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]At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns?  Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?[/quote]

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.[/quote]

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?[/quote]

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?[/quote]

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence. [/quote]

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back).  If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.[/quote]

Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me.[/quote]

Because we already have evidence that building more of a thing makes things cheaper. The only people opposing this are rich SFH owners who are afraid that their house won't double in value on the backs of the middle class.[/quote]

PP is flat wrong.  First, the rich are not dependent on SFHs for their net worth.   The middle class in contrast are highly dependent on the value of their SFHs for their net worth.  Upzoning will hurt the middle class not the rich.  Second, if "building more of a thing makes things cheaper," why does the County want to reduce the supply of SFHs.  Reducing the SFH supply theoretically should drive SFH prices higher, according to PP.  I fail to understand the logic, assuming there is some logic.

[/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