinary for planning, especially for such sweeping change. They simply have not been done, and that has been at the direction of the politicals who hold sway over planning departments. Arlington, which is geograpically tiny, shouldn't be expected to conduct a comparative evaluation versus Aldi (or the like), but MWCOG should if it is pushing member jurisdictions for sweeping change. MoCo definitely should be conducting such, given the breadth and variety of land and current uses within its borders.
Developers don't build 2000 sf craftsmen? OK, maybe not, but that wasn't the suggestion. It was to have a variety of housing within greenfield development. For all those pushing varied density, this would seem to offer that blithely stated choice of, "If you don't like it, don't live there." Just in a place where that would be an honest choice from the outset, rather than something imposed unless you pick up and move.
Where did the idea that the prior post was suggesting redevelopment of close-in properties even come from? 10+-year legal battles? OK, but that doesn't speak to anything about the above posts at all. Those discuss differential infrastructure burdens/costs, the assumptions that are being made and the lack of proper analysis. That discussion had started in this particular subthread with reference to environmental impacts.
The "those people" remark has no basis in the discussion, here, which, again, is about impacts to infrastructure/environment related to policy decisions being made about changing zoning density in already-built-out detached single family home neighborhoods. It amounts to an ad hominem attack, and those employing it should be ashamed of such mischaracterization, especially given the fantastic cultural diversity in most of the affected neighborhoods, and the economic diversity within the immediately surrounding communities of many, if not within those neighborhoods already. There's a lot out there that isn't Somerset or Rock Spring.
You can see where the discussion ended up going. Its just completely obvious that most of these narrow technical objections raised by the nimbys are primarily about keeping out "those people."
I would be more sympathetic, but if you walk around these neighborhoods you'll see all sorts of yard signs saying "no-one is illegal" and such. I guess they felt that way when "those people" were moving to Manassas or Hyattsville.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.
There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.
No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.
The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.
Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.
You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?
Once again, not rational for the county to pursue polices that will result in massive increases in school enrollment. The county share of school spending is $21,113 per year for each student. Policies that significantly increase student enrollment without a commensurate increase in tax revenue will bankrupt the county. This includes MM housing units, if they are truly "affordable" the tax additional property tax revenue will not come close to covering cost of educating additional students.
Anti natalist MoCo boomers.
I am not a boomer and I’m literally having a baby next year. The county cannot afford to import a bunch of tax negative residents that will create a fiscal deficit. A SFH house needs an assessed value of 1.685M for property taxes to cover the cost if providing local government services to those residents. A MM unit needs an assessed value of 1.37M to fund the cost fi providing local government services to those residents. This MM policy will bankrupt the county by producing housing units that don’t cover their share of government spending and overwhelming local infrastructure.
The worst offenders for creating a fiscal deficit are the committed affordable units. They literally have higher student generation factors than brand new single family houses and they contribute minimal property tax revenue . The student generation. Factor for commuted affordable units is so high that each unit cost the county $14,525 per year to provide school services. The assessed value at most is around 300k so the county collects $3,100 for property tax revenue and loses $11,425 per affordable unit each year. Including the costs of other local government services, the county loses $18,838 per year (net of property tax revenue) for each committed affordable unit. Wake up committed affordable units will destroy the Arlington. The budget impact from low income housing units is completely unsustainable. https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/projects/documents/data-and-research/profile/profile_report_2024_final_4_3_24.pdf
We get it. You don't want more kids in schools. Those of us who came here as kids and went to school? We don't mind so much that others get this opportunity as well.
Nice mischarachterization of the PP. They want school capacity to match the need. Density proponents need to address this and other infrastructure issues in a far more appropriate manner.
When this area went from rural to suburban, growing its population, one weird trick that was done was more schools were built. I suggest a similar approach. If housing can grow vertically, so can schools.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.
Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.
We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.
Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.
Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.
Gee, that's great "analysis" there!
That maintenance and resurfacing cost applies just as much to infrastructure in built-out areas it does to that inherited from a greenfield project, and with the band-aid/half-measure approach that has, as often as not, applied to those areas of older infrastructure, the higher standard of newly built greenfield infrastructure, where the initial cost is, at least, borne more proportionately to the impacts by developers (above-termed "hiding the costs") than is afforded by currently calculated fees for infill, affords a lower projected/NPV cost for that maintenance.
That "cheaper to maintain" for infill of previously built-out applies when existing infrastructure has demonstrated excess current capacity, requiring addition only of minot elements or flows, not when that infrastructure is at capacity and would require system-wide upgrade. That "to a point" aside would be a hugely important consideration, pointing towards a better policy being to place strict limits on the amount of any infill in particular areas, and we've seen nothing much from public officials promoting density to acknowledge this.
The externality of the higher disruption cost of addressing infrastructure needs in previously built-out areas is not included. Nor is a reasonably comprehensive evaluation of the differential environmental costs/benefits that have been noted here and elsewhere.
Sheesh.
So you're argument is that close in neighborhoods are maxed out on the infrastructure side? That it can't handle any upzoning without upgrades? How is replacing an old 2,000 sqf house with a 5,000 one easier on infrastructure than a 2,000 sqf duplex?
Also, are you going to really argue that tearing down an apple orchard to build 5,000 sqf houses is ever going to pencil out better for the environment than a close in plex?
Um...no. That's a rather limited characterization, reflective of the purposefully rather limited analysis that has been offered by planners where this kind of densification of detached single family home neighborhoods has been pushed.
Neighborhoods that are maxed out on the infrastructure side aren't exempted from the densification push, and, yes, by definition, adding units would overbook that capacity (or over-overbook it, in many cases where it previously was maxed out without being addressed). A large detached SFH with one family replacing an existing smaller home will, again, pretty much by definition, present less infrastructure burden than a number of families occupying several attached units of similar size in combination replacing that same home, which is what the densification allowances would envision and permit.
Far more prevalent than apple orchards in greenfield are open crop fields, and why would that have to be replaced by 5000 sf homes? Why not a mix of unit types from the outset? With a local park, areas to be re-wooded, public open spaces and other infrastructure? Robust analyses of that net environmental impact versus the impact of increasing the pace of clear-cuts of closer-in properties as plexes are authorized simply haven't been put forth by those pushing that density.
