Reply to MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Can we advocate for a referendum given the lack of prior transparency and clarity about these plans?[/quote]

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

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

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

No such law exists.[/quote]

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

Where does that law eliminate SFZ?  Point me to the provision that says that any county or municipality cannot create a zone that is SF?[/quote]

Is this like a weird YIMBY half truth?  Some pendant trick of semantics?  A silly gotcha?

However, I’ll bite just because I’m bored.

[b]Why would the county create a SFH ZONE when they are actively working to eliminate SFH only zoning[/b].[/quote]

The assertion is that it cannot be undone [b]at some future point[/b].  For example, should the council change over, should the policies demonstrably fail, should the residents effectively advocate for reversal, etc.

That assertion is false.  There is no state law that prevents a county or municipality from undoing these changes.[/quote]

Are you trying to somehow frame the fact the maybe it’s possible to reverse a terrible policy as a selling point?  Because it might be reversible it’s ok to pass?

Lmao.  You are not serious people.[/quote]

What I am doing is attempting to correct misinformation on a particular point.  I'm not trying to "sell" any position on the topic.

Assertion:  This is a change that can never be undone! 
Fact:  This change could absolutely be undone.

[/quote]

No, it likely cannot. [b]It would likely be considered a takings clause violation and deemed unconstitutional.[/b] If they created an conditional Special use permit program with a numerical cap and an expiration date that would be easily rescindable without creating a takings clause issue because it is technically not a vested property right conferred thorough a zoning change. However, the ZTA they are proposing contains no such guardrails and there is a very real risk that MOCO will be stuck with zoning changes even if they are disastrous. [/quote]

By this logic, the creation of a SF zone anywhere in the country would not be permitted, right?  How were they created in the first place?[/quote]

No that is not true.  It depends on what the allowable use for the land was before prior and how long since the rezoning has occurred. Downzoning is not necessarily a taking clause issue, but it is more likely to be a takings clause issue than upzoning. This is basic land use law and constitutional law, [b]don't make fallacious arguments about the legality SFH zoning that are logically bankrupt[/b]. [/quote]

First, relax.  Allow for the possibility that somebody is actually trying to understand.

I think there are two arguments being made here.  The first I read was that a state law was recently based that makes it impossible to create a SF zone.  That would not be a constitutional question, but a state law question.  I could not find that state law.  Is there one?

The second is that as a general matter, regardless of whether any state law was recently passed, it *may* be an unconstitutional taking to change a multi-family zone into a SF zone. Am I understanding that right?  And I'm still not sure I understand how SF zones could have been created int he first instance, if it is a taking to do so, assuming previous land use rules allowed a less restrictive use.  But maybe that is changes in more recent case law? [/quote]

Case law that allows single family zoning is well established. 1926 SCOTUS case: Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

In Lucas V SC Coastal commission (1992), SCOTUS established a takings clause test. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/1003/ If a downzoning  results in a deprivation of all economically beneficial use of property it can potentially be considered a regulatory takings. [/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