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]As it unlikely that the Council is still reading this thread, if they ever did, at page 37, you can submit feedback to the County Council via this portal here.  This way, it will be read by all members of the Council.

https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/
[/quote]

Not that folks shouldn't provide that feedback, either positive or negative, but they should do so with the grain of salt that this is likely performative.  The response is already written, and had been some time back, along the lines of:

"After unprecedented community engagement and careful review of the commentary of Montgomery County residents, representing both full-throated support of the Attainable Housing Strategies presented by Montgomery Planning and neighborhood concerns, [insert sponsoring Councilmembers' names] are proposing legislation that will bring much of that vision to reality.

[Insert language almost identical to that used at the beginning of the listening sessions regarding the housing shortage and affordability, pointing to conformance with Thrive]

We are appreciative of the considerable response to our outreach, and we listened closely to the concerns expressed by our neighbors and fellow Montgomery County residents.  Our decision to take action does not come lightly, and, as we move forward, we are heartened by the knowledge that many resident concerns can be addressed through well established County processes.

Montgomery County is growing and changing.  To truly thrive, we must embrace that change by supporting growth for the many who would call our County home, and addressing that need for housing must remain our overwhelming concern.

We thank the Planning Board, particularly Chair Artie Harris, and those at Montgomery Planning, led  by Jason Sartori, who worked long and hard to produce the recommendations on which this proposed legislation is based.  We also thank those members of our Council staff who have reviewed the recommended actions, identifying alterations, now included in our proposal, that better comport with existing County processes and law.  We encourage our fellow Montgomery County residents to lend their support to this important legislation."

The proposal, enshring many of the allowances as by-right and without significant limit, will probably drop sometime between the election and the holidays, likely close to one or the other to minimize notice/exposure in the news cycle.  The required hearings, etc., will remain performative, and the following vote will be scheduled for a time towards the beginning of summer -- long enough to claim it was not at the first possible moment and, therefore, not "rushed."  The only thing then will be to decide an effective date that would minimize notice of related activity leading into the following election cycle's primary, as all but Friedson would be safe in their seats with Democrat nomination, and Friedson will be aiming for an office that cycle where having passed this kind of legislation might help him.  Somewhere in the middle of all of this, the less noticed but effectively paired effort to reduce development impact taxes will skate through.

Anyone looking to have something different happen without some rapid indication to the contrary, now that the listening sessions are over, might need to look into a recall effort.[/quote]

We’ve seen enough resistance that I think a very healthy lawsuit is guaranteed.  Probably a series of them.

There is no realistic way to justify what the county is proposing.[/quote]

You've missed all the groudwork that went in to laying out their justification.  Why do you think Planning was asked only to focus on the one avenue?

They also will have the benefit of knowing the outcome of Arlington's effort to craft the proposed legislation to help proof it against suit, and likely the result of an appeal before final ammendments and passage.[/quote]

Oh, I know.  I’m saying that while they tried to hide it as much as possible, just like they did with Thrive, the opposition is widely known this time around, and their complete lack of research and lack of justification in moving this forward is transparent.  These people are not rocket scientists, I think that some attorneys will have a field day picking this apart.[/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