For that matter, what about green-roofed, mixed-use high-rises replacing older low commercial in areas really close to Metro already planned for high density but underutilized? No comparative environmental analyses versus the plex infill of detached single family offered there, either.
A large SFH replacing a small SFH will definitely impact utilities negatively, especially with impervious surfaces. There was a lot of crying upthread about flooding and run off, and this and people taking down trees are the real culprits there. When you allow ballooning houses, you get all the negatives people complain about, and you still need to find a place for all the other people. There isn't a "movement" against this though.
Have you ever seen a "robust" study that compares the environmental impact of greenfield development in say Aldi, vs densification of Arlington? I would love to see the spin on that. And developers pretty much only build 5,000 sqft houses these days. No one is going to build 2,000 sqft craftsmen anymore.
Also, maybe you aren't aware, but redevelopment of a close-in properties like you suggest is usually accompanied with 10+ year legal battles which far exceed the cost of upgrading 100 feet of sewer line. There are some pretty epic threads in this forum about Cathedral Commons and McMillan just to name a few.
The key denominator being everyone wants "those people" to just live somewhere else.
The entire post, here, does not address any of the prior post.
It isn't that rebuilds resulting in larger SFHs don't add to infrastructure burden. It's that rebuilds resulting in multiple attached homes on that same property would result in a greater infrastructure burden than a large detached rebuild. There's a movement against larger SFHs dominating properties with minimal setbacks, maximal heights/massing, greater impervious area, etc. It just isn't one that comes with a justification, among others, that significant change to zoning is being proposed by the opposition.
The proponents of remodeling detached SFH zoning to promote density are doing so in extraordinary ways/making extraordinary claims. These require considerable evidence, and the kinds of robust analyses suggested regarding differential environmental impact are not terribly extraordinary for planning, especially for such sweeping change. They simply have not been done, and that has been at the direction of the politicals who hold sway over planning departments. Arlington, which is geograpically tiny, shouldn't be expected to conduct a comparative evaluation versus Aldi (or the like), but MWCOG should if it is pushing member jurisdictions for sweeping change. MoCo definitely should be conducting such, given the breadth and variety of land and current uses within its borders.
Developers don't build 2000 sf craftsmen? OK, maybe not, but that wasn't the suggestion. It was to have a variety of housing within greenfield development. For all those pushing varied density, this would seem to offer that blithely stated choice of, "If you don't like it, don't live there." Just in a place where that would be an honest choice from the outset, rather than something imposed unless you pick up and move.
Where did the idea that the prior post was suggesting redevelopment of close-in properties even come from? 10+-year legal battles? OK, but that doesn't speak to anything about the above posts at all. Those discuss differential infrastructure burdens/costs, the assumptions that are being made and the lack of proper analysis. That discussion had started in this particular subthread with reference to environmental impacts.
The "those people" remark has no basis in the discussion, here, which, again, is about impacts to infrastructure/environment related to policy decisions being made about changing zoning density in already-built-out detached single family home neighborhoods. It amounts to an ad hominem attack, and those employing it should be ashamed of such mischaracterization, especially given the fantastic cultural diversity in most of the affected neighborhoods, and the economic diversity within the immediately surrounding communities of many, if not within those neighborhoods already. There's a lot out there that isn't Somerset or Rock Spring.
You can see where the discussion ended up going. Its just completely obvious that most of these narrow technical objections raised by the nimbys are primarily about keeping out "those people."
I would be more sympathetic, but if you walk around these neighborhoods you'll see all sorts of yard signs saying "no-one is illegal" and such. I guess they felt that way when "those people" were moving to Manassas or Hyattsville.
You never provided a solution to these problems. If people don’t pay enough taxes to cover the services government services they use the county will need to cut services or increase taxes. Revenue is not a “narrow technical objection”. There is literally no way that is no way that the property tax revenue from an affordable unit can offset the expenses of providing services to those residents. So the county needs to make a choice to cut per resident spending or pursue growth in a more fiscally sustainable way that ensures there are enough high income residents to cover losses from low income residents. The current policy of prioritizing low income residents and maintaining high spending levels is completely unworkable. It is impossible for the county to raise property taxes enough that the property taxes from affordable and low income housing units cover their share of government spending. The county would need to triple real estate tax rates (for low income housing) to cover their share of school spending. This does not even consider non school spending for low income housing. Conclusion the current growth policies and spending levels are unsustainable and cannot be covered by raising taxes. If the county wants more low income housing, it will require a significant reduction in government spending. People need to be realistic about what the actual impact of zoning and development policies are rather than pretending like low income housing is a free lunch. Pick which one is more important to you because we cannot do both. Cut spending to make room for more affordable housing or maintain the current level to government services.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.
There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.
No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.
The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.
Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.
You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?
Once again, not rational for the county to pursue polices that will result in massive increases in school enrollment. The county share of school spending is $21,113 per year for each student. Policies that significantly increase student enrollment without a commensurate increase in tax revenue will bankrupt the county. This includes MM housing units, if they are truly "affordable" the tax additional property tax revenue will not come close to covering cost of educating additional students.
Anti natalist MoCo boomers.
I am not a boomer and I’m literally having a baby next year. The county cannot afford to import a bunch of tax negative residents that will create a fiscal deficit. A SFH house needs an assessed value of 1.685M for property taxes to cover the cost if providing local government services to those residents. A MM unit needs an assessed value of 1.37M to fund the cost fi providing local government services to those residents. This MM policy will bankrupt the county by producing housing units that don’t cover their share of government spending and overwhelming local infrastructure.
The worst offenders for creating a fiscal deficit are the committed affordable units. They literally have higher student generation factors than brand new single family houses and they contribute minimal property tax revenue . The student generation. Factor for commuted affordable units is so high that each unit cost the county $14,525 per year to provide school services. The assessed value at most is around 300k so the county collects $3,100 for property tax revenue and loses $11,425 per affordable unit each year. Including the costs of other local government services, the county loses $18,838 per year (net of property tax revenue) for each committed affordable unit. Wake up committed affordable units will destroy the Arlington. The budget impact from low income housing units is completely unsustainable. https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/projects/documents/data-and-research/profile/profile_report_2024_final_4_3_24.pdf
We get it. You don't want more kids in schools. Those of us who came here as kids and went to school? We don't mind so much that others get this opportunity as well.
