If MoCo need housing, why keep agricultural reserve?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, we also purchased locally grown radishes, and kale. Many farmers here , and in places like Amish country, use hoop houses.

It's almost like people who want to pave over everything don't understand so much about history or where their food comes from.

I also know of a number of blighted shopping centers in eastern MoCo, one right by Glenmont metro, that could be redeveloped into successful townhouse / condo / retail developments of there was any desire on the part of the owners.

The Glenmont shopping center is actually doing very well. It just looks rundown. But yes, if the owners wanted to redevelop it, they could.

I live down the street. There is a huge parking lot that is never even 1/4 full, and only a handful of decent small businesses. We go to the really good Korean barber shop and that's it. Lots and lots of parking lot available for redevelopment.

The rent paid to the owners is evidently fine, thus no redevelopment. Yes, the parking lot is ridiculously large, but most parking lots in Montgomery County are. For that matter, the parking garages at Glenmont Metro are also ridiculously large.

DP but the point is, the space is not well utilized and could be used to build new mixed use developments rather than tearing down existing housing SFHs. The urban planning here is so terrible.

This is already happening. It's just that the SFH is replaced by a gigantic SFM (M for McMansion). It makes a lot more sense to replace it with a duplex, same building size but two units instead of one.

I live east county and that’s not as common here, yet anyway. People in general don’t have the $$ to buy a starter home and then tear it down to build a McMansion. They want to live in the starter home. I think there is genuine concern that these starter homes would graduallly get sold off to developers who can pay all cash and then build duplexes that end up costing more because they’re new. The newer townhouses near our neighborhood cost more than similarly sized older SFHs. Which is fine! And I support building more complexes like that. But it would be nice if it was in addition to, rather than at the expense of the older, relatively affordable housing stock.

I am not a developer, but if it's profitable to tear the house down and build a new duplex, then it must surely also be profitable to tear the house down and build a new oneplex.

It’s also might affect their bottom line when SFH owners decide to boycott anyone involved in building a duplex in their neighborhood. People use the same builders, plumbers, designers, landscapers again and again in a particular area. I hope that they are going to make a lot of money on that duplex.

Hilarious!

You think neighbors will “boycott” the contractors and subcontractors building a duplex or keeping up the grounds?!?

OMG, so naive. I’ll bet you don’t even know the electrical subcontractor who wired the house you live in right now. Or the plumber who plumbed it. Or the crew who hung the drywall. Or the roofers. Or the HVAC contractor who installed your system.


But you think you and your neighbors will all be able to keep track of the dozen different contractors involved in building a typical home, and boycott them?????


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Did someone say that, or are you bad at drawing conclusions? No wonder you have trouble.

It’s kind of adorbs, really.

So, when the owner of a property and a developer and the builder and the contractors and real estate agents love money very much they sometimes give birth to new building. When they do that, there are major players and there are minor players. Many of the major players are easily identifiable. Sometimes they even put signs in the yard so that you know who they are! Now, if certain players suffer financially, what do you think happens to the minor players?

That’s right, sport! The subs and others don’t sign contracts. So, they work for other people. In that way their work is more fungible.

The major players are easily identifiable.

How old are you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, we also purchased locally grown radishes, and kale. Many farmers here , and in places like Amish country, use hoop houses.

It's almost like people who want to pave over everything don't understand so much about history or where their food comes from.

I also know of a number of blighted shopping centers in eastern MoCo, one right by Glenmont metro, that could be redeveloped into successful townhouse / condo / retail developments of there was any desire on the part of the owners.

The Glenmont shopping center is actually doing very well. It just looks rundown. But yes, if the owners wanted to redevelop it, they could.

I live down the street. There is a huge parking lot that is never even 1/4 full, and only a handful of decent small businesses. We go to the really good Korean barber shop and that's it. Lots and lots of parking lot available for redevelopment.

The rent paid to the owners is evidently fine, thus no redevelopment. Yes, the parking lot is ridiculously large, but most parking lots in Montgomery County are. For that matter, the parking garages at Glenmont Metro are also ridiculously large.

DP but the point is, the space is not well utilized and could be used to build new mixed use developments rather than tearing down existing housing SFHs. The urban planning here is so terrible.

This is already happening. It's just that the SFH is replaced by a gigantic SFM (M for McMansion). It makes a lot more sense to replace it with a duplex, same building size but two units instead of one.

The single family mansion almost always gives a better risk adjusted return than the duplex.

Building more in the ag reserve only makes financial sense for developers if the developers are able to push the infrastructure costs off onto all the other taxpayers, in which case opening up the ag reserve would be a great deal for developers but a horrible deal for the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, we also purchased locally grown radishes, and kale. Many farmers here , and in places like Amish country, use hoop houses.

