Where do MoCo council members live?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

[Anonymous]

Friedson grew up in Potomac.

Hans Reimer is from California and went to a prep school there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Friedson grew up in Potomac.

Hans Reimer is from California and went to a prep school there.

Hans Reimer is off the council.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

The YImBY logic is pretty tortured. This will make for great entertainment for a long time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know here he resides, but Katz represents Rockville, an area that will be largely exempt, yet he will still get a vote.

Must be nice!

How is someone from Rockville even allowed to vote on how the county is run when they incorporate themselves? It makes absolutely zero sense is utter hypocrisy. He can go vote to upzone silver spring yet his precious little historic district in Rockville would be exempt from building triplexes?

Because

1. the City of Rockville is in Montgomery County
2. the voters of Montgomery County elected him to the Montgomery County Council

Doesn’t explain how Rockville voters can impose policies on the county they’re shielded from. Ridiculous hypocrisy. Historic Rockville needs to be upzoned with triplexes first before silver spring.

Good news! Rockville voters can't! The zoning changes will require a majority on the Montgomery County Council, which has 11 members.

Also, while all of the City of Rockville historic districts are (by definition) in the City of Rockville, there is a lot of City of Rockville that is not in a historic district. I hope this explanation helps.

And finally, the zoning changes will also apply to county-designated historic districts.

https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2177/Historic-Districts

This is good info, I think that the people in Rockville and Takoma Park think that they are shielded from that, maybe this fact will get them active!

Rockville, Takoma Park, this affects you, too!

Sign the petition!

https://www.change.org/p/protect-single-family-zoning-in-montgomery-county

LOL. You know changing zoning isn't going to FORCE you to upzone your house into a mini apartment complex right? That's a personal choice. It just gives people who'd like to do that options.

All of you jerks saying "oh dear, let me clutch my pearls so I can stabilize myself while I fan my fevered brow in fits of agony over my HOA based neighborhood" are the hypocrites.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t know here he resides, but Katz represents Rockville, an area that will be largely exempt, yet he will still get a vote.

Must be nice!

How is someone from Rockville even allowed to vote on how the county is run when they incorporate themselves? It makes absolutely zero sense is utter hypocrisy. He can go vote to upzone silver spring yet his precious little historic district in Rockville would be exempt from building triplexes?

Because

1. the City of Rockville is in Montgomery County
2. the voters of Montgomery County elected him to the Montgomery County Council

Doesn’t explain how Rockville voters can impose policies on the county they’re shielded from. Ridiculous hypocrisy. Historic Rockville needs to be upzoned with triplexes first before silver spring.

Good news! Rockville voters can't! The zoning changes will require a majority on the Montgomery County Council, which has 11 members.

Also, while all of the City of Rockville historic districts are (by definition) in the City of Rockville, there is a lot of City of Rockville that is not in a historic district. I hope this explanation helps.

And finally, the zoning changes will also apply to county-designated historic districts.

https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2177/Historic-Districts

This is good info, I think that the people in Rockville and Takoma Park think that they are shielded from that, maybe this fact will get them active!

Rockville, Takoma Park, this affects you, too!

Sign the petition!

https://www.change.org/p/protect-single-family-zoning-in-montgomery-county

LOL. You know changing zoning isn't going to FORCE you to upzone your house into a mini apartment complex right? That's a personal choice. It just gives people who'd like to do that options.

All of you jerks saying "oh dear, let me clutch my pearls so I can stabilize myself while I fan my fevered brow in fits of agony over my HOA based neighborhood" are the hypocrites.

Congratulations, you’ve built a special needs straw man. You should feel bad for burning it down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

I have lived my whole life in MoCo…

Keep your dirty hands off of our Ag Reserve!

One of the best parts of MoCo is our commitment to preservation. Your dreams of McMansions on a cul de sac without sidewalks is not a benefit to our county. Density should be increased on existing close-in land, not farms and forests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

I have lived my whole life in MoCo…

Keep your dirty hands off of our Ag Reserve!

One of the best parts of MoCo is our commitment to preservation. Your dreams of McMansions on a cul de sac without sidewalks is not a benefit to our county. Density should be increased on existing close-in land, not farms and forests.

Rather entitled, there. Preservation for me and not for thee. Talk about NIMBY, presuming you have proximity or regular access to the ag reserve, if you don't live there, unlike many of those who would be affected.

And talk about mischaracterization, too! McMansions on cul de sacs are what you see in Potomac and Travillah. The neighborhoods that are impacted by the proposed increased density close in have, by and large, through streets, except, perhaps, where wealthier communities have successfully lobbied for traffic pattern limitation to reduce cut-through. The less wealthy areas to the east would lose smaller homes more currently attainable. And the sidewalks that should be considered as part of the many components of infrastructure that might be needed to support increased densities are nowhere to be found in many, just as much of that infrastructure is or would be overbooked.

The ag reserve is wonderful to have. That, and the benefits it provides, should not exempt it from a rigorous analysis of options when considering such sweeping change in the County...but that is what those pushing for the plan in its current form have done. And any use of greenfield, there, would not need to be McMansions. Nor are the proposed changes to detached SFH neighborhoods the only option that could be considered for additional housing in those closer-in areas.

Just shockingly and deliberately single-minded avoidance of consideration to the detriment of County residents, and the poster's suggestion that the presume-the-conclusion 2021 analysis lent anything different is laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

The YImBY logic is pretty tortured. This will make for great entertainment for a long time.

