MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also will not apply to many people that live in HOA's or have neighborhood protective covenants. The county does not have the legal authority to override these previous contracts, which means that many of very affluent neighborhoods will be effectively exempt from the zoning changes. It screws over a lot of older middle class neighborhoods that don't have HOA's.

Is there a map of which do or dont, or do you know the names offhand?

…and how would one start one?

Find a group of neighbors that are interested and get a lawyer to write up an agreement that everyone will sign. Needs to be written in a way that applies consistently to each property owner. Ideally, include multiple overlapping restrictions that independently prevent restrict density/multifamily housing on your properties (eg. setback requirements, provision disallowing subdivision, lot coverage, etc).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also will not apply to many people that live in HOA's or have neighborhood protective covenants. The county does not have the legal authority to override these previous contracts, which means that many of very affluent neighborhoods will be effectively exempt from the zoning changes. It screws over a lot of older middle class neighborhoods that don't have HOA's.

I wouldn't count on that.

https://www.whitefordlaw.com/news-events/new-maryland-law-forbids-prohibition-of-clotheslines-in-condominiums-homeowner-a

There is some legal uncertainty, but it will likely be effective. Many states want to avoid going there (by overturning contracts that were legally valid when established) because they risk substantial litigation by doing this. Banning it in the future is probably legal, but retroactively banning deed restrictions that prevent subdivision will be heavily litigated. People may not bother to sue over clothing line bans. People will definitely sue over government interference with private contractual agreements/property rights when their neighbors can now build 4 houses where there used to be a single house. The county almost certainly has no authority to change these rules retroactively, and the state might not either. Washington state banned future protective covenants that prevent multifamily housing, but they did not try retroactively banning them for existing neighborhoods because of the legal uncertainty. Anyone worried about this should work on establishing covenants now before your property rights are infringed by Maryland, banning future restrictions related to multifamily housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also will not apply to many people that live in HOA's or have neighborhood protective covenants. The county does not have the legal authority to override these previous contracts, which means that many of very affluent neighborhoods will be effectively exempt from the zoning changes. It screws over a lot of older middle class neighborhoods that don't have HOA's.

Is there a map of which do or dont, or do you know the names offhand?

Pull the property records for your neighborhood to start and see if there any any that already exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I follow the planning board Facebook page for Montgomery County and today (thanks for the warning!) they posted that there is going to be a public comment period on THURSDAY MARCH 21st to talk about housing and missing middle zoning issues. They are discussing upzoning in MOCO.

You can’t complain about the new duplex or 4-6 unit apartment building next door to your house when it happens if you don’t let them know how you feel.

You can submit a written testimony through email to let them know your thoughts and feelings.

“item March 21 – Public Comment Item – Attainable Housing Strategies Public Listening Session. If submitting written testimony, include this same information (the date and title of the item) in your email.”

Contact the Planning Board

Email: [e-mail]

M-NCPPC Montgomery County Commissioners Office at [phone]


https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/

https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda-item/march-21-2024/

So...with testimony of any sort (in person, by zoom or by recording) and even just attendance limited to those registering by noon the day before, it looks like they have given less than 24 hours notice. That's got to violate an open meetings law, somehow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

PP here. This post says it well:


This is why the main, actionable takeaway from this research is to encourage the production of market-rate infill housing. In doing so, Montgomery County can become an innovator and a leader in solving a problem that many places have been slow to confront. If the county continues to provide enough housing to grow at all income levels, it can move past the zero-sum housing competition that currently exists. A growing housing “pie” reduces the competition for the last slice. Welcoming low-income residents becomes unsustainable only when the rate of increase of this population far outpaces those elsewhere along the income distribution—that is, when middle- and high-income population increases don’t keep pace. Montgomery County—along with others like it—needs to expand its middle-income group urgently, and the best way to do this is by adding housing that is attainable to this population. The Housing for All chapter of Thrive Montgomery 2050 notes several strategies for encouraging this type of housing.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-design/2024/03/repositioning-montgomery-county-for-prosperity-part-3-abundant-housing-for-inclusive-growth/?fbclid=IwAR14UiOaW86zZLtrKlueISwylee4MdU2yfi74s82jqWe1dhGYJampiR75d0

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

PP here. This post says it well:


