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][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]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]

[b]Building something reduces demand for it[/b]? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.  [/quote]

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...[/quote]

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. [b]Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH?[/b] Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?[/quote]

No. Why would it be? I keep reading stuff on this thread like "I would love to live in Hawaii, but I can't afford it, oh well." Why wouldn't that apply here?[/quote]

It’s a little misleading though to talk about SFH prices and suggesting that new rental apartments will make SFH prices lower. Apartments for rent have never put downward pressure on SFH prices in this county. The rental apartment market has been in balance or loose more often than not and the purchase market has been tight more often than not. We get more out migration from lack of SFH than we get from lack of rentals. The housing market is complex and the details matter.  [/quote]

The only housing in Montgomery County that matters is detached single-unit housing, and the only people in Montgomery County who matter are people for whom the only acceptable housing option is buying a unit of detached single-unit housing to live in as one household, with at least one child under age 18.

By the way, there is detached single-unit housing that is rentals, right here in Montgomery County! Did you know that?[/quote]

Yes, I’m tracking. Did you know that SFH made up about  a quarter of the rental housing stock in MoCo in 2021?[/quote]

Meaning that 25% of the rental housing [u]units[/u] in Montgomery County are detached houses?[/quote]

SFH does not mean detached. [/quote]

It absolutely does mean detached to most people. Stop trying to play word games and pretend that townhouses are other multifamily housing types are the same as SFH. Most people do not agree with this deceptive YIMBY lingo. [/quote]

How can a townhouse be multifamily if there's only one unit in the building and on the lot?

I have lived in a multifamily townhouse, but that's because it was three-story rowhouse split up into three units (one per floor).[/quote]

I really feel like this is a distinction without a difference.

The issue at hand:  currently only one unit can be on one piece of land and the proposal is for more than one unit to be allowable on that piece of land.

If I tear down my SFH and build a structure with two units, it doesn't really matter whether that lot gets subdivided to account for the two units or not....at least to the issues surrounding supply/demand, impact to parking, school and other infrastructure, property values, etc....[/quote]

Of course it matters. If you subdivide, it's one unit on one lot. If you don't subdivide, it's two units on one lot - same as ADUs.[/quote]

You just restated the distinction...but not the difference.  How does that impact any of the discussion for or against this proposal?[/quote]

Maybe that's a question for the BUT SFH! people to answer. The proposed changes would potentially lead to an [u]increase[/u] in the number of SFHs.[/quote]

Please explain how the supply of SFH available for purchase would increase as a result of a policy whose objective is replacing SFH with MFH. [/quote]

Step 1: take one SFH on one lot
Step 2: subdivide the lot into two lots
Step 3: build a SFH on the second lot
Result: two SFHs where there used to be only one

It's not true, though, that the policy's objective is replacing SFH (however defined) with MFH. That may be a result, but it's not the objective.[/quote]

Can't you just do this now without the policy?[/quote]

Yes the PP was trying to misdirect because when anyone points out the obvious flaws in their ideas the flaws become obvious. That’s the problem with slogan policies. “We need to get rid of zoning so we can bUilD mOrE HoUSIng” sounds great until you realize zoning isn’t actually the limiting factor in how much housing gets built in the county.”[/quote]

There is no proposal to get rid of zoning, and zoning actually is A limiting factor in how much housing gets built in the county. Not the only limiting factor, but one of the limiting factors. I'm guessing you agree, because if you didn't, you wouldn't be so upset about the proposed changes to the zoning code.[/quote]

I’m not upset about the proposed changes. I don’t mind the proposed changes but I think they’re a waste of time that could be better spent on economic stimulus that would have a greater impact on housing supply than zoning changes.

Zoning is only a theoretical limiting factor in how much housing can get built in Montgomery County. It’s irrelevant in the real world. If zoning allows 350 units in a high rise but only 250 are built, did zoning limit housing? Of course not, and developers frequently deliver fewer units than are authorized. On top of that, there are a lot of unbuilt units in approved plans. The developers just need to go get a permit and start building, but they don’t. Just last month, a developer abandoned a project across the street from a metro station almost immediately after it was approved because it didn’t think market conditions would ever be right for it.

The main factor suppressing housing supply in Montgomery County is lack of demand at price points high enough to result in sufficient profit. Developers view MoCo as a riskier market than DC or Fairfax and require higher profits before they’ll build here. Until we address that risk perception, our housing market will be stagnant.

The risk perception largely arises from weak employment and wage growth. You can read more about that in this series: https://montgomeryperspective.com/2024/07/11/moco-economy-keeps-lagging-part-five/. Increasingly, MoCo will only be a second or third choice for people who can’t afford housing in DC or Fairfax. County policy has embraced this outcome by only focusing housing policy on the supply side. It needs to focus on creating sustainable demand from higher income households as well. When there is reliable demand at a profitable price point, there will be more housing. [/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