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]Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.[/quote]

BS.  The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped.  Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc.   Developers would rather lobby to [b]destroy SFH neighborhoods[/b] than develop the commercial properties.  The land along the Pike is underutilized.  It will never be office or retail space.  Turn it into residential.  The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.   [/quote]

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.[/quote]
[b]
Is that what is being proposed?[/b]

No, it’s not.  If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback.  I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.[/quote]

Yes. Two-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones; three-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and four-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District. The Priority Housing District is areas within a one mile straight line distance from Metrorail’s Red Line, the Purple Line light rail, and MARC rail stations, plus 500 feet from a Thrive Montgomery 2050 identified Growth Corridor.

If you think that's destruction, I don't know what to say.[/quote]

DP.  No, the YIMBY strawman/hyperbole used wss duplexes destroying SFH neighborhoods.

We've regularly been calling out such logically fallacious argumenta, but that really is all that the YIMBYs seem to employ.  Arguments by concerned residents about need for imfrastructure, schools, etc., the deficit in those already in the areas most likely impacted, and the unlikely addressing of such without direct tie/funding with any development at increased density go without substantive answer from those pushing for increased densities.

Thanks for pointing out [i]part[/i] of the picture beyond duplexes.  But anyone looking at the map woupd see that very large areas inside and near the Beltway are in play for the greatest densities. 
And anyone following knows the stacking effect of that with newly enacted state law (and other efforts, such as PHDs) then allows for even greater than 4-plex densities (6-plex, small apartments, etc.).

The approach has been to enact several smaller changes that stack this way -- this keeps folks unaware until the coup de grace, which they are trying now.  Pretty sick for what is supposed to be a representative government with minority protections.[/quote]

So is this an accurate summary of your position?

Duplexes won't destroy the neighborhood, duplexes are fine.
Triplexes and fourplexes aren't fine but won't destroy the neighborhood.
Sixplexes will destroy the neighborhood.
We can't allow triplexes and fourplexes because if we do, sixplexes come next.

Also, what specifically is the [i]coup de grace[/i]? Fourplexes? Sixplexes? (Both of which I would consider small apartment buildings, by the way.) And who or what is being killed by them?[/quote]

The point this person is making is that this zoning change is deceptive because of state laws recently passed allowing by-right density bonuses that preempt local zoning laws. So, allowing quadplexes greenlights a density 50% higher than what is being discussed. This very dishonest zoning change effectively upzones SFH neighborhoods to 12X density (due to lot subdivisions). You are entirely ignoring the infrastructure and school concerns. Even if the county decides to build new schools, it will still take around 10 years to build new schools. So, you cannot upzone most of the county and assume that school capacity will magically materialize. It won't occur as quickly as the developers build new houses, and it will be almost impossible for the schools to catch up with this amount of growth. Also, allowing increases in density everywhere (at the same time) will require the county to make very expensive capacity upgrades to the entire infrastructure network. It is not economically efficient to expand capacity to the entire network to make room for density increases. It would be much smarter to upzone targeted geographic areas for transit-oriented growth and make substantial upgrades to these specific areas. [/quote]

Wait, what's the deceptive, dishonest part, exactly? How about destructive, is that in there too?

The proposed zoning change is specifically targeting geographic areas for transit-oriented growth, so you should be happy about that.[/quote]

DP but one deceptive part is talking about duplexes when everyone knows those don’t pencil (according to planning). But transit-oriented growth is also deceptive. We’ve seen developers put car-oriented growth close to metro stations and planning does nothing to prevent that even when it’s contrary to master plans. We also know that the YIMBYs will NIMBY the road and school expansions that the new development will require. [/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