Reply to MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The petition on change.org has been updated and it is now adding interactions with elected officials in Annapolis:

https://www.change.org/p/protect-single-family-zoning-in-montgomery-county/u/32926332

28 sept 2024
Dear fellow petitioners,

We (myself and several neighbors) have asked our Delegates in Annapolis to introduce and support the enactment of an amendment to the MD Code that would prevent municipalities in Maryland from amending a zoning law to authorize residential uses other than single-family housing in residential areas zoned for single-family housing without first obtaining approval from the qualified voters of any jurisdiction that is covered by such an amendment.

In other words, we'd like voters to have a say in any proposal that would allow duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes (or any other forms of housing other than single-family housing) in neighborhoods currently zoned for single-family housing.

Email me at jlavorel@outlook.com to indicate whether (and how) you would like to be included in our interactions with our elected officials in Annapolis.

Jennifer[/quote]

They forgot the word "exclusively". Residential areas zoned EXCLUSIVELY for single-family housing.

It's nonsense, anyway. [b]Voters already have a say - by electing the members of the County Council.[/b][/quote]

[b]Repeatedly refuted, [/b]here and elsewhere, by the observations that:

The scope and extent of the densification strategy currently being put forth were part of no platform of any of the councilmembers at the time of their election (even Sayles, who had been on the Planning Board).  Each of them has avowed that these details from Planning are new to them as of the June submission.

Election of a representative does not equate to accedance to that representative's views on every issue.

Voters can still get their say at the next election, but if the Council moves forward in a way that would make publicly popular retraction of densification policy difficult (e.g., by enacting a zoning text amendment with language that creates by-right development or development approvals without the public hearings that otherwise would be necessary) and/or does so in a way that preempts the [i]possibility[/i] of a ballot initiative that would provide more direct public determination prior to densification action, then they would more clearly be pushing this against the will/interests of those they were elected to represent.[/quote]

You can't refute it. It's a fact. It's like saying gravity has been repeatedly refuted.[/quote]

So in your world, voters only ever vote once and have no recourse of recall, ballot initiative or the next election cycle when a candidate's position has become clear and that position is terribly unpopular.  Okaaaaaayyy, then...

What has been refuted is not that the council was elected or that they [i]can[/i] make a zoning text amendment.  What has been refuted is the concept that their having been elected should mean that anything within the purview of their office should be considered right and just, and be accepted by the populace without contest, because, effectively, "voters already had their say in the last election." Even when those positions were not known or made public prior to election.  Or even though the candidate's voting support when elected was the result of their positions on completely separate issues, and not on the one in question.[/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