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]No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

[b]If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.[/b]

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations. [/quote]

This is the problem.  The various policy changes combine to undercut the detached SFH communities in the closer-in suburbs that are among the most affordable.

Bye bye Four Corners.  Bethesda & Chevy Chase?  No real change.  Just widening the gap.[/quote]

Four Corners already has SFH subdivided into rental apartments, but any new multiplex rentals probably will end up commanding more in rent than most owners pay on their mortgage right now, so maybe you get some gentrification but the new residents aren’t going to bring the neighborhood down. [/quote]

Though new residents may change the character of a neighborhood in a way, the effects of overcrowding, both in structures and in burden on shared/public resources, is as big or bigger.  The currently pushed policies offer no real protections from that.

Not much of this sort is likely to happen in the Bethesda/CC area in the near future because the projects don't pencil as well for developers due to the higher cost of acquisition.  The Georgia/University/Colesville triangle, on the other hand, is much more likely to see such change.

When it comes down to it, those elected representatives don't really care about the middle.[/quote]

They don’t pencil at all in Bethesda/CC or in Woodside or E Silver Spring for that matter. They don’t pencil well in the Colesville, University, or Georgia area. That could change if there’s a lot of white collar job growth in that area.

They work a little better for owner occupancy, but unless the lot is split they’d have to be condos, which seems like an absolute nightmare for the owners. [/quote]

They pencil much better in the Colesville/University/Georgia triangle than in Bethesda/CC.  Quadplexes to small apartment blocs.  Investment rental properties.

This is what the County Council and Planning Board are pushing, though they frame it in fairy tale terms.[/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