Nice mischarachterization of the PP. They want school capacity to match the need. Density proponents need to address this and other infrastructure issues in a far more appropriate manner.
When this area went from rural to suburban, growing its population, one weird trick that was done was more schools were built. I suggest a similar approach. If housing can grow vertically, so can schools.
5-10 story school buildings are much more expensive to build per Sq ft than shorter buildings. The land is also more expensive. No free lunch here. Do you want to raise everyone property taxes by 20%* to cover this more expensive construction style that cost close to double (per sq ft) in comparison with to building a single/double story school.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.
Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.
We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.
Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.
Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.
Gee, that's great "analysis" there!
That maintenance and resurfacing cost applies just as much to infrastructure in built-out areas it does to that inherited from a greenfield project, and with the band-aid/half-measure approach that has, as often as not, applied to those areas of older infrastructure, the higher standard of newly built greenfield infrastructure, where the initial cost is, at least, borne more proportionately to the impacts by developers (above-termed "hiding the costs") than is afforded by currently calculated fees for infill, affords a lower projected/NPV cost for that maintenance.
That "cheaper to maintain" for infill of previously built-out applies when existing infrastructure has demonstrated excess current capacity, requiring addition only of minot elements or flows, not when that infrastructure is at capacity and would require system-wide upgrade. That "to a point" aside would be a hugely important consideration, pointing towards a better policy being to place strict limits on the amount of any infill in particular areas, and we've seen nothing much from public officials promoting density to acknowledge this.
The externality of the higher disruption cost of addressing infrastructure needs in previously built-out areas is not included. Nor is a reasonably comprehensive evaluation of the differential environmental costs/benefits that have been noted here and elsewhere.
Sheesh.
So you're argument is that close in neighborhoods are maxed out on the infrastructure side? That it can't handle any upzoning without upgrades? How is replacing an old 2,000 sqf house with a 5,000 one easier on infrastructure than a 2,000 sqf duplex?
Also, are you going to really argue that tearing down an apple orchard to build 5,000 sqf houses is ever going to pencil out better for the environment than a close in plex?
Um...no. That's a rather limited characterization, reflective of the purposefully rather limited analysis that has been offered by planners where this kind of densification of detached single family home neighborhoods has been pushed.
Neighborhoods that are maxed out on the infrastructure side aren't exempted from the densification push, and, yes, by definition, adding units would overbook that capacity (or over-overbook it, in many cases where it previously was maxed out without being addressed). A large detached SFH with one family replacing an existing smaller home will, again, pretty much by definition, present less infrastructure burden than a number of families occupying several attached units of similar size in combination replacing that same home, which is what the densification allowances would envision and permit.
Far more prevalent than apple orchards in greenfield are open crop fields, and why would that have to be replaced by 5000 sf homes? Why not a mix of unit types from the outset? With a local park, areas to be re-wooded, public open spaces and other infrastructure? Robust analyses of that net environmental impact versus the impact of increasing the pace of clear-cuts of closer-in properties as plexes are authorized simply haven't been put forth by those pushing that density.
For that matter, what about green-roofed, mixed-use high-rises replacing older low commercial in areas really close to Metro already planned for high density but underutilized? No comparative environmental analyses versus the plex infill of detached single family offered there, either.
A large SFH replacing a small SFH will definitely impact utilities negatively, especially with impervious surfaces. There was a lot of crying upthread about flooding and run off, and this and people taking down trees are the real culprits there. When you allow ballooning houses, you get all the negatives people complain about, and you still need to find a place for all the other people. There isn't a "movement" against this though.
Have you ever seen a "robust" study that compares the environmental impact of greenfield development in say Aldi, vs densification of Arlington? I would love to see the spin on that. And developers pretty much only build 5,000 sqft houses these days. No one is going to build 2,000 sqft craftsmen anymore.
Also, maybe you aren't aware, but redevelopment of a close-in properties like you suggest is usually accompanied with 10+ year legal battles which far exceed the cost of upgrading 100 feet of sewer line. There are some pretty epic threads in this forum about Cathedral Commons and McMillan just to name a few.
The key denominator being everyone wants "those people" to just live somewhere else.
The entire post, here, does not address any of the prior post.
It isn't that rebuilds resulting in larger SFHs don't add to infrastructure burden. It's that rebuilds resulting in multiple attached homes on that same property would result in a greater infrastructure burden than a large detached rebuild. There's a movement against larger SFHs dominating properties with minimal setbacks, maximal heights/massing, greater impervious area, etc. It just isn't one that comes with a justification, among others, that significant change to zoning is being proposed by the opposition.
The proponents of remodeling detached SFH zoning to promote density are doing so in extraordinary ways/making extraordinary claims. These require considerable evidence, and the kinds of robust analyses suggested regarding differential environmental impact are not terribly extraordinary for planning, especially for such sweeping change. They simply have not been done, and that has been at the direction of the politicals who hold sway over planning departments. Arlington, which is geograpically tiny, shouldn't be expected to conduct a comparative evaluation versus Aldi (or the like), but MWCOG should if it is pushing member jurisdictions for sweeping change. MoCo definitely should be conducting such, given the breadth and variety of land and current uses within its borders.
Developers don't build 2000 sf craftsmen? OK, maybe not, but that wasn't the suggestion. It was to have a variety of housing within greenfield development. For all those pushing varied density, this would seem to offer that blithely stated choice of, "If you don't like it, don't live there." Just in a place where that would be an honest choice from the outset, rather than something imposed unless you pick up and move.
Where did the idea that the prior post was suggesting redevelopment of close-in properties even come from? 10+-year legal battles? OK, but that doesn't speak to anything about the above posts at all. Those discuss differential infrastructure burdens/costs, the assumptions that are being made and the lack of proper analysis. That discussion had started in this particular subthread with reference to environmental impacts.
The "those people" remark has no basis in the discussion, here, which, again, is about impacts to infrastructure/environment related to policy decisions being made about changing zoning density in already-built-out detached single family home neighborhoods. It amounts to an ad hominem attack, and those employing it should be ashamed of such mischaracterization, especially given the fantastic cultural diversity in most of the affected neighborhoods, and the economic diversity within the immediately surrounding communities of many, if not within those neighborhoods already. There's a lot out there that isn't Somerset or Rock Spring.