It's almost like people who want to pave over everything don't understand so much about history or where their food comes from.

I also know of a number of blighted shopping centers in eastern MoCo, one right by Glenmont metro, that could be redeveloped into successful townhouse / condo / retail developments of there was any desire on the part of the owners.

The Glenmont shopping center is actually doing very well. It just looks rundown. But yes, if the owners wanted to redevelop it, they could.

I live down the street. There is a huge parking lot that is never even 1/4 full, and only a handful of decent small businesses. We go to the really good Korean barber shop and that's it. Lots and lots of parking lot available for redevelopment.

The rent paid to the owners is evidently fine, thus no redevelopment. Yes, the parking lot is ridiculously large, but most parking lots in Montgomery County are. For that matter, the parking garages at Glenmont Metro are also ridiculously large.

DP but the point is, the space is not well utilized and could be used to build new mixed use developments rather than tearing down existing housing SFHs. The urban planning here is so terrible.

This is already happening. It's just that the SFH is replaced by a gigantic SFM (M for McMansion). It makes a lot more sense to replace it with a duplex, same building size but two units instead of one.

I live east county and that’s not as common here, yet anyway. People in general don’t have the $$ to buy a starter home and then tear it down to build a McMansion. They want to live in the starter home. I think there is genuine concern that these starter homes would graduallly get sold off to developers who can pay all cash and then build duplexes that end up costing more because they’re new. The newer townhouses near our neighborhood cost more than similarly sized older SFHs. Which is fine! And I support building more complexes like that. But it would be nice if it was in addition to, rather than at the expense of the older, relatively affordable housing stock.

I am not a developer, but if it's profitable to tear the house down and build a new duplex, then it must surely also be profitable to tear the house down and build a new oneplex.

It’s also might affect their bottom line when SFH owners decide to boycott anyone involved in building a duplex in their neighborhood. People use the same builders, plumbers, designers, landscapers again and again in a particular area. I hope that they are going to make a lot of money on that duplex.

Hilarious!

You think neighbors will “boycott” the contractors and subcontractors building a duplex or keeping up the grounds?!?

OMG, so naive. I’ll bet you don’t even know the electrical subcontractor who wired the house you live in right now. Or the plumber who plumbed it. Or the crew who hung the drywall. Or the roofers. Or the HVAC contractor who installed your system.


But you think you and your neighbors will all be able to keep track of the dozen different contractors involved in building a typical home, and boycott them?????


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Did someone say that, or are you bad at drawing conclusions? No wonder you have trouble.

It’s kind of adorbs, really.

So, when the owner of a property and a developer and the builder and the contractors and real estate agents love money very much they sometimes give birth to new building. When they do that, there are major players and there are minor players. Many of the major players are easily identifiable. Sometimes they even put signs in the yard so that you know who they are! Now, if certain players suffer financially, what do you think happens to the minor players?

That’s right, sport! The subs and others don’t sign contracts. So, they work for other people. In that way their work is more fungible.

The major players are easily identifiable.

You’re even dumber than I thought. Thanks for the reply.

[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:And, we also purchased locally grown radishes, and kale. Many farmers here , and in places like Amish country, use hoop houses.

It's almost like people who want to pave over everything don't understand so much about history or where their food comes from.

I also know of a number of blighted shopping centers in eastern MoCo, one right by Glenmont metro, that could be redeveloped into successful townhouse / condo / retail developments of there was any desire on the part of the owners.

The Glenmont shopping center is actually doing very well. It just looks rundown. But yes, if the owners wanted to redevelop it, they could.

I live down the street. There is a huge parking lot that is never even 1/4 full, and only a handful of decent small businesses. We go to the really good Korean barber shop and that's it. Lots and lots of parking lot available for redevelopment.

The rent paid to the owners is evidently fine, thus no redevelopment. Yes, the parking lot is ridiculously large, but most parking lots in Montgomery County are. For that matter, the parking garages at Glenmont Metro are also ridiculously large.

DP but the point is, the space is not well utilized and could be used to build new mixed use developments rather than tearing down existing housing SFHs. The urban planning here is so terrible.

This is already happening. It's just that the SFH is replaced by a gigantic SFM (M for McMansion). It makes a lot more sense to replace it with a duplex, same building size but two units instead of one.

