Reply to MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values"

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]To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties [/quote]I agree.  If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread.  Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc.  It's appalling.  [/quote]

It has nothing to do with race or class and everything to do with density. Many areas cannot accommodate quadruple the population density and this policy does nothing to mitigate the costs imposed on residents or the county. They are even encouraging waivers of property taxes for these new plex units which will destroy the counties already strained finances. They are actively encouraging unfunded population growth and ignoring any possible consequences or infrastructure constraints that will harm county residents. [/quote]

They are not ignoring it.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/
[/quote]

Yes they are ignoring it. Their only response is that these things will have “minimal impact”, so don’t worry about it. They didn’t include anything in their final report to suggest that they did a thorough analysis on impacts to school enrollment or traffic. A question and answer page where they dismiss resident concerns without any evidence or analysis to support their assertions is complete bs.[/quote]

It is because their answer is the Growth and Infrastructure policy, which they reference.  The analysis is, and always has been, conducted at the time of development application.
"Mitigation comes in the form of Utilization Premium Payments (UPPs) that vary based on the School Impact Area, the type of development, the degree of projected overutilization, and the 
estimated number of students to be generated by the development. The payments are in addition to the school impact tax, which developers must pay on new residential units regardless of the adequacy status of the schools serving the proposed project area. School impact taxes help pay for new construction or classroom additions to school facilities countywide. The tax rates are determined by School Impact Area and residential unit type (single-family detached, single-family attached, multi-family low-rise, or multi-family high-rise) classifications."
https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Attachment-1-2024-GIP-Update-Public-Hearing-Draft_5-23-24.pdf

[/quote]

Yes , I have read the policy and you are being blatantly dishonest.

This report actually proposes reducing or eliminating the impact payments you are pointing mention that would help to mitigate school capacity and funding issues.
It proposes the following changes that will apply to many of these plex units
1) introduce a 50% discount for units under 1500sq feet (planning is recommending a maximum average unit size of 1500 sq feet for attainable housing development)
2)Any development with 25% of more MPDUs
Furthermore, the county already provides for the following 
3)exemption for all MPDUs.
4)all developments located in opportunity zones 
So this impact payment will not apply to most of these units and even when it does it will be a pittance in comparison to the actual cost per student to build new school facilities. Then county is also talking about 10+ property tax discounts to incentivize these new units. So there will be a completely inadequate impact payment structure for these units, because many if not most of the plex units will be exempt. They the county also wants worsen school funding issues defund by providing up to a 75% discount on annual property taxes for a decade or more. This policy is not beneficial for MOCO and YIMBYS are gaslighting county residents. The discounted impact payments and reduction in property taxes proposed eliminate any possibility that the county will be able to prevent this zoning change from harming our school system. Anyone who is a remotely reasonable person can see this.

[/quote]

The waiver of fees for MPDUs is wrong because the MPDUs are attracting higher need kids, straining already strained schools and police resources. [/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