You can see where the discussion ended up going. Its just completely obvious that most of these narrow technical objections raised by the nimbys are primarily about keeping out "those people."
I would be more sympathetic, but if you walk around these neighborhoods you'll see all sorts of yard signs saying "no-one is illegal" and such. I guess they felt that way when "those people" were moving to Manassas or Hyattsville.
You never provided a solution to these problems. If people don’t pay enough taxes to cover the services government services they use the county will need to cut services or increase taxes. Revenue is not a “narrow technical objection”. There is literally no way that is no way that the property tax revenue from an affordable unit can offset the expenses of providing services to those residents. So the county needs to make a choice to cut per resident spending or pursue growth in a more fiscally sustainable way that ensures there are enough high income residents to cover losses from low income residents. The current policy of prioritizing low income residents and maintaining high spending levels is completely unworkable. It is impossible for the county to raise property taxes enough that the property taxes from affordable and low income housing units cover their share of government spending. The county would need to triple real estate tax rates (for low income housing) to cover their share of school spending. This does not even consider non school spending for low income housing. Conclusion the current growth policies and spending levels are unsustainable and cannot be covered by raising taxes. If the county wants more low income housing, it will require a significant reduction in government spending. People need to be realistic about what the actual impact of zoning and development policies are rather than pretending like low income housing is a free lunch. Pick which one is more important to you because we cannot do both. Cut spending to make room for more affordable housing or maintain the current level to government services.
Build a wall and deport-em-all was my solution, but the people of Arlington, Montgomery and like places had the final say in the matter. The next best solution is to stuff all those people into SFH neighborhoods in such places until they too start chanting "build a wall and deport-em-all."
As you point out, there really isn't anyway to accommodate this growth without massive tax hikes. Maybe people should have thought about that before putting up their yard-signs and slipping on those pink hats.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.
Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.
We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.
Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.
Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.
Gee, that's great "analysis" there!
That maintenance and resurfacing cost applies just as much to infrastructure in built-out areas it does to that inherited from a greenfield project, and with the band-aid/half-measure approach that has, as often as not, applied to those areas of older infrastructure, the higher standard of newly built greenfield infrastructure, where the initial cost is, at least, borne more proportionately to the impacts by developers (above-termed "hiding the costs") than is afforded by currently calculated fees for infill, affords a lower projected/NPV cost for that maintenance.
That "cheaper to maintain" for infill of previously built-out applies when existing infrastructure has demonstrated excess current capacity, requiring addition only of minot elements or flows, not when that infrastructure is at capacity and would require system-wide upgrade. That "to a point" aside would be a hugely important consideration, pointing towards a better policy being to place strict limits on the amount of any infill in particular areas, and we've seen nothing much from public officials promoting density to acknowledge this.
The externality of the higher disruption cost of addressing infrastructure needs in previously built-out areas is not included. Nor is a reasonably comprehensive evaluation of the differential environmental costs/benefits that have been noted here and elsewhere.
Sheesh.
So you're argument is that close in neighborhoods are maxed out on the infrastructure side? That it can't handle any upzoning without upgrades? How is replacing an old 2,000 sqf house with a 5,000 one easier on infrastructure than a 2,000 sqf duplex?
Also, are you going to really argue that tearing down an apple orchard to build 5,000 sqf houses is ever going to pencil out better for the environment than a close in plex?
Um...no. That's a rather limited characterization, reflective of the purposefully rather limited analysis that has been offered by planners where this kind of densification of detached single family home neighborhoods has been pushed.
Neighborhoods that are maxed out on the infrastructure side aren't exempted from the densification push, and, yes, by definition, adding units would overbook that capacity (or over-overbook it, in many cases where it previously was maxed out without being addressed). A large detached SFH with one family replacing an existing smaller home will, again, pretty much by definition, present less infrastructure burden than a number of families occupying several attached units of similar size in combination replacing that same home, which is what the densification allowances would envision and permit.
Far more prevalent than apple orchards in greenfield are open crop fields, and why would that have to be replaced by 5000 sf homes? Why not a mix of unit types from the outset? With a local park, areas to be re-wooded, public open spaces and other infrastructure? Robust analyses of that net environmental impact versus the impact of increasing the pace of clear-cuts of closer-in properties as plexes are authorized simply haven't been put forth by those pushing that density.
For that matter, what about green-roofed, mixed-use high-rises replacing older low commercial in areas really close to Metro already planned for high density but underutilized? No comparative environmental analyses versus the plex infill of detached single family offered there, either.
A large SFH replacing a small SFH will definitely impact utilities negatively, especially with impervious surfaces. There was a lot of crying upthread about flooding and run off, and this and people taking down trees are the real culprits there. When you allow ballooning houses, you get all the negatives people complain about, and you still need to find a place for all the other people. There isn't a "movement" against this though.
Have you ever seen a "robust" study that compares the environmental impact of greenfield development in say Aldi, vs densification of Arlington? I would love to see the spin on that. And developers pretty much only build 5,000 sqft houses these days. No one is going to build 2,000 sqft craftsmen anymore.
Also, maybe you aren't aware, but redevelopment of a close-in properties like you suggest is usually accompanied with 10+ year legal battles which far exceed the cost of upgrading 100 feet of sewer line. There are some pretty epic threads in this forum about Cathedral Commons and McMillan just to name a few.
The key denominator being everyone wants "those people" to just live somewhere else.
The entire post, here, does not address any of the prior post.
It isn't that rebuilds resulting in larger SFHs don't add to infrastructure burden. It's that rebuilds resulting in multiple attached homes on that same property would result in a greater infrastructure burden than a large detached rebuild. There's a movement against larger SFHs dominating properties with minimal setbacks, maximal heights/massing, greater impervious area, etc. It just isn't one that comes with a justification, among others, that significant change to zoning is being proposed by the opposition.
The proponents of remodeling detached SFH zoning to promote density are doing so in extraordinary ways/making extraordinary claims. These require considerable evidence, and the kinds of robust analyses suggested regarding differential environmental impact are not terribly extraordinary for planning, especially for such sweeping change. They simply have not been done, and that has been at the direction of the politicals who hold sway over planning departments. Arlington, which is geograpically tiny, shouldn't be expected to conduct a comparative evaluation versus Aldi (or the like), but MWCOG should if it is pushing member jurisdictions for sweeping change. MoCo definitely should be conducting such, given the breadth and variety of land and current uses within its borders.
