Listening Sessions - Montgomery County Attainable Housing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Please tell me who I should for for or against if I hate this stupid re-zoning plan! Seriously - please give me names.

Silly citizen. You don’t “vote against” people for this. You vote by putting money on the table and lobbying hard for your proposal. Get good.

[Anonymous]

Isn’t it great that Sid Katz will get to vote for this even though his district will be largely exempt? Were people aware of this? Rockville has its own zoning and therefore won’t have to live with these repercussions.

He should recuse himself.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Katz/contacts.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it great that Sid Katz will get to vote for this even though his district will be largely exempt? Were people aware of this? Rockville has its own zoning and therefore won’t have to live with these repercussions.

He should recuse himself.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Katz/contacts.html

How many of the council live in a detached SFH in the zones that will be impacted in the first place? Not like Rockville, with its own zoning authority. Not anything zoned other than R-40, R-60, R-90 & R-120 (none of the "RE"/residential estate zones, as in Potomac or where it was suggested that Jawondo lives in the northeast). Not anywhere where historic designation (nicer part of TKPK) or community rules (most of CC, some of Bethesda, maybe a smattering elsewhere) would impede development.

How many of those live in a detached SFH within a the larger than typical easy walking distance of rail that would get additional density allowance?

How many live in a detached SFH within 500 feet of a corridor where 19-plex apartments would be permitted?

How many of either of those are within already overcrowded school boundaries?

In short, how many on the council aren't insulated in some way from the maximal effects of the plan?

And how many have an ownership interest in property in those locations where they rent out or where they haven't lived for very long, where they haven't set down neighborhood roots that would tend to keep them, and where they might, themselves, financially benefit from the ability to build at the increased densities?

[Anonymous]

Exactly PP. Most of the proponents of this are in areas not affected by it. It’s disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it great that Sid Katz will get to vote for this even though his district will be largely exempt? Were people aware of this? Rockville has its own zoning and therefore won’t have to live with these repercussions.

He should recuse himself.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Katz/contacts.html

How many of the council live in a detached SFH in the zones that will be impacted in the first place? Not like Rockville, with its own zoning authority. Not anything zoned other than R-40, R-60, R-90 & R-120 (none of the "RE"/residential estate zones, as in Potomac or where it was suggested that Jawondo lives in the northeast). Not anywhere where historic designation (nicer part of TKPK) or community rules (most of CC, some of Bethesda, maybe a smattering elsewhere) would impede development.

How many of those live in a detached SFH within a the larger than typical easy walking distance of rail that would get additional density allowance?

How many live in a detached SFH within 500 feet of a corridor where 19-plex apartments would be permitted?

How many of either of those are within already overcrowded school boundaries?

In short, how many on the council aren't insulated in some way from the maximal effects of the plan?

And how many have an ownership interest in property in those locations where they rent out or where they haven't lived for very long, where they haven't set down neighborhood roots that would tend to keep them, and where they might, themselves, financially benefit from the ability to build at the increased densities?

Thank you, exactly.

They aren’t “upzoning” in the sense that there is no exclusive zoning, they are simply creating a new class of zoning. There will still be SFH-only areas, it’s just that now they’ve chosen to downgrade a large chunk of the county by “upzoning” it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's the suburbs, idiots. If you want walkabity, go move to DC, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, or Boston. People move to the suburbs specifically because there is more space. Stop trying to ruin the burbs by bringing your idiotic urbanist mindset out here.

How about we move to the city and demand they tear down apartment complexes to build SFHs? That's the same thing but in reverse.

The far left hates the suburbs. That's what's really behind this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it great that Sid Katz will get to vote for this even though his district will be largely exempt? Were people aware of this? Rockville has its own zoning and therefore won’t have to live with these repercussions.

He should recuse himself.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Katz/contacts.html

He should recuse himself from the vote on zoning because his district includes an incorporated municipality? (Actually it includes several incorporated municipalities.) That's the most bananas thing anyone has posted about this yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it great that Sid Katz will get to vote for this even though his district will be largely exempt? Were people aware of this? Rockville has its own zoning and therefore won’t have to live with these repercussions.

He should recuse himself.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Katz/contacts.html

He should recuse himself from the vote on zoning because his district includes an incorporated municipality? (Actually it includes several incorporated municipalities.) That's the most bananas thing anyone has posted about this yet.

DP. Given the broad scope of the proposed changes, the broad swath of the neighborhoods and populations that would be affected, the clear concerns expressed and the uncertainty that many, or any, on the council would be exposing themselves to the negative repercussions of the suggested policies, they should be seeking a referendum, at least to guide their decision as representatives of the affected county residents if not to allow such a matter more directly to be decided by those affected, rather than the hasty, perfunctory and limited (when compared to the numbers wishing to participate/testify) sessions they will hold, which are likely to be developer/ideologue-dominated instead of broadly representative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it great that Sid Katz will get to vote for this even though his district will be largely exempt? Were people aware of this? Rockville has its own zoning and therefore won’t have to live with these repercussions.

He should recuse himself.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Katz/contacts.html

He should recuse himself from the vote on zoning because his district includes an incorporated municipality? (Actually it includes several incorporated municipalities.) That's the most bananas thing anyone has posted about this yet.

DP. Given the broad scope of the proposed changes, the broad swath of the neighborhoods and populations that would be affected, the clear concerns expressed and the uncertainty that many, or any, on the council would be exposing themselves to the negative repercussions of the suggested policies, they should be seeking a referendum, at least to guide their decision as representatives of the affected county residents if not to allow such a matter more directly to be decided by those affected, rather than the hasty, perfunctory and limited (when compared to the numbers wishing to participate/testify) sessions they will hold, which are likely to be developer/ideologue-dominated instead of broadly representative.

