Reply to MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.[/quote]

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative. [/quote]

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.[/quote]

Fewer SFHs in MC means fewer wealthy people in MC.  Fewer wealthy residents mean fewer tax dollars that pay for the social services.  This is not an Ayn Rand mentality.  People who need social services need social services.  But someone has to pay the taxes that pay for those services.  The net payors are not likely to be residents of these multi-unit dwellings.  Reducing the number of SFHs is counter-productive from a fiscal standpoint. [b] And a focus on upzoning is particularly stupid given the quantity of underutilized commercial property in MC, especially along Rockville Pike and Georgia Avenue.[/b]  Latter are both also convenient to roads and public transport.
[/quote]

As far as I know, all or almost all of that land is already zoned C/R. If any of it is not yet zoned C/R, I would support rezoning to C/R. What do you propose to encourage those property owners to redevelop their commercial use to commercial/residential use?[/quote]

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs.  They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.[/quote]

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?[/quote]

These are good questions but [b]the question that all this avoids is why people aren’t building what’s allowed now.[/b] There are tens of thousands of units that developers got approved but haven’t requested permits for yet. There’s also a lot of land that allows MF by right but isn’t being used that way. It’s not clear to me why upzoning would result in more building when developers can already build functional equivalents, almost always nearby, but simply choose not to. The problem seems to be less about being allowed to build than it is about having a desire to build. We’ve spent little time on increasing the desire to build, but a lot of time on changing rules. [/quote]

It doesn't avoid the question. It's a separate question. Building isn't fungible. Building large mixed-use commercial/residential projects on former shopping centers or office parks is different from building a house here or a house there. You don't see the builders who replace teardowns with McMansions in Bethesda redeveloping shopping centers, and you don't see the builders who are redeveloping shopping centers doing McMansion replacements in Bethesda.

No, a two-unit house (or even a four-unit house) is not the functional equivalent of Twinbrook Quarter, just like a 1950s 600 square foot tract house in Twinbrook is not the functional equivalent of a 2020s 13,000 square foot spec house on River Road.[/quote]

You think there’s a big difference between a 1,000 sq ft apartment in a five over and a 1,000 sq ft apartment in a quad? You think there will be demand for the latter when there’s not enough demand to justify more construction of the former? Seems kind of crazy but OK. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics