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]What is the plan for schools and infrastructure if SFHs start becoming 3 or 4 unit structures? Our local DCC schools are already overcrowded and it takes years to renovate or rebuild bigger schools. Class sizes are already large and aggravated by recently approved layoffs by MCPS (egregious, but that’s a whole other topic). [/quote]

The folks in Planning have posited that the impact on school populations will be minimal.  They have not put their analysis that supports that thought out for public review, so...[/quote]

Where and when have they posited this?[/quote]

It's in the Attainable Housing report from Planning to the Council.[/quote]

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf

Is this what you're talking about, on p. 60?

[i]Demands on infrastructure: The Planning Board heard concerns about the increased demands on
existing infrastructure, like schools, roads, and water and sewer. The Planning Board believes the
demands on infrastructure can be addressed through existing policies. The Planning Board also
believes that impacts of schools for the house-scaled products will be de minimis. However, these and
the larger scale products recommended along corridors are all subject to existing impact taxes and
any applicable Utilization Premium Payments to mitigate impacts on crowded schools. Demands on
other infrastructure can be addressed through the 2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy, where
Planning Staff is contemplating a focus on water and sewer.[/i]

And you want public review of an analysis of the effect of an additional 1-3 units, scattered here and there, on school capacity? Keeping in mind that 80% of households in Montgomery County don't have any children under age 18? Huh.[/quote]

Sure.  Why not?  A[b]nd we're talking an additional 18 units for the apartment buildings along the 500-foot-on-either-side corridors (17 if 2 properties are needed, 16 if 3; a couple more, likely, with stacking of the recent state statute), too.[/b]

Wouldn't really need that if there were neighborhood caps on construction to ensure these did not get concentrated to particular neighborhoods and area moratoria associated with inadequate public facilities (including school capacity, of course).  Oh, and a sunset to keep the policy from being permanently by right until we see how it plays out, given all the uncertainty Planning has/all the concerns voiced.[/quote]

[i]the larger scale products recommended along corridors are all subject to existing impact taxes and
any applicable Utilization Premium Payments to mitigate impacts on crowded schools. Demands on
other infrastructure can be addressed through the 2024 Growth and Infrastructure Policy, where
Planning Staff is contemplating a focus on water and sewer.[/i][/quote]

Yeah...um...those existing impact taxes and prior infrastructure policy have really ensured adequacy, especially in the older, pretty-much-built-out-to zoning areas, haven't they?  :roll:

Make the neighborhood caps, infrastructure-related moratoria and sunset an explicit part of this.  No reason not to, except better to ensure developer enrichment.  Should not interfere with the publicly espoused goals, especially if the Planning assessments of de minimis and limited numbers prove correct, and affords important community protections if they do not (or if negative effects unforeseen/unstated by Planning come to pass).  No-brainer adjustments, there.[/quote]

shift the goalposts
shift the goalposts
shift the goalposts
shift the goalposts
shift the goalposts[/quote]

This from the density advocate, when pretty much all of the shifting happened on that side.  [b]There was the layering of initiatives over several years, obscuring the overall/combined effects to minimize opposition to any one initiative[/b].  There were the significant changes to scope and impact as plans developed and after public input in the process was minimized/eliminated.  Etc.

And there continues to be the rhetorically bankrupt argumentation, attempting to stave off criticisms, avoid addressing concerns or suggestion, hyperbolize opposing positions, etc.  Accusations of "shift the goalposts" might as well be those of "attack the process" before.  Pointing out inadequacies of a process is perfectly valid.  Suggestions born of constructive criticism, too.  The intense resistance to those thoughts points to unreasoned inflexibility, at best, and ulterior motive, if more.[/quote]

This is 100 percent true. “Smart Growth,” “compact growth,” “urbanism,” “market urbanism,” and “YIMBYism” all have made a lot of soaring promises but they haven’t delivered on any of them. The groupthink is very strong, and there’s been little consideration of the down side risks by the professional staff or the politicals. [/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