Reply to There is no housing crisis in MoCo or most of the DMV for that matter

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "There is no housing crisis in MoCo or most of the DMV for that matter "

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]And here we have the same folks who can't have a reasoned discussion on a similar thread come back to dig up this one to try to keep at top of mind a justification for increased "missing middle" densities in detached SFH neighborhoods [b]via zoning redefinition end-arounds that avoid the level of input of residents of those neighborhoods that standard processes would entail.[/b]

But, hey, they want what they want, and who cares if they take it from someone else or if it ends up in places that won't have the infrastructure to support the additional residents?  Gotta make it seem like a crisis to get that done!  And please don't consider alternatives that aren't in exactly those places -- those wouldn't work for the kinds of developers they are supporting!  :roll:

Anyone with such ideas or objections must be ridiculed with strawman hyperbole and other rhetorical employment of logical fallacy.[/quote]

Eh? There is a legal process. The process includes public input. The county is following the process.[/quote]

That's an insincere response, and you know it. How often does the county [i]redefine[/i] away zoning such as they are currently pursuing?  The normal process would [i]re-zone[/i] properties, which would require more significant input from the individual neighborhoods to be rezoned.

Knowing they wouldn't get enough support there, "missing middle" supporters have adopted the zoning text amendment approach.  But even that they've messed with by not changing the entirety of R60 zoning and the like, but by limiting the changes to certain geographic areas -- essentially the neighborhoods for which they would otherwise need to use the more community-inclusive/responsive process.

And this is on top of recent redefinitions of many corridor neighborhood edges into separate "neighborhoods" (or shifting them to adjacent already-higher-density areas) so that they could apply zoning policy just to those without the same neighborhood input.

I mean, one can edge closer to the nuclear option all one wants -- that's technically part of the "legal process," too, but then we end up with hyper-polarized, junk government and Trump SCOTUS appointees.  Have you learned nothing, or do you find your policy pursuit important enough to minimize the voices of those most directly affected?[/quote]

I'm curious what the actual real world difference is between what is happening and what would happen if individual properties were rezoned?  My understanding is that the individual process requires sending something through US mail to adjacent owners letting them know what is happening and telling them how they can provide feedback.  That is the only thing that (maybe) didn't happen here.  However there was a strong public engagement plan for the Thrive plan as well as a LOT of public messaging about what is going on, as well as public hearings.  So the argument you are making is that something would have been different had a couple hundred residents received a post card in the mail?[/quote]

Again, that's an insincere response.  And that drives ever farther from rational discourse.

Of course it makes a difference to have that direct, physical notification.  In such cases, a greater proportion of those participating in providing feedback are from those most directly affected areas.  The time available at hearings does not become as dominated by those [i]already lined up in support[/i] of a development application or initiative.  The notice also generates involvement earlier in the process.

What we have, here, are what should be those local processes handled county-wide and with less certain timely awareness.  Those pushing for it are still lined up, but not only can dominate the early interaction, where significant change is more possible, but also can pull involvement, with the more generally diffused notifications across the county, from areas that aren't directly affected, again minimizing the input of those who are.

Thrive carried a similar engagement paradigm that limited relative input from those most directly affected.

If you think that those most directly affected are not those living in these neighborhoods or that they should not have greater say about changes more directly affecting their neighborhoods than those not in thier neighborhoods, then we simply disagree.[/quote]

First, please stop calling my thoughts "insincere."  It was sincere.  And it is rational to inquire about the actual impact of a certain process on the opportunity for meaningful feedback from the community.

It would be helpful to know, in a data driven way, if a postcard in the mail would have increased resident involvement in a meaningful way.  I don't have the time at the moment to track down what outreach was conducted by the County to what geographic areas at what time, nor do we know what proportion of people providing input were notified by what method.

It is not grounded in a solid foundation (though I won't say "insincere") to assert that the County is following the process that it is BECAUSE of an intention to limit community awareness and opportunity to provide input.  That assertion runs counter to many actions the County has taken, including a robust and frequently updated website and blog....none of which is required by zone/ordinance.  
[/quote]

And none of which provides the affected neighborhoods the differentially greater, meaningfully early-in-the-process input that they should have.  How many folks independently decide to check county websites to see if there is something new affecting them?  That's part of the reason, if not the entirety of it, that the direct postcard notification is supposed to be employed. If you don't get that, you effectively don't get invited to the table.  Of course those pushing for the change are enamored of the relatively unfettered influence they gained with pursuit of a zoning text amendment.