I live east county and that’s not as common here, yet anyway. People in general don’t have the $$ to buy a starter home and then tear it down to build a McMansion. They want to live in the starter home. I think there is genuine concern that these starter homes would graduallly get sold off to developers who can pay all cash and then build duplexes that end up costing more because they’re new. The newer townhouses near our neighborhood cost more than similarly sized older SFHs. Which is fine! And I support building more complexes like that. But it would be nice if it was in addition to, rather than at the expense of the older, relatively affordable housing stock.

I am not a developer, but if it's profitable to tear the house down and build a new duplex, then it must surely also be profitable to tear the house down and build a new oneplex.

It’s also might affect their bottom line when SFH owners decide to boycott anyone involved in building a duplex in their neighborhood. People use the same builders, plumbers, designers, landscapers again and again in a particular area. I hope that they are going to make a lot of money on that duplex.

Hilarious!

You think neighbors will “boycott” the contractors and subcontractors building a duplex or keeping up the grounds?!?

OMG, so naive. I’ll bet you don’t even know the electrical subcontractor who wired the house you live in right now. Or the plumber who plumbed it. Or the crew who hung the drywall. Or the roofers. Or the HVAC contractor who installed your system.


But you think you and your neighbors will all be able to keep track of the dozen different contractors involved in building a typical home, and boycott them?????


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Did someone say that, or are you bad at drawing conclusions? No wonder you have trouble.

It’s kind of adorbs, really.

So, when the owner of a property and a developer and the builder and the contractors and real estate agents love money very much they sometimes give birth to new building. When they do that, there are major players and there are minor players. Many of the major players are easily identifiable. Sometimes they even put signs in the yard so that you know who they are! Now, if certain players suffer financially, what do you think happens to the minor players?

That’s right, sport! The subs and others don’t sign contracts. So, they work for other people. In that way their work is more fungible.

The major players are easily identifiable.

You’re even dumber than I thought. Thanks for the reply.

LMAO…someone got their feelings hurt.

Do you like being embarrassed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we need green space for our health and wellbeing.

Great, I want greenspace in my Bethesda neighborhood but the county seems to think density is the solution!

Build where land is really cheap and that solves many problems

You do realize that backyards have been becoming megamansions all over for quite some time now. I think the "green space for Bethesda" ship has sailed.

Having more density means few miles driven to get to grocery stores and movie theaters and everything.

I live in a neighborhood of Duplexes and it's great. Don't be so afraid of density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we need green space for our health and wellbeing.

Great, I want greenspace in my Bethesda neighborhood but the county seems to think density is the solution!

Build where land is really cheap and that solves many problems

You do realize that backyards have been becoming megamansions all over for quite some time now. I think the "green space for Bethesda" ship has sailed.

Having more density means few miles driven to get to grocery stores and movie theaters and everything.

I live in a neighborhood of Duplexes and it's great. Don't be so afraid of density.

DP. When you moved in the that neighborhood, were the duplexes already there for the most part? Did any of those duplex properties get upzoned and developed into garden apartments or mid-rises?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, we also purchased locally grown radishes, and kale. Many farmers here , and in places like Amish country, use hoop houses.

It's almost like people who want to pave over everything don't understand so much about history or where their food comes from.

I also know of a number of blighted shopping centers in eastern MoCo, one right by Glenmont metro, that could be redeveloped into successful townhouse / condo / retail developments of there was any desire on the part of the owners.

The Glenmont shopping center is actually doing very well. It just looks rundown. But yes, if the owners wanted to redevelop it, they could.

I live down the street. There is a huge parking lot that is never even 1/4 full, and only a handful of decent small businesses. We go to the really good Korean barber shop and that's it. Lots and lots of parking lot available for redevelopment.

The rent paid to the owners is evidently fine, thus no redevelopment. Yes, the parking lot is ridiculously large, but most parking lots in Montgomery County are. For that matter, the parking garages at Glenmont Metro are also ridiculously large.

DP but the point is, the space is not well utilized and could be used to build new mixed use developments rather than tearing down existing housing SFHs. The urban planning here is so terrible.

It really is. Could even be townhouses with some condos and retail in the bottom, like downtown Crown in Gaithersburg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we need green space for our health and wellbeing.

Great, I want greenspace in my Bethesda neighborhood but the county seems to think density is the solution!

Build where land is really cheap and that solves many problems

You do realize that backyards have been becoming megamansions all over for quite some time now. I think the "green space for Bethesda" ship has sailed.

Having more density means few miles driven to get to grocery stores and movie theaters and everything.

I live in a neighborhood of Duplexes and it's great. Don't be so afraid of density.

DP. When you moved in the that neighborhood, were the duplexes already there for the most part? Did any of those duplex properties get upzoned and developed into garden apartments or mid-rises?