Developers don't build 2000 sf craftsmen? OK, maybe not, but that wasn't the suggestion. It was to have a variety of housing within greenfield development. For all those pushing varied density, this would seem to offer that blithely stated choice of, "If you don't like it, don't live there." Just in a place where that would be an honest choice from the outset, rather than something imposed unless you pick up and move.
Where did the idea that the prior post was suggesting redevelopment of close-in properties even come from? 10+-year legal battles? OK, but that doesn't speak to anything about the above posts at all. Those discuss differential infrastructure burdens/costs, the assumptions that are being made and the lack of proper analysis. That discussion had started in this particular subthread with reference to environmental impacts.
The "those people" remark has no basis in the discussion, here, which, again, is about impacts to infrastructure/environment related to policy decisions being made about changing zoning density in already-built-out detached single family home neighborhoods. It amounts to an ad hominem attack, and those employing it should be ashamed of such mischaracterization, especially given the fantastic cultural diversity in most of the affected neighborhoods, and the economic diversity within the immediately surrounding communities of many, if not within those neighborhoods already. There's a lot out there that isn't Somerset or Rock Spring.
You can see where the discussion ended up going. Its just completely obvious that most of these narrow technical objections raised by the nimbys are primarily about keeping out "those people."
I would be more sympathetic, but if you walk around these neighborhoods you'll see all sorts of yard signs saying "no-one is illegal" and such. I guess they felt that way when "those people" were moving to Manassas or Hyattsville.
You never provided a solution to these problems. If people don’t pay enough taxes to cover the services government services they use the county will need to cut services or increase taxes. Revenue is not a “narrow technical objection”. There is literally no way that is no way that the property tax revenue from an affordable unit can offset the expenses of providing services to those residents. So the county needs to make a choice to cut per resident spending or pursue growth in a more fiscally sustainable way that ensures there are enough high income residents to cover losses from low income residents. The current policy of prioritizing low income residents and maintaining high spending levels is completely unworkable. It is impossible for the county to raise property taxes enough that the property taxes from affordable and low income housing units cover their share of government spending. The county would need to triple real estate tax rates (for low income housing) to cover their share of school spending. This does not even consider non school spending for low income housing. Conclusion the current growth policies and spending levels are unsustainable and cannot be covered by raising taxes. If the county wants more low income housing, it will require a significant reduction in government spending. People need to be realistic about what the actual impact of zoning and development policies are rather than pretending like low income housing is a free lunch. Pick which one is more important to you because we cannot do both. Cut spending to make room for more affordable housing or maintain the current level to government services.
Build a wall and deport-em-all was my solution, but the people of Arlington, Montgomery and like places had the final say in the matter. The next best solution is to stuff all those people into SFH neighborhoods in such places until they too start chanting "build a wall and deport-em-all."
As you point out, there really isn't anyway to accommodate this growth without massive tax hikes. Maybe people should have thought about that before putting up their yard-signs and slipping on those pink hats.
You could just allow market rate housing to be built. Not sure if the guy who hates the affordables or the nativist would object to that.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.
There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.
No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.
The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.
Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.
You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?
Once again, not rational for the county to pursue polices that will result in massive increases in school enrollment. The county share of school spending is $21,113 per year for each student. Policies that significantly increase student enrollment without a commensurate increase in tax revenue will bankrupt the county. This includes MM housing units, if they are truly "affordable" the tax additional property tax revenue will not come close to covering cost of educating additional students.
Anti natalist MoCo boomers.
I am not a boomer and I’m literally having a baby next year. The county cannot afford to import a bunch of tax negative residents that will create a fiscal deficit. A SFH house needs an assessed value of 1.685M for property taxes to cover the cost if providing local government services to those residents. A MM unit needs an assessed value of 1.37M to fund the cost fi providing local government services to those residents. This MM policy will bankrupt the county by producing housing units that don’t cover their share of government spending and overwhelming local infrastructure.
The worst offenders for creating a fiscal deficit are the committed affordable units. They literally have higher student generation factors than brand new single family houses and they contribute minimal property tax revenue . The student generation. Factor for commuted affordable units is so high that each unit cost the county $14,525 per year to provide school services. The assessed value at most is around 300k so the county collects $3,100 for property tax revenue and loses $11,425 per affordable unit each year. Including the costs of other local government services, the county loses $18,838 per year (net of property tax revenue) for each committed affordable unit. Wake up committed affordable units will destroy the Arlington. The budget impact from low income housing units is completely unsustainable. https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/projects/documents/data-and-research/profile/profile_report_2024_final_4_3_24.pdf
We get it. You don't want more kids in schools. Those of us who came here as kids and went to school? We don't mind so much that others get this opportunity as well.
Nice mischarachterization of the PP. They want school capacity to match the need. Density proponents need to address this and other infrastructure issues in a far more appropriate manner.
When this area went from rural to suburban, growing its population, one weird trick that was done was more schools were built. I suggest a similar approach. If housing can grow vertically, so can schools.
5-10 story school buildings are much more expensive to build per Sq ft than shorter buildings. The land is also more expensive. No free lunch here. Do you want to raise everyone property taxes by 20%* to cover this more expensive construction style that cost close to double (per sq ft) in comparison with to building a single/double story school.
NIMBYs will stop both so we don't really need to decide. We could just put them out in the ag reserve and have 2 mile long car drop off lines. That seems to be the model in the rest of America.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.
Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.
We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.
Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.
Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.
Gee, that's great "analysis" there!
That maintenance and resurfacing cost applies just as much to infrastructure in built-out areas it does to that inherited from a greenfield project, and with the band-aid/half-measure approach that has, as often as not, applied to those areas of older infrastructure, the higher standard of newly built greenfield infrastructure, where the initial cost is, at least, borne more proportionately to the impacts by developers (above-termed "hiding the costs") than is afforded by currently calculated fees for infill, affords a lower projected/NPV cost for that maintenance.
