MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Finally you realize and agree that you’re making housing more expensive. You may be ok with that but I’m not.

[Anonymous]

Given the extensive nature of the change, the uncertainty of the resulting structures/impacts and the relative irreversability of removing any allowance thus created, the Council should, at a minimum:

Put the change to the represented citizenry in an independent public referendum. This would tend to ensure the minimum public support such sweeping change should have, no matter the orientation of elected representatives on the particular issue.

Establish moratoria on use of additional densities made available with zoning change in any area that is shown not to have fullsome public infrastructure (schools, utilities, parks, etc.)/where committed funding for such would not meet the then-additional density at the time of occupancy. This would tend to ensure that the Council backs up its Planning-painted vision with the projects necessary to keep under-served areas from persisting as such.

Place reasonably low yearly caps on parcels granted allowance in any given area/neighborhood (but not on the County as a whole, except for the cumulative count across all neighborhood caps) for the first few years, with short approval-to-breaking-ground maximums prior to those granted allowances being clawed back for re-issue (limiting opportunity hoarding). This would ensure that individual neighborhoods were not overwhelmed by rapid change and that any associated downside from increased densities would be shared across communities, so that support for the measure would have to come from a broader base of those who might directly be affected, rather than from a majority who might be relatively insulated from associated change to the detriment of a minority who would not be so protected.

Establish a sunset provision for all of the changes after the first few years mentioned above, so as not to create an expectation that would interfere with efforts to revert zoning to prior definition, should the effects of the changes turn out to be worse than hoped. That sunset could be extended every few years by the Council until such time as the policy/changes prove to be beneficial, at which time they, or some proximate modification, could be made permanent (or allowed to sunset if benefit does not prove out).

[Anonymous]

Those posting here should avoid engagement with The Questioner, who posts as being "earnestly" interested in knowing one's position, but who picks at particular aspects of an argument to draw out rationale so as to better prepare themselves for rhetorical rebuttal in public hearings. They never fully engage in more reasoned debate that would seek to establish a truth, which would require them to lay their own underlying rationale bare (instead of only encouraging doubt about the opposing viewpoint), address the full content presented by those with opposing viewpoints (instead of picking out one or other aspect with the result of burying the remaining relevant observations) and respond without mischaracterization (hyperbole/strawman and the like) of those opposing viewpoints.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given the extensive nature of the change, the uncertainty of the resulting structures/impacts and the relative irreversability of removing any allowance thus created, the Council should, at a minimum:

Put the change to the represented citizenry in an independent public referendum. This would tend to ensure the minimum public support such sweeping change should have, no matter the orientation of elected representatives on the particular issue.

Establish moratoria on use of additional densities made available with zoning change in any area that is shown not to have fullsome public infrastructure (schools, utilities, parks, etc.)/where committed funding for such would not meet the then-additional density at the time of occupancy. This would tend to ensure that the Council backs up its Planning-painted vision with the projects necessary to keep under-served areas from persisting as such.

Place reasonably low yearly caps on parcels granted allowance in any given area/neighborhood (but not on the County as a whole, except for the cumulative count across all neighborhood caps) for the first few years, with short approval-to-breaking-ground maximums prior to those granted allowances being clawed back for re-issue (limiting opportunity hoarding). This would ensure that individual neighborhoods were not overwhelmed by rapid change and that any associated downside from increased densities would be shared across communities, so that support for the measure would have to come from a broader base of those who might directly be affected, rather than from a majority who might be relatively insulated from associated change to the detriment of a minority who would not be so protected.

Establish a sunset provision for all of the changes after the first few years mentioned above, so as not to create an expectation that would interfere with efforts to revert zoning to prior definition, should the effects of the changes turn out to be worse than hoped. That sunset could be extended every few years by the Council until such time as the policy/changes prove to be beneficial, at which time they, or some proximate modification, could be made permanent (or allowed to sunset if benefit does not prove out).

This is reasonable.

[Anonymous]

FYI - new planning series on screwing the public for fun and profit.

https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/montgomery-county-planning-board-announces-a-speaker-series-on-housing/

Sessions

July 18

Intersection: Land Use and Housing Supply, a National and Local Perspective
Local land use regulations, such as zoning, are the most direct way that jurisdictions can regulate housing supply, but what else should planners be focusing on? What can planners do to increase housing supply? Join the Planning Board to hear about tools being used nationally to increase housing supply, followed by an analysis of the local housing market.

Panel:
Yonah Freemark, Principal Research Associate, Urban Institute
Lisa Sturtevant, Chief Economist, Bright MLS

Moderator: Artie Harris, Chair, Montgomery Planning Board

September 19

A Tale from our Partners: Lessons learned from the trenches
As a follow up to the July session, the panel discussed various ways localities are addressing housing supply shortages. But how have they worked in practice? As jurisdictions across the country embark on plans to increase housing supply, this session will examine lessons learned from agencies that have already implemented attainable housing strategies. Hear from representatives from Oregon and St. Paul, MN on their initiatives over the past five years to encourage more housing development. They’ll talk about what worked, what didn’t work, what they would do differently, and what advice they have to offer.