DP. Does it matter? Things change. If you assumed, when you moved to wherever you live now, that nothing there would ever change from then onward, well, I'm sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we need green space for our health and wellbeing.

Great, I want greenspace in my Bethesda neighborhood but the county seems to think density is the solution!

Build where land is really cheap and that solves many problems

You do realize that backyards have been becoming megamansions all over for quite some time now. I think the "green space for Bethesda" ship has sailed.

Having more density means few miles driven to get to grocery stores and movie theaters and everything.

I live in a neighborhood of Duplexes and it's great. Don't be so afraid of density.

DP. When you moved in the that neighborhood, were the duplexes already there for the most part? Did any of those duplex properties get upzoned and developed into garden apartments or mid-rises?

DP. Does it matter? Things change. If you assumed, when you moved to wherever you live now, that nothing there would ever change from then onward, well, I'm sorry.

Sure it matters when PP is casting PPP in a bad light by saying they, themselves, are fine with living in a neighborhood of duplexes.

It would be hypocritical, presuming they chose to move into a neighborhood of duplexes, not to be fine with analogous upzoning of their neighbors properties and following building of garden and mid-rise apartments, since they are saying the detached SFH neghborhood dweller should be OK with the same. Really, they should only be making that argument if they'd already experienced such next-door upzoning/development, themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve always believed the ag reserve is the biggest FU to poor people in the DC area. As if there isn’t enough agricultural land in this country.

Redevelop all of the old rundown crap. Poor people do not want to live outside of Damascus. They want to be close in so they can use public transport when they take the bus and metro in to clean your house and raise your children.

No poor people clean my house or raise my children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we need green space for our health and wellbeing.

Great, I want greenspace in my Bethesda neighborhood but the county seems to think density is the solution!

Build where land is really cheap and that solves many problems

You do realize that backyards have been becoming megamansions all over for quite some time now. I think the "green space for Bethesda" ship has sailed.

Having more density means few miles driven to get to grocery stores and movie theaters and everything.

I live in a neighborhood of Duplexes and it's great. Don't be so afraid of density.

DP. When you moved in the that neighborhood, were the duplexes already there for the most part? Did any of those duplex properties get upzoned and developed into garden apartments or mid-rises?

DP. Does it matter? Things change. If you assumed, when you moved to wherever you live now, that nothing there would ever change from then onward, well, I'm sorry.

Sorry about what? It hasn’t happened and likely won’t if we fight it, at least at any real scale. I think that a meta analysis of all of the successful lawsuits against it would provide a pretty good legal roadmap, to start.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because we need green space for our health and wellbeing.

Great, I want greenspace in my Bethesda neighborhood but the county seems to think density is the solution!

Build where land is really cheap and that solves many problems

You do realize that backyards have been becoming megamansions all over for quite some time now. I think the "green space for Bethesda" ship has sailed.

Having more density means few miles driven to get to grocery stores and movie theaters and everything.

I live in a neighborhood of Duplexes and it's great. Don't be so afraid of density.

DP. When you moved in the that neighborhood, were the duplexes already there for the most part? Did any of those duplex properties get upzoned and developed into garden apartments or mid-rises?

DP. Does it matter? Things change. If you assumed, when you moved to wherever you live now, that nothing there would ever change from then onward, well, I'm sorry.

Sorry about what? It hasn’t happened and likely won’t if we fight it, at least at any real scale. I think that a meta analysis of all of the successful lawsuits against it would provide a pretty good legal roadmap, to start.

It would be a short list.

[Anonymous]

^^^But if you want to take aim at Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co (1926), which established the authority of local government to regulate land use through zoning, that would be interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s so much news about the need for housing in MoCo. There are many bills being circulated to increase the number of developments/houses in areas already at capacity. But almost a third of the county is an agricultural reserve with significant restrictions on building/development. Why? Could we remove that designation and open it up to more housing and increase the supply- thus creating much needed affordable housing?

Density + Green / Open space is the way to go. Prevents sprawl, shortens commutes, promotes strong towns.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There’s so much news about the need for housing in MoCo. There are many bills being circulated to increase the number of developments/houses in areas already at capacity. But almost a third of the county is an agricultural reserve with significant restrictions on building/development. Why? Could we remove that designation and open it up to more housing and increase the supply- thus creating much needed affordable housing?

Density + Green / Open space is the way to go. Prevents sprawl, shortens commutes, promotes strong towns.

Someone brought up Europe. They don't have sky scraperish 'towns'. They have squat medieval buildings in the center surrounded by houses surrounded by farm houses. Sounds like how Bethesda already looks to me minus the lots of parks, open piazzas and usually a river. European towns aren't concrete hell scapes.