Moco’s glass introducing bill to limit parking near public transit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

Because there’s a property tax add-on for building less than the minimum. If the minimum goes away, so will the tax. The developers will just get the county (all taxpayers) to pay for new garages, and the county always overbuilds parking.

Hey, I have an idea. What if we don't require builders to overbuild parking, AND the county also doesn't overbuild parking?

We don't require builders to overbuild parking. They do that on their own. Sometimes they have even ask to build more than the maximum allowed parking (even near transit) and planning approves it like the rubber stamp that they are. Maybe we should base taxes on how many parking spaces they build instead of how many units they build?

Can you please cite to one example where a developer has requested permission to build more than the mandatory minimum parking?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

I bet you are younger than 50.

DP. I wonder what your point is?

-person who is over 50 and knows that Montgomery County has a lot of parking spaces, many of which sit empty most of the time

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

I bet you are younger than 50.

DP. I wonder what your point is?

-person who is over 50 and knows that Montgomery County has a lot of parking spaces, many of which sit empty most of the time

Most of the time? I mean, nothing is at capacity all of the time. You build for the maximum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody post to the actual legislation?

Whatever it says, I'm sure it doesn't "limit parking." What it most likely does is reduce the existing mandatory minimum parking spaces in code. That does not mean there will be no parking spaces. What it means is that rules that are not needed and are FREQUENTLY granted exemptions will no longer be in place.

Developers will not be required to include parking. This has been done in Bethesda. The bill is unopposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

I bet you are younger than 50.

DP. I wonder what your point is?

-person who is over 50 and knows that Montgomery County has a lot of parking spaces, many of which sit empty most of the time

Most of the time? I mean, nothing is at capacity all of the time. You build for the maximum.

You really really don't. That is terrible land use policy and not the recommendation anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

I bet you are younger than 50.

DP. I wonder what your point is?

-person who is over 50 and knows that Montgomery County has a lot of parking spaces, many of which sit empty most of the time

Most of the time? I mean, nothing is at capacity all of the time. You build for the maximum.

That's what we've been doing, it's terrible policy, and we need to stop doing it. Do you build for the maximum in your personal life? 14 bathrooms in your house, to accommodate your annual Christmas party?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

I bet you are younger than 50.

DP. I wonder what your point is?

-person who is over 50 and knows that Montgomery County has a lot of parking spaces, many of which sit empty most of the time

Most of the time? I mean, nothing is at capacity all of the time. You build for the maximum.

That's what we've been doing, it's terrible policy, and we need to stop doing it. Do you build for the maximum in your personal life? 14 bathrooms in your house, to accommodate your annual Christmas party?

Great analogy. And what the county council is proposing would allow developers to build units with only a half bathroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

I bet you are younger than 50.

DP. I wonder what your point is?

-person who is over 50 and knows that Montgomery County has a lot of parking spaces, many of which sit empty most of the time

Most of the time? I mean, nothing is at capacity all of the time. You build for the maximum.

That's what we've been doing, it's terrible policy, and we need to stop doing it. Do you build for the maximum in your personal life? 14 bathrooms in your house, to accommodate your annual Christmas party?

Great analogy. And what the county council is proposing would allow developers to build units with only a half bathroom.

DP. I like this analogy as well. More accurate to say one bathroom.
And the point is that it would ALLOW that, but not mandate that maximum. Seems very unlikley that any developer would build a large house with only one bath because nobody would buy it. So....they have the incentive to build with the appropriate "steady state" middle ground number of bathrooms. Same with parking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

I bet you are younger than 50.

DP. I wonder what your point is?

-person who is over 50 and knows that Montgomery County has a lot of parking spaces, many of which sit empty most of the time

Most of the time? I mean, nothing is at capacity all of the time. You build for the maximum.

That's what we've been doing, it's terrible policy, and we need to stop doing it. Do you build for the maximum in your personal life? 14 bathrooms in your house, to accommodate your annual Christmas party?

Great analogy. And what the county council is proposing would allow developers to build units with only a half bathroom.

No, in the analogy, the Council would allow developers to decide how many bathrooms per unit to build, based on what they think their customers will want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

I bet you are younger than 50.

DP. I wonder what your point is?

-person who is over 50 and knows that Montgomery County has a lot of parking spaces, many of which sit empty most of the time

Most of the time? I mean, nothing is at capacity all of the time. You build for the maximum.

