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]I'm the one who asked if any lawsuits have been filed yet.

A lawsuit was filed against the exact same BS in arlington and the homeowners prevailed:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/09/27/missing-middle-ruling-lawsuit-housing-arlington/

I'm praying that happens here.[/quote]

I don't get this. If you don't want to live near anyone, move to Carroll county.[/quote]

This is very circular reasoning. Where are people that need quiet neighborhoods supposed to live if no where is safe from high density development. You guys want to eliminate single family neighborhoods everywhere, but have the nerve to tell everyone else they should just move. [/quote]

ZTA 25-02 doesn't allow high density development, nor does it apply everywhere.

You really shouldn't be shocked by the prospect of townhomes and small apartment buildings directly on major, multi-lane roads- especially downcounty.

If your goal is a single family home with minimal neighbors, buying a home with a large lot on Carroll County is the best way to do that.[/quote]

“Townhomes and small apartment buildings.” This bill is so good you can’t stop lying about it. [/quote]

I wouldn't say it's good, although it's better than nothing. It is far too limited. The new moderate-density options should have extended to lots within 500 feet of the major road, not just those directly on it.[/quote]

There is no distance limit (from the road) for application of this ZTA. Someone could combine 5 lots and create a 1500 foot parcel, then they would be edible to the develop the whole parcel at a much higher density as long as there is 100 feet of frontage on a major road. [/quote]

So you didn't read it.[/quote]

Where in the ZTA does it limit lot size or consolidation? Pinpoint citation please. [/quote]

Did you read the associated subdivision rules?[/quote]

That's a bill, not a law, and, yes, I have read it. In case you're not tracking, laws and bills are different things.  The former has legal effect while the latter doesn't.  Nothing PP said was untrue.  There's no requirement that the SRA be passed before the ZTA takes effect, though I understand that's the objective.

For small-scale, workforce housing, we should be talking about subdivision, not consolidation.  Friedson only put forward the SRA when people started calling him on the loopholes in the ZTA.  As drafted, the SRA is too generous.  The resulting development will be in the same market segment as existing apartment buildings, so it will draw investment from areas that have better transit access (but higher land costs) to areas with lower land costs.  No, the money the developer saves on land will not be passed onto the renter.  That money will go back to the developer (or the developers' investors) as profit. However, the real beneficiaries here are the land speculators.  They'll get unearned windfalls as they jump into this brand new speculative chain that Friedson has created for them.  Remind me again what business his big donors are in?[/quote]

Is the ZTA in effect either? No. Your complaint is pedantic at best.[/quote]

So was yours.  Now address the other point.

For small-scale, workforce housing, we should be talking about subdivision, not consolidation.  Friedson only put forward the SRA when people started calling him on the loopholes in the ZTA.  As drafted, the SRA is too generous.  The development that results from consolidation will be in the same market segment as existing apartment buildings, so it will draw investment from areas that have better transit access (but higher land costs) to areas with lower land costs.  No, the money the developer saves on land will not be passed onto the renter.  That money will go back to the developer (or the developers' investors) as profit. However, the real beneficiaries here are the land speculators.  They'll get unearned windfalls as they jump into this brand new speculative chain that Friedson has created for them.  Remind me again what business his big donors are in?[/quote]

There's a need for both apartments/rentals and more affordable homes for purchase (e.g., townhomes).

In both cases, what is is created won't be the cheapest housing. But the development of that additional housing will limit the growth in costs of other housing.

Without more production, prices will continue to raise significantly faster than inflation due to increased demand from a larger population.  And only focusing this production in high-rise buildings next to metro results in some of the most inherently expensive housing (due to land and construction costs).[/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