I used the word "insincere" because I meant that.  You clearly have a grasp of the processes.  Anyone with such would already know the relative deficiencies I'd laid out and how that might negatively impact the voices of those in those more directly affected communities.  The natural conclusion is that you are posting simply to undermine the thought, rather than to provide a rational counter (or, *gasp*, acknowledge the point). [/quote]

Just to level set, the original assertion I am responding to here claims that a group of nefarious YIMBYs actively manipulated a process, doing something extremely out of the ordinary via an "end around", with the specific intent to "minimize the voices of those affected."  That poster characterized anyone in support of this approach as not caring at all about the impacts because "they want what they want" and any attempt to support missing middle housing as "strawman hyperbole and other rhetorical employment of logical fallacy."

If this is the same poster, I find comments about logical rigor and intellectual honesty to be disingenuous at best.[/quote]

OK, taking this step by step.  I did write that.  Perhaps the nuance of sarcasm in the middle paragraph was lost for you in the reading. "But, hey, they want what they want..." and the rest reads differently from just "they want what they want," especially with the eye roll at the end.

The last statement did not say any argument to support missing middle was a logical fallacy, but continued the sarcastic tone to note that [i]those who had posited viewpoints or supplied data/analyses in opposition regularly had been met by hyperbolic strawman arguments[/i], etc., instead of more rational discourse.

You may incorrectly have found that and following posts disingenuous, but I would imagine most would be able to catch the proper tenor, given the language used.

That whole post was to note that the discussion on the related thread (MoCo Planning Board Meeting -- Upzoning -- https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1194023.page), which had been the more active recently, had been abandoned and this one resurrected when it seemed that there were robust arguments in the other thread against upzonig.  That, itself, would be a tactic of rhetoric, avoiding a more difficult rejoinder.

[quote]I acknowledge, and never asserted otherwise, that more notice could have been given and that different processes require different modes of notice to different groups of people.  I concede that less notice as *an effect* on the number of people that will engage.

I contest that:
- the ZTA process is unusual or an "end around."  Rather, it is an established and regularly used way to change zoning.
- the ZTA process was used for the purpose of limiting community feedback
- that the impact of different notice is substantial to the end result.[/quote]

Responding to the second part, here.  Thank you for the clear statements.  However:

- Less notice has an effect not only on the [i]number[/i] of those likely to engage, but also on the [i]likely mix[/i] of proponents and opponents, with those participating due to being aware by means other than public notice, including involvement in the initiative in the first place, then more likely to be in the proponent camp.

- The ZTA process, when used, which is less typical than rezoning, is meant to change the allowances for the whole of the particular zoning category.  Here, we have the addition of that which amounts to special sub-zoning, affecting only those properties assigned that zoning [i]but within a certain distance of public transport[/i], much more properly addressed with a new zoning category and application of that new category (or a different existing one without having to create something new, if one with the right characteristics is available) to the desired areas.  That would have triggered the more neighborhood-inclusive notice/process, of course.

- Based on how this has played out (and on discussions here and elsewhere from well before), I absolutely contend that this avoidance of proper inclusion of/weight given to affected neighborhood voices was among the intents of those choosing the ZTA path.

- I'm not sure on what basis you suggest there would not be a different result with the proper process.  We can never know, as the proper process was not utilized, but past rezonings have typically drawn concessions to neighborhood interests as those interests and the breadth of their support actually see the light of day.  No/diminished voice in political processes typically leads to results unfavorable to the disenfranchised.[/quote]

[b]purpose and frequency of ZTAS:[/b] The County has enacted on average more than one ZTA per month for the past several years.  It is common.  They also frequently change existing language that already distinguishes between areas within that text.  One recent example was the ZTA to change the parking minimums requirements, which differentiates by proximity to transit.  It has also been used to make changes to allowable uses that affect only certain properties, such as overlays in Bethesda and Silver Spring.  The zoning code in MoCo and most other places has always included what you call "sub-zoning" within it, and ZTAs is used all the time to make adjustments to those.
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/leg/zta/2023.html

[b]your contentment:[/b]  Nothing really to respond to here.  The process currently being used is the most commonly used across the country for similar changes.  It is the "proper process." And the process has been ongoing, not rushed, supported by multiple public hearings, outreach, and information updates for the entire county.

[/b]impact on result[b]: This gets back to my original question that you deemed "insincere."  Now it seems we agree.  There is at this point no way to know the impact.  So in the same way we cannot assume there will be none, we can not assume it will be substantial.

[/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