That "cheaper to maintain" for infill of previously built-out applies when existing infrastructure has demonstrated excess current capacity, requiring addition only of minot elements or flows, not when that infrastructure is at capacity and would require system-wide upgrade. That "to a point" aside would be a hugely important consideration, pointing towards a better policy being to place strict limits on the amount of any infill in particular areas, and we've seen nothing much from public officials promoting density to acknowledge this.
The externality of the higher disruption cost of addressing infrastructure needs in previously built-out areas is not included. Nor is a reasonably comprehensive evaluation of the differential environmental costs/benefits that have been noted here and elsewhere.
Sheesh.
So you're argument is that close in neighborhoods are maxed out on the infrastructure side? That it can't handle any upzoning without upgrades? How is replacing an old 2,000 sqf house with a 5,000 one easier on infrastructure than a 2,000 sqf duplex?
Also, are you going to really argue that tearing down an apple orchard to build 5,000 sqf houses is ever going to pencil out better for the environment than a close in plex?
Um...no. That's a rather limited characterization, reflective of the purposefully rather limited analysis that has been offered by planners where this kind of densification of detached single family home neighborhoods has been pushed.
Neighborhoods that are maxed out on the infrastructure side aren't exempted from the densification push, and, yes, by definition, adding units would overbook that capacity (or over-overbook it, in many cases where it previously was maxed out without being addressed). A large detached SFH with one family replacing an existing smaller home will, again, pretty much by definition, present less infrastructure burden than a number of families occupying several attached units of similar size in combination replacing that same home, which is what the densification allowances would envision and permit.
Far more prevalent than apple orchards in greenfield are open crop fields, and why would that have to be replaced by 5000 sf homes? Why not a mix of unit types from the outset? With a local park, areas to be re-wooded, public open spaces and other infrastructure? Robust analyses of that net environmental impact versus the impact of increasing the pace of clear-cuts of closer-in properties as plexes are authorized simply haven't been put forth by those pushing that density.
For that matter, what about green-roofed, mixed-use high-rises replacing older low commercial in areas really close to Metro already planned for high density but underutilized? No comparative environmental analyses versus the plex infill of detached single family offered there, either.
A large SFH replacing a small SFH will definitely impact utilities negatively, especially with impervious surfaces. There was a lot of crying upthread about flooding and run off, and this and people taking down trees are the real culprits there. When you allow ballooning houses, you get all the negatives people complain about, and you still need to find a place for all the other people. There isn't a "movement" against this though.
Have you ever seen a "robust" study that compares the environmental impact of greenfield development in say Aldi, vs densification of Arlington? I would love to see the spin on that. And developers pretty much only build 5,000 sqft houses these days. No one is going to build 2,000 sqft craftsmen anymore.
Also, maybe you aren't aware, but redevelopment of a close-in properties like you suggest is usually accompanied with 10+ year legal battles which far exceed the cost of upgrading 100 feet of sewer line. There are some pretty epic threads in this forum about Cathedral Commons and McMillan just to name a few.
The key denominator being everyone wants "those people" to just live somewhere else.
The entire post, here, does not address any of the prior post.
It isn't that rebuilds resulting in larger SFHs don't add to infrastructure burden. It's that rebuilds resulting in multiple attached homes on that same property would result in a greater infrastructure burden than a large detached rebuild. There's a movement against larger SFHs dominating properties with minimal setbacks, maximal heights/massing, greater impervious area, etc. It just isn't one that comes with a justification, among others, that significant change to zoning is being proposed by the opposition.
The proponents of remodeling detached SFH zoning to promote density are doing so in extraordinary ways/making extraordinary claims. These require considerable evidence, and the kinds of robust analyses suggested regarding differential environmental impact are not terribly extraordinary for planning, especially for such sweeping change. They simply have not been done, and that has been at the direction of the politicals who hold sway over planning departments. Arlington, which is geograpically tiny, shouldn't be expected to conduct a comparative evaluation versus Aldi (or the like), but MWCOG should if it is pushing member jurisdictions for sweeping change. MoCo definitely should be conducting such, given the breadth and variety of land and current uses within its borders.
Developers don't build 2000 sf craftsmen? OK, maybe not, but that wasn't the suggestion. It was to have a variety of housing within greenfield development. For all those pushing varied density, this would seem to offer that blithely stated choice of, "If you don't like it, don't live there." Just in a place where that would be an honest choice from the outset, rather than something imposed unless you pick up and move.
Where did the idea that the prior post was suggesting redevelopment of close-in properties even come from? 10+-year legal battles? OK, but that doesn't speak to anything about the above posts at all. Those discuss differential infrastructure burdens/costs, the assumptions that are being made and the lack of proper analysis. That discussion had started in this particular subthread with reference to environmental impacts.
The "those people" remark has no basis in the discussion, here, which, again, is about impacts to infrastructure/environment related to policy decisions being made about changing zoning density in already-built-out detached single family home neighborhoods. It amounts to an ad hominem attack, and those employing it should be ashamed of such mischaracterization, especially given the fantastic cultural diversity in most of the affected neighborhoods, and the economic diversity within the immediately surrounding communities of many, if not within those neighborhoods already. There's a lot out there that isn't Somerset or Rock Spring.
You can see where the discussion ended up going. Its just completely obvious that most of these narrow technical objections raised by the nimbys are primarily about keeping out "those people."
I would be more sympathetic, but if you walk around these neighborhoods you'll see all sorts of yard signs saying "no-one is illegal" and such. I guess they felt that way when "those people" were moving to Manassas or Hyattsville.
Oh boy, the lying liars with their pathetic racism screeching aagain.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.
There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.
No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.
The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.
Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.
You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?
Once again, not rational for the county to pursue polices that will result in massive increases in school enrollment. The county share of school spending is $21,113 per year for each student. Policies that significantly increase student enrollment without a commensurate increase in tax revenue will bankrupt the county. This includes MM housing units, if they are truly "affordable" the tax additional property tax revenue will not come close to covering cost of educating additional students.
Anti natalist MoCo boomers.
I am not a boomer and I’m literally having a baby next year. The county cannot afford to import a bunch of tax negative residents that will create a fiscal deficit. A SFH house needs an assessed value of 1.685M for property taxes to cover the cost if providing local government services to those residents. A MM unit needs an assessed value of 1.37M to fund the cost fi providing local government services to those residents. This MM policy will bankrupt the county by producing housing units that don’t cover their share of government spending and overwhelming local infrastructure.