Definition of YIMBY: Developer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

The YImBY logic is pretty tortured. This will make for great entertainment for a long time.

Definition of YIMBY: Developer.

Nah. Developers may or may not be YIMBYs, but the reality is that there are plenty of just regular residents in Montgomery County who support the proposals. Some of these residents may even be your neighbors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

The YImBY logic is pretty tortured. This will make for great entertainment for a long time.

Definition of YIMBY: Developer.

Nah. Developers may or may not be YIMBYs, but the reality is that there are plenty of just regular residents in Montgomery County who support the proposals. Some of these residents may even be your neighbors.

Yeah, I would not be surprised if there were a bunch of NIMBY developers living in RE-zoned Potomac, or Travilah or in other neighborhoods unlikely to be affected due to historic designation or the like. I expect that they are YIYBYs, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

The YImBY logic is pretty tortured. This will make for great entertainment for a long time.

Definition of YIMBY: Developer.

Nah. Developers may or may not be YIMBYs, but the reality is that there are plenty of just regular residents in Montgomery County who support the proposals. Some of these residents may even be your neighbors.

Nah, developers are YIMBY - how else are you going to make more money? I don't buy into the big lie that highly dense housing is pro-affordable housing; upzoning is for market-based housing, so yeah, this is all about developers, making a profit, and your big lie.

[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:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

The YImBY logic is pretty tortured. This will make for great entertainment for a long time.

Definition of YIMBY: Developer.

Nah. Developers may or may not be YIMBYs, but the reality is that there are plenty of just regular residents in Montgomery County who support the proposals. Some of these residents may even be your neighbors.

Nah, developers are YIMBY - how else are you going to make more money? I don't buy into the big lie that highly dense housing is pro-affordable housing; upzoning is for market-based housing, so yeah, this is all about developers, making a profit, and your big lie.

When affluent people in Chevy Chase carry on about "highly dense housing," they're carrying on about the possibility that there might be a duplex on their block.

[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:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

The YImBY logic is pretty tortured. This will make for great entertainment for a long time.

Definition of YIMBY: Developer.

Nah. Developers may or may not be YIMBYs, but the reality is that there are plenty of just regular residents in Montgomery County who support the proposals. Some of these residents may even be your neighbors.

Nah, developers are YIMBY - how else are you going to make more money? I don't buy into the big lie that highly dense housing is pro-affordable housing; upzoning is for market-based housing, so yeah, this is all about developers, making a profit, and your big lie.

When affluent people in Chevy Chase carry on about "highly dense housing," they're carrying on about the possibility that there might be a duplex on their block.

You're hilarious, and you're still looking to make even more money as a developer.

[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:I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers. Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction. You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that not all share that preference, with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities. The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.

It's the only option that their hand-picked Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned? By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby? These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually was increasing the supply of housing...

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued. But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development: https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve. People could argue to get away with the preserve. And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal. I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing. Is it the number of units allowed? Maybe it should be less? Which areas are a problem specifically? Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence? How do you think these people should be selected? And does that apply to all such Boards?)

Where is Planning's detailed greenfield analysis that could be considered side-by-side with the AHS by the Council and public? The time to have considered that input best was during planning.

It's much too late in the process, now, to get that for robust comparison. They say that, themselves, effectively shrugging when asked, and pushing the multi-faceted line used, here (not necessarily that you are in collusion), that we have to have all of these things to provide housing, using that as a justification as to why not to consider doing greenfield (or high-density-Metro-proximate, or something else) as answers instead of eliminating the detached aspect of single-family R- zoning.

When there are so many concerns, and so little of that is addressed in a way that would provide honest compromise/redress, people will just turn against the thing in its entirety. There might be a baby in that bathwater, but the way it's being handled, it's no wonder many see it as Rosemary's. Sad, really, whichever way it goes.

"Hand-picked" is true, though perhaps unnecessary, except to point out that those directing Planning aren't really independent of the Council for those who may be unfamiliar. We don't vote for Planning Board the way we do for Board of Education.

Here you go:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/

You mean the early 2021 analysis of the distribution of the 65k+ units that could be built under current/then-existing zoning? The one that says, basically, "We can't build very much in areas like the ag reserve where current zoning doesn't allow it," but then arrives at the thought, without further analysis, that changing zoning characteristics of single-family zones is the way to go? Despite the MoCo "share" of DC-area additional capacity needed being just 10k, about 15% of that 65k+ that could be built already? With no further thought given to changes in the ag reserve, such as, I dunno, simply allowing 4 units an acre of greenfield development on one third of the acreage there that was considered immediately developable (not close to the whole reserve) to deliver an extra 40k single-family units?

"Here you go," indeed

The YImBY logic is pretty tortured. This will make for great entertainment for a long time.

Definition of YIMBY: Developer.

Nah. Developers may or may not be YIMBYs, but the reality is that there are plenty of just regular residents in Montgomery County who support the proposals. Some of these residents may even be your neighbors.

Nah, developers are YIMBY - how else are you going to make more money? I don't buy into the big lie that highly dense housing is pro-affordable housing; upzoning is for market-based housing, so yeah, this is all about developers, making a profit, and your big lie.

When affluent people in Chevy Chase carry on about "highly dense housing," they're carrying on about the possibility that there might be a duplex on their block.

And? What business is that of yours?.