MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[Anonymous]

Enough with the they hid it from me garbage, you voted for progressives, you knew you were voting for progressives and this is what they have shouted from roof tops for the last decade they wanted, diversity is not always your friend, especially when it comes to your neighborhood and school district. Economic diversity and equalizing that is the mother ship for progressives, at least that's my take.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I just think it his funny how anyone thinks this will benefit the middle class. No, they’re just going to turn primo land held by the middle class into cesspools. That way firms like blackrock can come in, take all of the middle class homes for cheap by using all cash, then turn the entire area into permanent renters for life. The elites so desperately want to remove homeownership out of the hands of the middle class. The Dems are helping them do it too because they’re so easily duped by promises of ‘affordable housing’. Nope. It will all be owned by investors who’ll build the cheapest garbage possible and do as little maintenance as possible. They will turn the entire area into favelas run by corporate slumlords. The road to hell is always paved with good intentions.

Yes, "affordable housing" has always been a corporate scam to boost the profits of institutional landlords.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Enough with the they hid it from me garbage, you voted for progressives, you knew you were voting for progressives and this is what they have shouted from roof tops for the last decade they wanted, diversity is not always your friend, especially when it comes to your neighborhood and school district. Economic diversity and equalizing that is the mother ship for progressives, at least that's my take.

There is a 50/50 chance that you are a YIMBY pretending to be a politically conservative someone trashing MOCO. Hard to tell, but very likely this is a YIMBY pretending to be conservative warrior.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh please. You are probably an angry renter furious about the fact that you can't afford a home in your crappy MoCo govt job salary. You want to take your frustration out on home owners because they're more successful than you, saved more diligently than you, and were able to buy a home as a result. Just because you can have what they have you want to ruin their homes and neighborhoods. If you want dense city life so much, go move to DC clown. Millions of people in the country do not want sh!tty urban life. Which is why they move to the burbs. Stop trying to bring urbanized cesspools to the burbs. Maybe you should also better yourself so you can afford a home rather than rent.

Yeah, right. Mommy and daddy paid all expenses for your overpriced, paper pushing education, which allowed you to "save more diligently" than others. You also hit the jackpot on the cock carousel, allowing you to get him to buy you your home (or at least allow you to pool your money) in exchange for birthing his children. So spare us your sanctimonious BS about saving more diligently and being more successful.

Housing is not an investment. You're gonna learn the hard way.

Actually, housing is an investment. And it has been historically. Not sure where you are getting your “information” other than in the corridors of your resentment that people save for homes and rightfully expect that investment to be protected by their government.

DP. Housing is an expense. A house is an asset. That, along with the property, might appreciate or depreciate, depending on market conditions. We have come to expect appreciation, and it is likely in a growing area due to general supply/demand.

Investment in a house/property has up front (down payment, transaction, move, etc.), periodic carrying (taxes, repair, etc.) and exit (transaction, any applicable cap gain tax, etc) costs that can be seen either as a part of one's housing expense, part of the investment expense or both. It may end up being a good investment or a bad one, especially in light of alternate investment options (opportunity cost) and expenses related to alternate housing options (e.g., renting).

And you are correct, there is a reasonable expectation that government policy not undermine that investment, if not protect it. There are many associated societal benefits. That should be weighed and considered with other expectations of govenment, encouraging adequate housing among them. Also with many associated societal benefits.

From the approach taken and from the resulting plan, that consideration among expectations appears to be sorely lacking in MoCo government at the moment.

The government’s “solution” to finding more affordable housing should not fall on the backs of middle and working class people for whom their home in Silver Spring or Wheaton is not just a shelter but an investment.

It’s obtuse to suggest that housing isn’t an asset. It is. And for most middle class / working class homeowners this asset helps to fund retirement and/or enables people to live inexpensively in retirement due to the equity they’ve built in their home.

Further, this proposal is inherently not equitable - multiple areas in MoCo are exempt. Rockville, Gaithersburg, Takoma Park … so some people suffer and some people won’t because they just happened to buy in more affordable parts of MoCo and don’t have any protection. So again, some parts of the county will be disproportionately hurt by this proposal. …. And it will be areas with more black and brown homeowners.

Lastly, there’s nothing in this proposal that mandates affordable housing. It’s nothing but a handout to developers who want to exploit the very real need for housing.

I'm not sure you read the post correctly. It tried to illuminate the nuance of the language used when they deride the common/colloquial use of "housing" as a way to score debate points based on having taken a semester of financial accounting. If you just use "house" (or "property" or "real estate"), instead, that's the asset, and not vulnerable to the same nitpicking "housing isn't an asset, silly!" rejoinder. They still might note expenses/liabilities associated with that asset (and the impact on investment in such), of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

[Anonymous]

EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

This is such a racist policy. Where are white people supposed to live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?

Yes. It would have to wait until the next election cycle unless some authority could be convinced to order a special election (and that isn't going to happen). They dropped the report, with all the more expansive aspects that had not previously been made public, just at the time it would he impossible to get an issue on the November ballot, and they are aiming to have the legislation passed before a referendum at the next cycle could come into force. Once there, they can campaign against such a ballot item more effectively, given the legal / liability hazard created by the then-enshrined additional development rights.

Uncertain if challenge based on open meetings requirements could upend it or cause the timeline to move, but a multi-pronged approach may be needed to counter the multi-pronged approach that is bringing this on.

This change is literally irreversible (assuming it is passed legally) due to changes in MD law that ban single family zoning for areas where it did not exist prior to the cutoff date. If single family zoning is eliminated in MOCO, this area will no longer be grandfathered under the law and it will be impossible to establish again. This is an irreversible decisions to increase the allowable density through the county by a factor of 4x plus throughout the county.

No such law exists.

You are lying HB 538 passed this year makes this change irreversible in many areas. Eliminating single family zoning makes MOCO ineligible for the grandfather clause that exempts areas zoned single family before 1/1/24 from bonus density provisions in this law. Eliminating single family zoning green lights developments that exceed 8x the existing allowable density in many areas due to stacking of these bonus density laws. We https://dhcd.maryland.gov/TurningTheKey/Documents/HB538-FAQ.pdf

That link doesn't say what you say it says.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

Sounds good.