This is why the main, actionable takeaway from this research is to encourage the production of market-rate infill housing. In doing so, Montgomery County can become an innovator and a leader in solving a problem that many places have been slow to confront. If the county continues to provide enough housing to grow at all income levels, it can move past the zero-sum housing competition that currently exists. A growing housing “pie” reduces the competition for the last slice. Welcoming low-income residents becomes unsustainable only when the rate of increase of this population far outpaces those elsewhere along the income distribution—that is, when middle- and high-income population increases don’t keep pace. Montgomery County—along with others like it—needs to expand its middle-income group urgently, and the best way to do this is by adding housing that is attainable to this population. The Housing for All chapter of Thrive Montgomery 2050 notes several strategies for encouraging this type of housing.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-design/2024/03/repositioning-montgomery-county-for-prosperity-part-3-abundant-housing-for-inclusive-growth/?fbclid=IwAR14UiOaW86zZLtrKlueISwylee4MdU2yfi74s82jqWe1dhGYJampiR75d0

That doesn’t mean that the county has to just give up on any type of planning and analysis, throw everything at the wall, and see what sticks. Upzoning is just lazy and punitive

Anyway, here is the planning presentation in case anyone is interested:

https://bit.ly/3w3jV5M

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

PP here. This post says it well:


This is why the main, actionable takeaway from this research is to encourage the production of market-rate infill housing. In doing so, Montgomery County can become an innovator and a leader in solving a problem that many places have been slow to confront. If the county continues to provide enough housing to grow at all income levels, it can move past the zero-sum housing competition that currently exists. A growing housing “pie” reduces the competition for the last slice. Welcoming low-income residents becomes unsustainable only when the rate of increase of this population far outpaces those elsewhere along the income distribution—that is, when middle- and high-income population increases don’t keep pace. Montgomery County—along with others like it—needs to expand its middle-income group urgently, and the best way to do this is by adding housing that is attainable to this population. The Housing for All chapter of Thrive Montgomery 2050 notes several strategies for encouraging this type of housing.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-design/2024/03/repositioning-montgomery-county-for-prosperity-part-3-abundant-housing-for-inclusive-growth/?fbclid=IwAR14UiOaW86zZLtrKlueISwylee4MdU2yfi74s82jqWe1dhGYJampiR75d0

That doesn’t mean that the county has to just give up on any type of planning and analysis, throw everything at the wall, and see what sticks. Upzoning is just lazy and punitive

Anyway, here is the planning presentation in case anyone is interested:

https://bit.ly/3w3jV5M

My mistake, this is the video:

https://fb.watch/qXOkKOlGhh/?mibextid=wFJQ5J

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

PP here. This post says it well:


This is why the main, actionable takeaway from this research is to encourage the production of market-rate infill housing. In doing so, Montgomery County can become an innovator and a leader in solving a problem that many places have been slow to confront. If the county continues to provide enough housing to grow at all income levels, it can move past the zero-sum housing competition that currently exists. A growing housing “pie” reduces the competition for the last slice. Welcoming low-income residents becomes unsustainable only when the rate of increase of this population far outpaces those elsewhere along the income distribution—that is, when middle- and high-income population increases don’t keep pace. Montgomery County—along with others like it—needs to expand its middle-income group urgently, and the best way to do this is by adding housing that is attainable to this population. The Housing for All chapter of Thrive Montgomery 2050 notes several strategies for encouraging this type of housing.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-design/2024/03/repositioning-montgomery-county-for-prosperity-part-3-abundant-housing-for-inclusive-growth/?fbclid=IwAR14UiOaW86zZLtrKlueISwylee4MdU2yfi74s82jqWe1dhGYJampiR75d0

That doesn’t mean that the county has to just give up on any type of planning and analysis, throw everything at the wall, and see what sticks. Upzoning is just lazy and punitive

Anyway, here is the planning presentation in case anyone is interested:

https://bit.ly/3w3jV5M

I agree with you?

Which is why they are currently in the middle of planning and analysis....and why the study I posted and the video you posted exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I follow the planning board Facebook page for Montgomery County and today (thanks for the warning!) they posted that there is going to be a public comment period on THURSDAY MARCH 21st to talk about housing and missing middle zoning issues. They are discussing upzoning in MOCO.

You can’t complain about the new duplex or 4-6 unit apartment building next door to your house when it happens if you don’t let them know how you feel.

You can submit a written testimony through email to let them know your thoughts and feelings.