Panel:
Emma Brown, Senior City Planner, St. Paul, Minnesota Department of Planning and Economic Development
Mari Valencia Aguilar, Senior Housing Planner, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Richard Tucker, Housing Arlington Coordinator, Arlington, VA, Department of Community Planning, Housing & Development

October 17

Practitioner’s Panel: Implementation Successes and Areas of Focus
Join the Planning Board to hear from developers and industry experts that have leveraged relaxed zoning and other creative tools to develop attainable housing. Discover what worked, where were the challenges, and what Montgomery County can do to actualize attainable housing.

Panel:
Bob Young, Principal, Young Group
Rosie Hepner, Vice President, ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing
Representative from Opticos Design, Inc

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Those posting here should avoid engagement with The Questioner, who posts as being "earnestly" interested in knowing one's position, but who picks at particular aspects of an argument to draw out rationale so as to better prepare themselves for rhetorical rebuttal in public hearings. They never fully engage in more reasoned debate that would seek to establish a truth, which would require them to lay their own underlying rationale bare (instead of only encouraging doubt about the opposing viewpoint), address the full content presented by those with opposing viewpoints (instead of picking out one or other aspect with the result of burying the remaining relevant observations) and respond without mischaracterization (hyperbole/strawman and the like) of those opposing viewpoints.

This is true. They aren’t really worth engaging in general, but we should not provide them with information, especially specific actions. Clearly they are organized…the YImBYs are posting everywhere…”like, hey guys, just took the magic bus the other day, and it was so convenient! Only took me 2 hours to get to DT Silver Spring and I was totally able to get a bag of apples home! Totes realistic mode of transpo for regular people! I too am a regular people! This is totally spontaneous!”

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Finally you realize and agree that you’re making housing more expensive. You may be ok with that but I’m not.

There are many, many types of housing. Detached single family houses are not the only type of housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those posting here should avoid engagement with The Questioner, who posts as being "earnestly" interested in knowing one's position, but who picks at particular aspects of an argument to draw out rationale so as to better prepare themselves for rhetorical rebuttal in public hearings. They never fully engage in more reasoned debate that would seek to establish a truth, which would require them to lay their own underlying rationale bare (instead of only encouraging doubt about the opposing viewpoint), address the full content presented by those with opposing viewpoints (instead of picking out one or other aspect with the result of burying the remaining relevant observations) and respond without mischaracterization (hyperbole/strawman and the like) of those opposing viewpoints.

This is true. They aren’t really worth engaging in general, but we should not provide them with information, especially specific actions. Clearly they are organized…the YImBYs are posting everywhere…”like, hey guys, just took the magic bus the other day, and it was so convenient! Only took me 2 hours to get to DT Silver Spring and I was totally able to get a bag of apples home! Totes realistic mode of transpo for regular people! I too am a regular people! This is totally spontaneous!”

Where have you seen these posts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI - new planning series on screwing the public for fun and profit.

https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/montgomery-county-planning-board-announces-a-speaker-series-on-housing/

Sessions

July 18

Intersection: Land Use and Housing Supply, a National and Local Perspective
Local land use regulations, such as zoning, are the most direct way that jurisdictions can regulate housing supply, but what else should planners be focusing on? What can planners do to increase housing supply? Join the Planning Board to hear about tools being used nationally to increase housing supply, followed by an analysis of the local housing market.

Panel:
Yonah Freemark, Principal Research Associate, Urban Institute
Lisa Sturtevant, Chief Economist, Bright MLS

Moderator: Artie Harris, Chair, Montgomery Planning Board

September 19

A Tale from our Partners: Lessons learned from the trenches
As a follow up to the July session, the panel discussed various ways localities are addressing housing supply shortages. But how have they worked in practice? As jurisdictions across the country embark on plans to increase housing supply, this session will examine lessons learned from agencies that have already implemented attainable housing strategies. Hear from representatives from Oregon and St. Paul, MN on their initiatives over the past five years to encourage more housing development. They’ll talk about what worked, what didn’t work, what they would do differently, and what advice they have to offer.

Panel:
Emma Brown, Senior City Planner, St. Paul, Minnesota Department of Planning and Economic Development
Mari Valencia Aguilar, Senior Housing Planner, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development
Richard Tucker, Housing Arlington Coordinator, Arlington, VA, Department of Community Planning, Housing & Development

October 17

Practitioner’s Panel: Implementation Successes and Areas of Focus
Join the Planning Board to hear from developers and industry experts that have leveraged relaxed zoning and other creative tools to develop attainable housing. Discover what worked, where were the challenges, and what Montgomery County can do to actualize attainable housing.

Panel:
Bob Young, Principal, Young Group
Rosie Hepner, Vice President, ULI Terwilliger Center for Housing
Representative from Opticos Design, Inc

Take notes on the meeting to see what the YIMBYs are planning ugh.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Finally you realize and agree that you’re making housing more expensive. You may be ok with that but I’m not.

There are many, many types of housing. Detached single family houses are not the only type of housing.

What happens in the SFH market affects pricing for other types of housing more than you think. The shortage of SFH is almost certainly driving rents up right now. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe your own theories about luxury apartments driving down rents for Class C apartments.