No, they shouldn't. Did you also call for a referendum in 2014 when the county overhauled the whole entire zoning code?

This is how the system works in a representative democracy:

1. we (the voters) elect the county council members.
2. the county council members vote on legislation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Attainable Housing proposal is probably mis-named. The new housing units produced will likely all be for the upper-middle class. That being said, any new housing is better than no new housing.

No new housing is better than new housing without needed infrastructure.

Guess what, cities can *gasp* build infrastructure. Like we have done for 150 years. The sanctimonious hand-wringing over "infrastructure" is so clearly just a pathetic grasp at anything that will stick. Try again NIMBY.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Isn’t it great that Sid Katz will get to vote for this even though his district will be largely exempt? Were people aware of this? Rockville has its own zoning and therefore won’t have to live with these repercussions.

He should recuse himself.

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/Katz/contacts.html

He should recuse himself from the vote on zoning because his district includes an incorporated municipality? (Actually it includes several incorporated municipalities.) That's the most bananas thing anyone has posted about this yet.

DP. Given the broad scope of the proposed changes, the broad swath of the neighborhoods and populations that would be affected, the clear concerns expressed and the uncertainty that many, or any, on the council would be exposing themselves to the negative repercussions of the suggested policies, they should be seeking a referendum, at least to guide their decision as representatives of the affected county residents if not to allow such a matter more directly to be decided by those affected, rather than the hasty, perfunctory and limited (when compared to the numbers wishing to participate/testify) sessions they will hold, which are likely to be developer/ideologue-dominated instead of broadly representative.

No, they shouldn't. Did you also call for a referendum in 2014 when the county overhauled the whole entire zoning code?

This is how the system works in a representative democracy:

1. we (the voters) elect the county council members.
2. the county council members vote on legislation.

That's your opinion that they shouldn't. I disagree.

In a representative democracy, we also have:

3. referendums.
4. recalls.

These and other mechanisms can be employed to check the power of those elected representatives, especially when they are pushing unpopular policy that sneaks in among the candidate platform planks/profile that are considered as a whole versus opposing candidate
platforms/profiles during elections of those representatives. Election of a representative should not be taken as public endorsement of every item that that representative might pursue, and representatives should be wary of pursuing unpopular policies, though they may decide from obligation to ideology or special interest influence to do so anyway, deeming those more important than either their duty to represent the will of the people or than their own political futures (or engaging in a calculus about that that finds electorates for future positions sought and/or campaign funding to fall on the side of unpopularity among the current electorate they represent).

I would have suggested a referendum in 2014 if the code change was as sweeping and impactful as this one. I do not know if that was the case, as I was not as aware of as much about county processes at that time. Maybe others did who were as aware then as I have become in the interim, though that is not anywhere close to comprehensive. There still is plenty that goes on that I (and presumably many others) can't catch -- this isn't a day job for me as it appears might be the case for one or other posting here (not saying that is you). In any case, the lack of a referendum in 2014 should not preclude one now.

[Anonymous]

PP you're responding to. Yes, of course it's my opinion. It's my opinion based on how the system works. If you want to spend your time and energy pushing for a referendum or recall, that's your decision.

Mind you, I don't think it actually is an unpopular change. We all live in bubbles to various degrees, but I think some of the posters on this thread would benefit by getting out of their bubbles more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP you're responding to. Yes, of course it's my opinion. It's my opinion based on how the system works. If you want to spend your time and energy pushing for a referendum or recall, that's your decision.

Mind you, I don't think it actually is an unpopular change. We all live in bubbles to various degrees, but I think some of the posters on this thread would benefit by getting out of their bubbles more.

I’d say that the proponents of this are the ones who are living in a bubble and think that these changes are much more popular than they actually are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP you're responding to. Yes, of course it's my opinion. It's my opinion based on how the system works. If you want to spend your time and energy pushing for a referendum or recall, that's your decision.

Mind you, I don't think it actually is an unpopular change. We all live in bubbles to various degrees, but I think some of the posters on this thread would benefit by getting out of their bubbles more.

I’d say that the proponents of this are the ones who are living in a bubble and think that these changes are much more popular than they actually are.

You can say whatever you want. But my guess is that plenty of people who want to preserve exclusive single-family zoning don't know anybody who supports the proposed changes (or at least believe they don't know anybody who supports them), whereas everybody who supports the proposed changes knows plenty of people who want to preserve exclusive single-family zoning. Exclusive single-family zoning is what we've been doing for the last 100 years, after all. Opposing the proposed changes is supporting the status quo. Supporting the proposed changes is opposing the status quo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP you're responding to. Yes, of course it's my opinion. It's my opinion based on how the system works. If you want to spend your time and energy pushing for a referendum or recall, that's your decision.

Mind you, I don't think it actually is an unpopular change. We all live in bubbles to various degrees, but I think some of the posters on this thread would benefit by getting out of their bubbles more.

I’d say that the proponents of this are the ones who are living in a bubble and think that these changes are much more popular than they actually are.

You can say whatever you want. But my guess is that plenty of people who want to preserve exclusive single-family zoning don't know anybody who supports the proposed changes (or at least believe they don't know anybody who supports them), whereas everybody who supports the proposed changes knows plenty of people who want to preserve exclusive single-family zoning. Exclusive single-family zoning is what we've been doing for the last 100 years, after all. Opposing the proposed changes is supporting the status quo. Supporting the proposed changes is opposing the status quo.

False choice presented, there. There can be changes more workable and less burdensome, both to the county overall and to the neighborhoods likely impacted, here. The bent of the language ("exclusive" and the way "status quo" is presented) also presumes that detached single family home neighborhoods, as something of a status quo (there has been considerable, if much more gradual, change over the past hundred years, after all), are not good in the first place.