The worst offenders for creating a fiscal deficit are the committed affordable units. They literally have higher student generation factors than brand new single family houses and they contribute minimal property tax revenue . The student generation. Factor for commuted affordable units is so high that each unit cost the county $14,525 per year to provide school services. The assessed value at most is around 300k so the county collects $3,100 for property tax revenue and loses $11,425 per affordable unit each year. Including the costs of other local government services, the county loses $18,838 per year (net of property tax revenue) for each committed affordable unit. Wake up committed affordable units will destroy the Arlington. The budget impact from low income housing units is completely unsustainable. https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/projects/documents/data-and-research/profile/profile_report_2024_final_4_3_24.pdf
We get it. You don't want more kids in schools. Those of us who came here as kids and went to school? We don't mind so much that others get this opportunity as well.
Nice mischarachterization of the PP. They want school capacity to match the need. Density proponents need to address this and other infrastructure issues in a far more appropriate manner.
When this area went from rural to suburban, growing its population, one weird trick that was done was more schools were built. I suggest a similar approach. If housing can grow vertically, so can schools.
5-10 story school buildings are much more expensive to build per Sq ft than shorter buildings. The land is also more expensive. No free lunch here. Do you want to raise everyone property taxes by 20%* to cover this more expensive construction style that cost close to double (per sq ft) in comparison with to building a single/double story school.
As previously noted, the costs of addressing differential close-in infrastructure needs that result from additional density are high. If additional density is desired, those pushing it have a responsibility to ensure those infrastructure needs are addressed/paid for, whatever the funding source may be, before or in conjunction with that density allowance bringing the additional capacity to the market.
Thus far, those pushing density have assiduously avoided having that responsibility be tied to any plan and appear unconcerned about leaving residents, both current and future, of the areas that would be subject to density increases with increasingly inadequate schools, utilities and other infrastructure/public services.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
Those pushing density have not shown this to be the case. In MoCo, we see per-pupil school expansion costs exceed per-pupil new school construction costs, while the former does not provide the facility service life of the latter and the latter includes land acquisition cost where the former does not.
Aside from electric/cable/fiber optic/telephone lines, where a main difference might be greenfield requiring all-new poles (if not undergrounded) while densification within built-out areas might require spot relocation of poles, I'm not sure where densification costs would be less on that per-added-resident basis. Certainly not water/sewer. Possibly roadways? And there typically is no accounting for the disruption costs of those retrofits/expansions within built-out communities (or of greenfield, but, by their nature, this applies to many, many fewer, with, then, much lower overall cost) borne by those in proximity to development.
We haven't seen from Planning, which has been pushing densification of detached SFH neighborhoods, any proper comparative analysis of this or of the costs of other infrastructure/public services vs. greenfield development or vs. highrise development within existing urban areas/within the immediate area (less than half a mile) of Metros.
Things like roads and pipes have a pretty clear cost per linear foot. The more linear feet you have, the more expensive it gets. The initial cost of buildout is often at least partially covered by the developer but maintenance and resurfacing usually falls to the county. This hides the upfront cost of development and provides nice budgetary shocks down the road.
Once an area starts aging, density (to a certain point) becomes cheaper to maintain than sprawl. In short, in the long run its cheaper to densify an area, especially near transit, than it is to do greenfield development. That's only talking budgetary dollars. You can factor in environment and such and it becomes a no-brainer.
Gee, that's great "analysis" there!
That maintenance and resurfacing cost applies just as much to infrastructure in built-out areas it does to that inherited from a greenfield project, and with the band-aid/half-measure approach that has, as often as not, applied to those areas of older infrastructure, the higher standard of newly built greenfield infrastructure, where the initial cost is, at least, borne more proportionately to the impacts by developers (above-termed "hiding the costs") than is afforded by currently calculated fees for infill, affords a lower projected/NPV cost for that maintenance.
That "cheaper to maintain" for infill of previously built-out applies when existing infrastructure has demonstrated excess current capacity, requiring addition only of minot elements or flows, not when that infrastructure is at capacity and would require system-wide upgrade. That "to a point" aside would be a hugely important consideration, pointing towards a better policy being to place strict limits on the amount of any infill in particular areas, and we've seen nothing much from public officials promoting density to acknowledge this.
The externality of the higher disruption cost of addressing infrastructure needs in previously built-out areas is not included. Nor is a reasonably comprehensive evaluation of the differential environmental costs/benefits that have been noted here and elsewhere.
Sheesh.
So you're argument is that close in neighborhoods are maxed out on the infrastructure side? That it can't handle any upzoning without upgrades? How is replacing an old 2,000 sqf house with a 5,000 one easier on infrastructure than a 2,000 sqf duplex?
Also, are you going to really argue that tearing down an apple orchard to build 5,000 sqf houses is ever going to pencil out better for the environment than a close in plex?
Um...no. That's a rather limited characterization, reflective of the purposefully rather limited analysis that has been offered by planners where this kind of densification of detached single family home neighborhoods has been pushed.
Neighborhoods that are maxed out on the infrastructure side aren't exempted from the densification push, and, yes, by definition, adding units would overbook that capacity (or over-overbook it, in many cases where it previously was maxed out without being addressed). A large detached SFH with one family replacing an existing smaller home will, again, pretty much by definition, present less infrastructure burden than a number of families occupying several attached units of similar size in combination replacing that same home, which is what the densification allowances would envision and permit.
Far more prevalent than apple orchards in greenfield are open crop fields, and why would that have to be replaced by 5000 sf homes? Why not a mix of unit types from the outset? With a local park, areas to be re-wooded, public open spaces and other infrastructure? Robust analyses of that net environmental impact versus the impact of increasing the pace of clear-cuts of closer-in properties as plexes are authorized simply haven't been put forth by those pushing that density.
For that matter, what about green-roofed, mixed-use high-rises replacing older low commercial in areas really close to Metro already planned for high density but underutilized? No comparative environmental analyses versus the plex infill of detached single family offered there, either.
A large SFH replacing a small SFH will definitely impact utilities negatively, especially with impervious surfaces. There was a lot of crying upthread about flooding and run off, and this and people taking down trees are the real culprits there. When you allow ballooning houses, you get all the negatives people complain about, and you still need to find a place for all the other people. There isn't a "movement" against this though.