[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:

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:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Finally you realize and agree that you’re making housing more expensive. You may be ok with that but I’m not.

There are many, many types of housing. Detached single family houses are not the only type of housing.

What happens in the SFH market affects pricing for other types of housing more than you think. The shortage of SFH is almost certainly driving rents up right now. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe your own theories about luxury apartments driving down rents for Class C apartments.

The reverse is true too. The MFH market also affects the SFH market. Increasing supply of missing middle homes helps meet demand for housing in low-density neighborhoods that relieves upward pressure on SFH prices. That extra missing middle supply increases much faster than the SFH stock decreases, because each lost SFH becomes two or more missing middle homes.

[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:

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:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Finally you realize and agree that you’re making housing more expensive. You may be ok with that but I’m not.

There are many, many types of housing. Detached single family houses are not the only type of housing.

What happens in the SFH market affects pricing for other types of housing more than you think. The shortage of SFH is almost certainly driving rents up right now. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe your own theories about luxury apartments driving down rents for Class C apartments.

The reverse is true too. The MFH market also affects the SFH market. Increasing supply of missing middle homes helps meet demand for housing in low-density neighborhoods that relieves upward pressure on SFH prices. That extra missing middle supply increases much faster than the SFH stock decreases, because each lost SFH becomes two or more missing middle homes.

Those two types of housing aren’t and will never be viewed as perfect substitutes. However, once again noted that you’d like to negatively affect SFH prices for homeowners in the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those posting here should avoid engagement with The Questioner, who posts as being "earnestly" interested in knowing one's position, but who picks at particular aspects of an argument to draw out rationale so as to better prepare themselves for rhetorical rebuttal in public hearings. They never fully engage in more reasoned debate that would seek to establish a truth, which would require them to lay their own underlying rationale bare (instead of only encouraging doubt about the opposing viewpoint), address the full content presented by those with opposing viewpoints (instead of picking out one or other aspect with the result of burying the remaining relevant observations) and respond without mischaracterization (hyperbole/strawman and the like) of those opposing viewpoints.

This is true. They aren’t really worth engaging in general, but we should not provide them with information, especially specific actions. Clearly they are organized…the YImBYs are posting everywhere…”like, hey guys, just took the magic bus the other day, and it was so convenient! Only took me 2 hours to get to DT Silver Spring and I was totally able to get a bag of apples home! Totes realistic mode of transpo for regular people! I too am a regular people! This is totally spontaneous!”

Where have you seen these posts?

You aren’t seeing this on your neighborhood listserves and facebook groups? You don’t have little private mini-YIMBY groups on Facebook?

[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:

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:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Finally you realize and agree that you’re making housing more expensive. You may be ok with that but I’m not.

There are many, many types of housing. Detached single family houses are not the only type of housing.

What happens in the SFH market affects pricing for other types of housing more than you think. The shortage of SFH is almost certainly driving rents up right now. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe your own theories about luxury apartments driving down rents for Class C apartments.

The reverse is true too. The MFH market also affects the SFH market. Increasing supply of missing middle homes helps meet demand for housing in low-density neighborhoods that relieves upward pressure on SFH prices. That extra missing middle supply increases much faster than the SFH stock decreases, because each lost SFH becomes two or more missing middle homes.

The reverse is less true if it is even true at all, judging from price increases for different types of housing over time. SFH is the most expensive type of housing but has still consistently appreciated faster than other types of housing, suggesting very strong demand. In the same way that high-rise apartment construction hasn’t reduced prices of SFH, small apartment projects probably won’t make SFH cheaper either. It is much more likely that upward price pressure in the SFH market (resulting from a decrease in supply and increasing land values) will push the ceiling for MF rents higher as more people become stuck in MF (stuck is how they will feel) because SFH have become less attainable.

The one way that upzoning could put downward pressure on SFH prices is if multiplexes entice older homeowners to sell their SFH and move to a multiplex. I don’t think this is likely though because the financial incentives favor staying put and because multiplexes are unlikely to have the accessibility features (including disability parking) that older homeowners seek.

“People prefer living in multiplexes over SFH” just isn’t support by historical demand patterns at all and I think we have enough similar products on the market to conclude that small apartment projects will not drive radical change in housing preference any more than high rises have.

[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:

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Finally you realize and agree that you’re making housing more expensive. You may be ok with that but I’m not.

There are many, many types of housing. Detached single family houses are not the only type of housing.

What happens in the SFH market affects pricing for other types of housing more than you think. The shortage of SFH is almost certainly driving rents up right now. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe your own theories about luxury apartments driving down rents for Class C apartments.

The reverse is true too. The MFH market also affects the SFH market. Increasing supply of missing middle homes helps meet demand for housing in low-density neighborhoods that relieves upward pressure on SFH prices. That extra missing middle supply increases much faster than the SFH stock decreases, because each lost SFH becomes two or more missing middle homes.

Those two types of housing aren’t and will never be viewed as perfect substitutes. However, once again noted that you’d like to negatively affect SFH prices for homeowners in the county.

The PP would like to negatively affect SFH prices but is fine with causing them go up too.