Reply to MoCo Council Vote Today

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MoCo Council Vote Today"

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If anyone wants to understand why this country doesn't build ANYTHING any more (high speed rail, infrastructure, clean energy, new cities) you just have to listen to these NIMBYs.

Just so disappointing to see a bunch of old people hold the country hostage while more and more people struggle. Typical boomers.[/quote]

THERE IS A TON OF CHEAP LAND IN THE COUNTY...just not in Bethesda or Chevy Chase.

Plenty of middle class homes under 750k. People just think because they make 125k a year they are too good for them[/quote]

The further away homes are from jobs, the more transportation infrastructure is needed. [b]The NIMBY's in this country don't want to expand roads or public transportation, either.
[/b]
By all means, go to meetings saying you want to expand into the ag reserve, build out light rail and bus, and widen Darnestown Rd, Georgia Ave, University Blvd, and Connecticut Ave. See how much support you get.[/quote]

If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers. [/quote]

The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.[/quote]

Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win. [/quote]

The purple line was tremendously delayed.

And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension.

There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county.[/quote]

None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council.

The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’  refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse. [/quote]

The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls,   and some sprawl mostly up 270.

Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes.[/quote]

I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth. [/quote]

To a certain extent, I agree. There's been too much of a focus on large-scale, high density projects which, as you've noted, tend to be rentals. Zoning and regulations have been set up to encourage that, too. We need to be doing more to facilitate and encourage construction of things like townhomes and duplexes, which are more likely to be occupant-owned.

I don't think rentals are bad- there are a lot of situations where that is going to be the right choice. But we should have more opportunities for affordable home ownership, too.

That's what I liked about the earlier AHS proposal. It would have made it easier to build moderate density housing without them having to be part of large-scale projects in limited parts of the county. That's the only path for creating more owner-occupied housing stock without sprawl.[/quote]

The vast majority of people would rather own. Policy should enable that. The AHS is more likely to be more rentals, probably more than half of anything that gets built. [/quote]

Even if the estimate of half is correct, that's still more owner-occupied homes than you get with single family homes.[/quote] That is definitely not true. Way less than half will be owner occupied. Most plex units will be rentals because it is difficult for developers to get financing for non-rental plex units and it the ownership structure of plex units without an HOA makes it more difficult for banks approve financing. Plex units HOAs are very costly per person and they typically don’t function well. A more targeted zoning reform limited to townhouses within walking distance of the metro would have expanded supply and promoted ownership opportunities. Zoning to for plex units and apartments, favors investors/developers rather than promoting ownership opportunities. MOCO should have considered something with development standards similar to the Fall Church City T-zone rezoning instead. They allowed higher density townhouses developments and limited the average square footage to 1500 sq ft while only requiring one parking spot per unit. This would be a perfectly reasonable way to promote more accessible homeownership opportunities where people can walk to the metro, but have space for a car and room for multiple stages of their life. 1500 sq ft with one parking spot can work for well for young professionals, families with 1 or 2 kids or retirees looking to downsize.[/quote]

This is correct. The Friedson ZTA and other bills he’s done previously heavily favor rentals, which also qualify for tax abatements that aren’t available to homes for purchase. What gets built will be rental apartments or duplexes, which don’t have IZ requirements and are likely to be 1.5x-3x as expensive as the homes they’re replacing. MoCo is set up for rentals, not ownership opportunities. I don’t think the council wants to cut people off from ownership but the only people they listen to are landlords. [/quote]

[b]Tax abatements are for projects that commit to offering below-market-rate housing.[/b] What do you want to do? Offer abatements to owner-occupied homes that include accessory units that are locked into the MPDU program?

I think there are better ways to tackle affordability for homeowners and renters, though.

Opening up SFH zones to townhomes would be one example. And yes, they may not be immediately more affordable than the home they replace, but they're going to be a lot cheaper than what you'd get by waiting for that SFH to be redeveloped after a teardown or major renovation. And longer term, that's the path they'd otherwise go down. Plus you end up with homes for ~3 families instead of just 1.[/quote]

Some are and some aren’t. We have tax abatements for apartments near metro stations, tax abatements for townhouses with elevators, tax abatements for office conversions, and more! All but one of those tax abatements is only available for rental units.

We could do more condos (maybe tax abatements only for condos instead of rentals? Ownership does not have to mean a SFH only. But the developers don’t want to sell and why should they with the county excusing them from a big cost of ownership?
[/quote]

And we have programs for first time homeowners that aren't available to renters. And tax credits for homeowners that renters can't get. I'm not sure why you think tax abatements are the best tool here.

A lot of these things could be structure different ways. We could, for instance, expand subsidies to make up more of the difference between market-rate and MPDU housing, but a tax abatement ends up being easier and cleaner.

Is there pent up demand for condos in Montgomery County? My understanding is that demand for them is soft compared to townhomes and single family homes. While price affects that, there's also the issue of people not necessarily wanting to locked into a condo for the long-term (or eat the cost of purchase/sale fees).

And by the way, the tax abatements aren't tied to projects that are exclusively rentals. You can have a mix of rentals and condos and get those abatements.

And there are MPDU homes that are made available for sale. They work differently, though, and it is probably fair to say they're not incentivized as much as rentals. At least, not through tax policy. I'm not convinced they make much sense, though, compared to more direct and immediate tax credits or subsidies to first-time homeowners. Maybe there's a need to incentivize production, but incentivizing production of below-market-rate homes doesn't seem likely to work well in the long-term.[/quote]

Here’s the problem: People want to buy homes. In nearly every poll of current renters, more than three quarters say they want to buy. Politicians say they’re doing this bill or that bill so that there are homes for people to buy in their price range. But that hasn’t been what the initiatives have done. Worse, they’ve often done the opposite. This county is on pace to add maybe 100 SFH to its inventory this year. That’s not nearly enough. At some point, policy needs to deliver or you get a revolt. A lot of places have already revolted and you get what you have in the White House now. I’m sure it’s fun to glad hand all the real estate developers and talk big thoughts about all the latest market urbanism memes, but at some point we need something that works.

Also, the More Housing Now PILOT is only for rentals. Go read the bill. It’s amazing how little YIMBYs know about what’s actually in these bills they fervently support. [/quote]

That is literally the goal of the YIMBY policies, they hate single family neighborhoods/single family homes and think that other people shouldn’t be allowed to live in them. They want to force everyone else to live in apartment and bike to work. [/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