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]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]

You seem to be assuming that any new housing resulting from the ZTA will be in addition to the roughly 2,000 housing units that have been delivered each of the past few years. That’s not necessarily a good assumption. The addition of a few dozen units in one of these corridors may cause another developer nearby to delay a larger project.

You also seem to be under the misimpression that housing prices are a function of expenses + a reasonable fixed profit. That’s not true. The price for housing is whatever the market will bear. Costs set a floor (during the financing stage), not a ceiling. You admit these units won’t be cheap. They would have to be produced in tremendous quantity for filtering to provide meaningful price relief to teachers and other county employees. If they are produced in such quantity, they will almost certainly suppress construction of units in big projects, so the housing resulting from the ZTA won’t be additive to annual production, and there will be no downward pressure on prices.

This proposal stands a better chance of resulting in smaller developers delivering units on top of what bigger developers otherwise produce if the units are distinct from what’s already being delivered. The larger the lots and the projects are, the more similar housing produced under the ZTA will be to units in larger projects.

One of the major selling points of the ZTA is to enable construction of housing types that aren’t produced right now. Why make that outcome less likely with lot consolidation?[/quote]

The idea that a few dozen units from ZTA 25-02 would “crowd out” larger projects misunderstands how the development pipeline works. High-rise apartments and large mixed-use developments take years to assemble land, secure financing, and get approvals. Smaller projects, like those facilitated by ZTA 25-02, can be delivered by a different set of investors, on a different scale, and for a different market than the 200-unit high-rises currently being built. They don’t replace those projects.

Yes, prices are market-driven, but more variety at more price points helps relieve pressure across the market and provides additional opportunities to find suitable and affordable housing. Someone who can buy a new townhouse near transit, or rent in a small neighborhood apartment, frees up housing elsewhere in the chain. Filtering is cumulative.

You are certainly correct that the number of units that can be created under this ZTA so limited that the practical effect will be small. But baby steps are preferable to inaction. And for a variety of good and bad reasons, there isn't a practical and desirable way to suddenly reduce housing costs significantly at scale. This is a long-term problem that will need to be addressed through short and long term policies.

If the goal is to actually produce housing types we’re not building now, we need to make them work. Sometimes that will mean townhomes in established neighborhoods, and sometimes that will small apartments. Given the small size of lots, consolidation is necessary to simply allow them to fit.[/quote]

Disagree. Rents are stagnant or falling, so developers aren’t eager to add inventory right now anyway. Developers and investors focus on overall housing inventory, not how big each project is is. 50 more units on Georgia Ave resulting from the ZTA could absolutely cause a developer to push pause on a 100-unit building nearby because the 50 additional units changed the absorption math enough that the resulting rents won’t hit the target. The ZTA will cause substitution, not addition, if the SRA is passed as proposed. On top of that, it will be less likely to yield ownership opportunities, so it will protect the windfalls that landlords are getting because a bunch of high-income tenants can’t find housing to buy. [/quote]

You've got your scales wrong. The apartments allowed under this ZTA would be closer to 25 than 50. And the homes being built are predominantly part of much larger projects than even 100 units.

These smaller apartment buildings are not going to significantly affect the large projects-- they’re planned on different timelines, under different regulatory frameworks, with different financing, and serve different markets. If anything, small and mid-scale projects keep supply steady when big builds stall, mitigating the boom-bust cycle that drives rents up.

Flat rents now don’t mean "stop building." Smaller-scale projects can move ahead in slower markets and deliver sooner-- adding to overall supply, not replacing it.

And ZTA 25-02 can deliver ownership, too. Flexible lot rules open up sites for for-sale townhouses and condos, giving buyers more options.[/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