“item March 21 – Public Comment Item – Attainable Housing Strategies Public Listening Session. If submitting written testimony, include this same information (the date and title of the item) in your email.”

Contact the Planning Board

Email: [e-mail]

M-NCPPC Montgomery County Commissioners Office at [phone]


https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/

https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/agenda-item/march-21-2024/

So...with testimony of any sort (in person, by zoom or by recording) and even just attendance limited to those registering by noon the day before, it looks like they have given less than 24 hours notice. That's got to violate an open meetings law, somehow.

Then you can file a complaint.

9. What’s “reasonable advance notice?”

That depends on the circumstances. Ordinarily, a public body should use notice methods
that are likely to reach its constituency, including the members of the press who regularly
report on the public body or the activities of the government of which the public body is a
part. The Act gives examples of reasonable methods, including the use of a website that
the public body ordinarily uses to provide information to the public.

As for the timing of the notice, a public body that has scheduled a meeting should not delay
posting notice, unless the meeting was scheduled so far in advance that it would be more
effective to post notice closer to the meeting date. The Act does not set a deadline for
posting notice and thus does not prevent public bodies from meeting on short notice in
emergencies. In emergencies, the public body must provide the best notice feasible under
the circumstances.

The Act does set minimum requirements for what a notice must contain: the time, date, and
place of the meeting, and, if the public body expects to close part of the meeting to the
public, an alert to that fact. In order to plan the meeting space, a public body may include
in its notice a request that members of the public contact the public body if they wish to
attend. For details on notice requirements, see Chapter 2 of the Open Meetings Act Manual.

Public bodies must make an agenda available before each meeting, either when notice is
posted, if the items of business are known then, or as soon as practicable, but no later than
24 hours before the meeting. There is an exception for meetings held in response to
emergencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also will not apply to many people that live in HOA's or have neighborhood protective covenants. The county does not have the legal authority to override these previous contracts, which means that many of very affluent neighborhoods will be effectively exempt from the zoning changes. It screws over a lot of older middle class neighborhoods that don't have HOA's.

I wouldn't count on that.

https://www.whitefordlaw.com/news-events/new-maryland-law-forbids-prohibition-of-clotheslines-in-condominiums-homeowner-a

There is some legal uncertainty, but it will likely be effective. Many states want to avoid going there (by overturning contracts that were legally valid when established) because they risk substantial litigation by doing this. Banning it in the future is probably legal, but retroactively banning deed restrictions that prevent subdivision will be heavily litigated. People may not bother to sue over clothing line bans. People will definitely sue over government interference with private contractual agreements/property rights when their neighbors can now build 4 houses where there used to be a single house. The county almost certainly has no authority to change these rules retroactively, and the state might not either. Washington state banned future protective covenants that prevent multifamily housing, but they did not try retroactively banning them for existing neighborhoods because of the legal uncertainty. Anyone worried about this should work on establishing covenants now before your property rights are infringed by Maryland, banning future restrictions related to multifamily housing.

Have you met people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This also will not apply to many people that live in HOA's or have neighborhood protective covenants. The county does not have the legal authority to override these previous contracts, which means that many of very affluent neighborhoods will be effectively exempt from the zoning changes. It screws over a lot of older middle class neighborhoods that don't have HOA's.

Is there a map of which do or dont, or do you know the names offhand?

…and how would one start one?

Find a group of neighbors that are interested and get a lawyer to write up an agreement that everyone will sign. Needs to be written in a way that applies consistently to each property owner. Ideally, include multiple overlapping restrictions that independently prevent restrict density/multifamily housing on your properties (eg. setback requirements, provision disallowing subdivision, lot coverage, etc).

I think you might be surprised by how many people do not want agree to limit their own options for their use of their property, especially if those limits reduce the likely sale value of the property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

Counteracted by the benefit of housing for people, of course.

[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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy. Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo has similar average incomes. Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo. Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base. At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%. I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves. Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less. Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much. MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers. And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing. There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.

There's a ton of detail to sift through, so you may have missed the recommendation on page 39 of the draft Attainable Housing Strategies Report that reduces property taxes up to 75% for 10 years for owners who convert to multiplexes and occupy them and for 5 years for those moving in to such in order to encourage conversions.

What a great set-up for boomers looking to downsize! (perfect timing before they move to supported living or pass away.) The burden falls on everyone else, of course.

And? I'm not sure why this *one option* presented supports any argument that the county's long term prosperity and revenue will be impacted?