That's what we've been doing, it's terrible policy, and we need to stop doing it. Do you build for the maximum in your personal life? 14 bathrooms in your house, to accommodate your annual Christmas party?

Great analogy. And what the county council is proposing would allow developers to build units with only a half bathroom.

No, in the analogy, the Council would allow developers to decide how many bathrooms per unit to build, based on what they think their customers will want.

I hope you have that same attitude about gas stoves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

Because there’s a property tax add-on for building less than the minimum. If the minimum goes away, so will the tax. The developers will just get the county (all taxpayers) to pay for new garages, and the county always overbuilds parking.

Hey, I have an idea. What if we don't require builders to overbuild parking, AND the county also doesn't overbuild parking?

We don't require builders to overbuild parking. They do that on their own. Sometimes they have even ask to build more than the maximum allowed parking (even near transit) and planning approves it like the rubber stamp that they are. Maybe we should base taxes on how many parking spaces they build instead of how many units they build?

Can you please cite to one example where a developer has requested permission to build more than the mandatory minimum parking?

8000 Woodmont.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

Because there’s a property tax add-on for building less than the minimum. If the minimum goes away, so will the tax. The developers will just get the county (all taxpayers) to pay for new garages, and the county always overbuilds parking.

Hey, I have an idea. What if we don't require builders to overbuild parking, AND the county also doesn't overbuild parking?

We don't require builders to overbuild parking. They do that on their own. Sometimes they have even ask to build more than the maximum allowed parking (even near transit) and planning approves it like the rubber stamp that they are. Maybe we should base taxes on how many parking spaces they build instead of how many units they build?

Can you please cite to one example where a developer has requested permission to build more than the mandatory minimum parking?

8000 Woodmont.

I'm assuming you are talking about the new development at 8001 Woodmont?
I see no record of a request for permission to have more than the mandatory minimum number of parking spaces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

Move to Europe then

The DC area absolutely needs more parking

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

It’s simple: Developers will get the county to build new parking garages at taxpayer expense.

No need for that, there's already a ton of excess parking in the county.

Developers are addicted to parking. They usually build more than the minimum because apartments with parking spaces command much higher rents than apartments without parking spaces. Maybe they’ll keep building parking themselves or maybe they’ll just get the county to do it now that they won’t have to pay the parking lot district tax anymore.

OK, and this bill wouldn't prevent them from building more parking. It would just not require it in cases where there was no demand for parking

If there’s no demand for parking why has every residential building along Wisconsin avenue provided more than the minimum spaces?

If builders are voluntarily providing more than the required minimum number of parking spaces anyway, why are you worried about removing the requirement?

Because there’s a property tax add-on for building less than the minimum. If the minimum goes away, so will the tax. The developers will just get the county (all taxpayers) to pay for new garages, and the county always overbuilds parking.

Hey, I have an idea. What if we don't require builders to overbuild parking, AND the county also doesn't overbuild parking?

We don't require builders to overbuild parking. They do that on their own. Sometimes they have even ask to build more than the maximum allowed parking (even near transit) and planning approves it like the rubber stamp that they are. Maybe we should base taxes on how many parking spaces they build instead of how many units they build?

Can you please cite to one example where a developer has requested permission to build more than the mandatory minimum parking?

8000 Woodmont.

I'm assuming you are talking about the new development at 8001 Woodmont?
I see no record of a request for permission to have more than the mandatory minimum number of parking spaces.

It’s in the site plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody post to the actual legislation?

Whatever it says, I'm sure it doesn't "limit parking." What it most likely does is reduce the existing mandatory minimum parking spaces in code. That does not mean there will be no parking spaces. What it means is that rules that are not needed and are FREQUENTLY granted exemptions will no longer be in place.

Developers will not be required to include parking. This has been done in Bethesda. The bill is unopposed.

This is true. Bethesda (and other parking lot districts like Silver Spring) already allow residential and commercial construction with no parking, but developers have to pay a parking lot district tax if they don’t build parking. This bill quietly eliminates the tax. It’s not a virtuous stand for the environment or walkability or affordable housing. It’s just another tax break for developers. There’s no doubt the county will still build the parking garages because they love parking and always overbuild it. The only difference is the cost of the amenity for a few will be borne by everyone.