Reply to More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring"

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]I don’t want to live in Hoboken, dimwits.  If I wanted to live in a dense craphole like Hoboken then I would move to Hoboken.  If you want Hoboken, go live there.  Leave my home, yard, and neighborhood alone.

Ahhhhh Hoboken, where you get have the privilege of spending 45 minutes after work everyday trying to find somewhere to park after work.   Just awful.  [/quote]

Nobody is forcing you to live in Hoboken. Nobody is doing anything to your home or yard. You don't own your neighborhood.[/quote]

They are absolutely forcing people to live in the Hoboken AKA the “ugly cousin of Manhattan” by pushing through crazy upzoning proposals most resident don’t want. [/quote]

Public Service Announcement: All of Montgomery County as you know it today, was once upzoned from a lower density designation. Some farmer probably tried to block your SFH development as ruining the character of the county.

Upzoning is the natural consequence of the Nation/Region/County growing. If you are not fabulously wealthy, just mentally prepare yourself for this to happen to your neighborhood some day.  [/quote] 
My neighborhood has protective covenants with large multiple acre single family lots. I just laugh at MOCO craziness when these policies are discussed. They are horribly misguided and will ruin quality of life for county residents. [/quote]

Where is this?  Asking for a friend :)

I wonder if it would be possible to start the process of drafting protective covenants in vulnerable areas now.

Quite the opposite of what that other poster is positing, long term, the areas that remain SFH areas will likely skyrocket in value.  I feel bad for the homeowners in the affected areas.  The county should compensate them.[/quote]

In the short/medium term this may be true, but these will become targets eventually. You can't fill a county with "have nots" such that they become the vast majority and get the political power, and preserve the preferences of the "haves." The politics of resentment/YIMBY/climate change/what have you, will eventually carry the day and get them rezoned too.

This battle was lost before most knew it was being waged, because they are incapable of linking cause and effect. [/quote]

Alternative explanation: many homeowners are unwilling to permanently remove their own property rights (and likely reduce their property values, too).[/quote]

It is actually a voluntary agreement to protect property rights among willing participants. Some people do not want to live densely populated urban areas. They are more concerned about protecting quiet enjoyment, open space and privacy for their property. There are other components of property rights you are ignoring, noise pollution, air pollution, neighborhood amenities that are equally if not more important to many people. Not everyone wants to build sixplexes on postage stamp lots and live in Arlington.   [/quote]

Upzoning dramatically can also violate peoples property rights when it creates a density that exceeds that capacity of existing infrastructure. Widening roads and expanding power line infrastructure requires the use of eminent domain and people will lose their homes in the name of upzoning and “affordable housing”. So don’t give me that BS about property rights. There are always competing priorities with zoning decisions.  Completely  unlimited property rights for individual property owners forces neighbors and the county to absorb negative externalities associated with their decisions. People do not live in a vacuum and the impact on local community members is very relevant to zoning decisions. Developers would absolutely love to be able to build whatever they want anywhere and force taxpayers to pick up the bill for their harmful development decisions. You are advocating for the benefit of special interest groups at the expense of the community and MOCO. 
[/quote]

Yeah, those evil developers building those evil homes for... people ... to live in?

Get a grip.[/quote]
[b]
Everything costs money and most of these improvements are funded by local taxpayers. [/b]They absolutely don’t care about the community and they will destroy it, unless they are forced to pay for the costs to cover infrastructure and schools for new development. [/quote]

Most of the new roads, water/sewer, etc. are actually funded by the developers, which means they're ultimately funded by the new residents. A lot of the maintenance costs also fall on the new residents.[/quote]

Except the council has capped impact taxes, which means developers aren't paying their fair share.  And shockingly, there's now budget issues in the school's capital budget.[/quote]

It depends on what you think of as "fair share". The developers pay to build the roads. The developers do not pay for the cost of a brand-new school, nor should they. You know what else developers do? Build housing.[/quote]

The developers don’t even come close to paying the cost of school expansions required by their projects. The impact fees they pay per expected student are well below the costs of adding capacity for each expected student. It’s fair to debate whether the greater community should subsidize new housing or whether new housing should pay its own way at the front end but let’s do so on the basis of fact, not lies. [/quote]

Blair is already 3000+ students. This plan reeks of insanity. In one of the local hoods and in disbelief at this.[/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