Reply to Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation "

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]It's not about having a duplex in my neighborhood. It is about the cumulative impact of having rapid population growth that will overwhelm our schools and public safety professionals. The county will also need to raise taxes to cover all of the infrastructure upgrades and build new schools. The policy proposal is not refined enough to balance competing priorities. It focuses on upzoning large swaths of the county without adequate consideration for the impact of these changes. It does not make sense to dramatically increase density in areas where there is limited or no access to public transit. IMO, it would be wiser to allow construction of duplex/triplex units in areas that are within a 1/2 mile radius of the metro station. This will mitigate the impact on roads by encouraging development in walkable areas. There are thousands of lots currently zoned R-60 or R-90 within a 1/2 radius of the metro station. [/quote]

And there are miles of underutilized commercial buildings.  Condos and apartments can be build there.[/quote]

[b]Commercial to mixed use commercial residential within x distance of rail[/b] seems like a logical start that’s least disruptive to the community.  [/quote]

That has already been done. However, why should multiunit housing be restricted to big buildings on big roads with lots of cars?[/quote]

No, it has not.  There are huge parts of the Pike that are underutilized and will never be office buildings or retail.  And there is plenty of space to be creative along the Pike, including for green spaces, parks, open walkways, and not just on the Pike.  SFH areas in MoCo are doing just fine and do not need to be disturbed.  The real difference here is (1) whether the changes benefit larger contractors (who are better able to build Rose & Park areas) or smaller contractors (who are better able to turn SFHs into MF units), and (2) whether MoCo wants to keep targeting what MoCo politicians perceives to be the rich.

[/quote]

Yes, it has. There is a whole lot of mixed-use C/R zoning along 355. And also C/R construction.

Your goal here is to maintain areas where the only allowable housing type is a detached one-unit house. If that's what you want, then that's what you want, but it's bad public policy for housing, transportation, the environment, and the county's fiscal future.[/quote]

First, zoning does not mean actual buildings.  Incentivize builders to build along the Pike.  Second, as for the county's fiscal future, [b]reducing SFHs will worsen the problem. [/b] To the extent that SFHs are owned by wealthier residents (which seems obvious), eliminating what they want means that they move elsewhere, taking their tax dollars with them.  At the Federal level, top 1% income earners pay roughly 40% of all individual income taxes, while bottom 90% pay roughly 30%.  Alternatively, top 50% pay 97% of all income taxes, while bottom 50% pay only 3%.  MoCo needs more wealthy taxpayers, not fewer.  CA and NY are facing budget crises in part because many wealthy have fled those states.  Third, as for the environment, I will continue to drive my hybrid.

[/quote]

Nah. If people pick up and go because they can't stand the prospect of a duplex near them, that's ok, the county will be fine without them. Also, I don't think that most people who live in detached one-unit houses are actually that afraid of the prospect of a duplex near them.

There's more to the environment and also more to transportation than you driving a hybrid.[/quote]

Cool, [b]my SFH neighborhood is more important to me than a hybrid car or whatever environmental benefits come from building multi-family property.[/b] Many people in these targeted areas will say the same thing when push comes to shove. Close in moco doesn't need MORE density. The only people thinking so are the ones who can't afford to live there. [/quote]

You are allowed to have whatever personal preference you want to have. Nobody is stopping you. "I want what I want because I want it" is not a good basis for public policy, though.[/quote]

...isn't that what the moco council does. "I want what I want because I want it" - they are clowns. They make decisions without consulting the people it actually impacts. Poll the surrounding neighborhoods in Bethesda/CC and see what they get. I would be a lot of money the vast majority want no part of this. A great example of this was LFP. The overwhelming majority of people who live near/on Little Falls were vehemently against it. The council does what it wants to fit their bizarre ideological agenda.[/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