Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

This. What is the best way to oppose this? Write to our state senator and delegates?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

This. What is the best way to oppose this? Write to our state senator and delegates?

Sure but if you don't think the developers aren't greasing the wheels with our elected representatives at every level, you're fooling yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

It most definitely is not thoughtful development.

There are plenty of vacant apartments and condos in MoCo. No great need for more.

It is not possible to have a serious discussion about housing policy with anyone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

No one is denying there is an overall housing shortage- of SFHs and townhouses. I’ve seen no data to show there is a shortage of 1-2 BR condos and apts. Do you have some? Because these are what primary are being built. If you look in Redfin there are currently hundreds of apts available for rent in silver spring and Wheaton. A better use for that Forest Glen plot would be a smaller townhome development- but I’m guessing that fewer units would mean less profits?

It is not possible to have a serious discussion about housing policy with anyone who uses apartment advertisements to deny that there is a housing shortage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

This. What is the best way to oppose this? Write to our state senator and delegates?

Sure but if you don't think the developers aren't greasing the wheels with our elected representatives at every level, you're fooling yourself.

+1 This. Kids not being able to vote+Developers donating a lot=Bad policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

This. What is the best way to oppose this? Write to our state senator and delegates?

Yes! Please do write to your politicians. And consider this when you vote. And let your neighbors and friends know what is going on. Most residents are simply unaware.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Not only is it less parking than units, it’s as if they somehow think none of the residents will ever have guest who travel by car.

And as for free space in the schools, MCPS already has several boundary studies in the works/planned and BOE member talking about needing to use that space. However, there is not enough free space to account for all the overcrowding that currently exist.

+1 The boundary studies will at best move kids around so that the overcrowding is slightly more equal. But the densest parts of county where all of this new development is planned simply does not have available land for new schools. Existing schools are already using their entire footprint, including taking away outdoor space.

At the end of the day, what is planned is simply not smart growth. It's growth for the sake of growth, and growth for the sake of enriching developers and short-term power for the elected officials who take developer money, but it's not anything resembling smart growth.

Adding additional housing near transit actually is smart growth.

If schools are your concern, then you should advocate for additional funding for schools - and also advocate for building taller schools.

A policy of "we won't add housing near transit because there's no space for schools" would be a bad policy.

Bad policy is building more housing without the corresponding infrastructure necessary to support that housing.

So focus on adding the corresponding infrastructure.

The alternatives to adding housing that is near transit are:

1. Not adding housing
2. Adding housing that is not near transit

Both of those alternatives are worse than adding housing that is near transit.

Not adding housing in an already over-crowded area is perfectly fine.

Honestly, look at the oversupply of apartments / condos on the market right now. There are plenty of available units.

There is a shortage of affordable single family homes in MoCo. But no shortage of apartments and condos.

It's not possible to have a serious discussion of housing policy with someone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

Both of you are correct. There is not an overall shortage of housing in MoCo. There is a shortage of low-income housing, and of SFHs for those who want them.

The problem is that new developments are not meeting either of those needs. So it is development for the sake or enriching developers, but not meeting the needs of the community.

The new developments are meeting the housing needs of the people who live in the new developments, and the people who live in the new developments are part of the community.

Eh, the people who can afford the shiny new units can afford plenty of other places too. They just *want* to live here in the new building. Which is fine. But let’s not pretend more of these high priced condo/apt buildings are needed.

Who are you to decide what people do or don't *need* in the way of housing- or what they can afford, or what they should spend their housing budget on? Do you *need* to live in a neighborhood where everyone lives in the same housing type as you?

Are these new expensive apt/condo buildings really filling a gap though? There are already vacancies in similar buildings nearby. None of this “growth” or development really seems all that thoughtful. Just development for the sake of development. Shrug.

It most definitely is not thoughtful development.

There are plenty of vacant apartments and condos in MoCo. No great need for more.

It is not possible to have a serious discussion about housing policy with anyone who denies that there is a housing shortage.

No one is denying there is an overall housing shortage- of SFHs and townhouses. I’ve seen no data to show there is a shortage of 1-2 BR condos and apts. Do you have some? Because these are what primary are being built. If you look in Redfin there are currently hundreds of apts available for rent in silver spring and Wheaton. A better use for that Forest Glen plot would be a smaller townhome development- but I’m guessing that fewer units would mean less profits?

It is not possible to have a serious discussion about housing policy with anyone who uses apartment advertisements to deny that there is a housing shortage.

So show us data on the shortage of apartments. I’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So when you moved in to your already-built residence and started contributing one or more students to MCPS, you paid 0% of the cost to support the new students your residence generated.

But when someone moves into a newly-built residence and starts contributing one or more students to MCPS, they should have to pay 100% of the cost to support the new students their residence generated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."