Have you ever seen a "robust" study that compares the environmental impact of greenfield development in say Aldi, vs densification of Arlington? I would love to see the spin on that. And developers pretty much only build 5,000 sqft houses these days. No one is going to build 2,000 sqft craftsmen anymore.
Also, maybe you aren't aware, but redevelopment of a close-in properties like you suggest is usually accompanied with 10+ year legal battles which far exceed the cost of upgrading 100 feet of sewer line. There are some pretty epic threads in this forum about Cathedral Commons and McMillan just to name a few.
The key denominator being everyone wants "those people" to just live somewhere else.
The entire post, here, does not address any of the prior post.
It isn't that rebuilds resulting in larger SFHs don't add to infrastructure burden. It's that rebuilds resulting in multiple attached homes on that same property would result in a greater infrastructure burden than a large detached rebuild. There's a movement against larger SFHs dominating properties with minimal setbacks, maximal heights/massing, greater impervious area, etc. It just isn't one that comes with a justification, among others, that significant change to zoning is being proposed by the opposition.
The proponents of remodeling detached SFH zoning to promote density are doing so in extraordinary ways/making extraordinary claims. These require considerable evidence, and the kinds of robust analyses suggested regarding differential environmental impact are not terribly extraordinary for planning, especially for such sweeping change. They simply have not been done, and that has been at the direction of the politicals who hold sway over planning departments. Arlington, which is geograpically tiny, shouldn't be expected to conduct a comparative evaluation versus Aldi (or the like), but MWCOG should if it is pushing member jurisdictions for sweeping change. MoCo definitely should be conducting such, given the breadth and variety of land and current uses within its borders.
Developers don't build 2000 sf craftsmen? OK, maybe not, but that wasn't the suggestion. It was to have a variety of housing within greenfield development. For all those pushing varied density, this would seem to offer that blithely stated choice of, "If you don't like it, don't live there." Just in a place where that would be an honest choice from the outset, rather than something imposed unless you pick up and move.
Where did the idea that the prior post was suggesting redevelopment of close-in properties even come from? 10+-year legal battles? OK, but that doesn't speak to anything about the above posts at all. Those discuss differential infrastructure burdens/costs, the assumptions that are being made and the lack of proper analysis. That discussion had started in this particular subthread with reference to environmental impacts.
The "those people" remark has no basis in the discussion, here, which, again, is about impacts to infrastructure/environment related to policy decisions being made about changing zoning density in already-built-out detached single family home neighborhoods. It amounts to an ad hominem attack, and those employing it should be ashamed of such mischaracterization, especially given the fantastic cultural diversity in most of the affected neighborhoods, and the economic diversity within the immediately surrounding communities of many, if not within those neighborhoods already. There's a lot out there that isn't Somerset or Rock Spring.
You can see where the discussion ended up going. Its just completely obvious that most of these narrow technical objections raised by the nimbys are primarily about keeping out "those people."
I would be more sympathetic, but if you walk around these neighborhoods you'll see all sorts of yard signs saying "no-one is illegal" and such. I guess they felt that way when "those people" were moving to Manassas or Hyattsville.
You can see the angle of political rhetoric from which this response comes.
Can't properly address an issue without undercutting some of your own assumptions? No worries -- simply deploy mischaracterized ad hominem to create a red herring and avoid having to address issues where true engagement and reasoned debate likely would produce unfavorable results!
In this case, that would be for those pushing density without wanting robust analyses that might provide evidence contrary to the assumptions on which they base their case for action and without wanting to have to address the considerable negative externalities to the common good, such as those related to infrastructure, that their proposed changes would bring.
Anonymous wrote:Oh see you're talking about like lawns
Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.
New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave more space for nature than another.
One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used. The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.
Which one of those is rock creek park?
Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?
You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.
Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc. Just as with schools. Or utility infrastructure. So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked. Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.
If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....
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...
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".
Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.
Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.
When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.
If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure. In this case, that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.
There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.
No it isn't. Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build. One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.
The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.
Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant.
You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?
Once again, not rational for the county to pursue polices that will result in massive increases in school enrollment. The county share of school spending is $21,113 per year for each student. Policies that significantly increase student enrollment without a commensurate increase in tax revenue will bankrupt the county. This includes MM housing units, if they are truly "affordable" the tax additional property tax revenue will not come close to covering cost of educating additional students.
Anti natalist MoCo boomers.
I am not a boomer and I’m literally having a baby next year. The county cannot afford to import a bunch of tax negative residents that will create a fiscal deficit. A SFH house needs an assessed value of 1.685M for property taxes to cover the cost if providing local government services to those residents. A MM unit needs an assessed value of 1.37M to fund the cost fi providing local government services to those residents. This MM policy will bankrupt the county by producing housing units that don’t cover their share of government spending and overwhelming local infrastructure.
The worst offenders for creating a fiscal deficit are the committed affordable units. They literally have higher student generation factors than brand new single family houses and they contribute minimal property tax revenue . The student generation. Factor for commuted affordable units is so high that each unit cost the county $14,525 per year to provide school services. The assessed value at most is around 300k so the county collects $3,100 for property tax revenue and loses $11,425 per affordable unit each year. Including the costs of other local government services, the county loses $18,838 per year (net of property tax revenue) for each committed affordable unit. Wake up committed affordable units will destroy the Arlington. The budget impact from low income housing units is completely unsustainable. https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/projects/documents/data-and-research/profile/profile_report_2024_final_4_3_24.pdf
We get it. You don't want more kids in schools. Those of us who came here as kids and went to school? We don't mind so much that others get this opportunity as well.
Nice mischarachterization of the PP. They want school capacity to match the need. Density proponents need to address this and other infrastructure issues in a far more appropriate manner.
+1 As a parent in MoCo with kids in two different outdated and overcrowded schools, school crowding is a very real issue. MCPS had a budget shortfall last year resulting in teacher layoffs and throwing out plans to expand Pre-K. Getting schools updated takes YEARS of lobbying (go figure, wealthier areas get priority) and then years to do the actual renovation.
Of course developers don’t give AF about this. They build, make their money, and go. Meanwhile quality of life for those of us in the communities are affected.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
