Reply to More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring"

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 went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.[/quote]

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update[/quote]

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs. [/quote]

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.[/quote]
The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for. [/quote]

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.[/quote]

DP.  You are deliberately being obtuse.  The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.[/quote]

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?[/quote]

That DP.  Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse.  A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a [i]high[/i] percentage of such jobs.  The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.[/quote]
Without job growth, the county is solely reliant on in-migration of affluent households who work elsewhere. What’s the value proposition that this county offers instead of living closer to your job? High taxes and a horrible commute.

What’s worse is that while Planning is targeting housing growth towards “affordable” or “attainable” housing to low-AMI households which induced more in-migration of low income households, they put up huge obstacles to build housing that would be attractive to wealthy households moving here. The outcome is that the poor population is growing and the rich population is aging out to retirement.

Anyone that thinks a tax base for a county that is growing increasingly poor can be sustained by a static number of about 100k people who either work outside of the county or are retired are fooling themselves.

If Planning was smart, they would get rid of MPDUs and require a 1-to-1 offset of housing new production targeting the top of the market for every regulated affordable or attainable unit approved.

Thrive allows for new housing types, including housing that is not street facing. It’s past time that lot splitting gets approved so that there can be a big rush of new housing production on those massive lots in Bethesda and Potomac.[/quote]

You seem to think that there's some tradeoff between, say, having density and transit vs. jobs. It's just so bizarre. People want to live in this county, people with jobs. And they want to be able to get to those jobs. [/quote]

DP / that "that DP" from above.  This "tradeoff"/"bizarre" characterization is yet another strawman-type argument.  PP is saying that there should be focus on attracting high-paying jobs to the area so that commutes may more often occur within the county at presumably lower impact, similar to that end sought by planners, but with a more economically sustainable result than that likely resulting from that which those planners currently propose.

With regard to the second idea in your post, one could as easily say, "People live in this county, people with jobs.  And they want to live with similar expectations related to the neighborhoods in which they settled as there were when they made the significant and heavily-burdensome-to-alter life decisions to settle there."  I suggest that Montgomery Planning (and the County Council members who appoint/approve the planning board members) should be more responsible to the current residents of the county than to potential residents of the county where such conflict exists.[/quote]

The County Council, which is elected by the voters of the county, keeps adopting plans that, according to DCUM, nobody wants - except evidently a majority of the voters of Montgomery County.

If you bought property in the expectation that nothing would change henceforth, I'm sorry, but you're going to be disappointed no matter what.[/quote]

Saying the County Council represents every view in the majority is disingenuous.  (See also: Supreme Court rulings)  When the County Council and the Planning Board they appoint might propose/adopt something counter to the wishes of the majority, it is entirely reasonable to expect opposing-view advocacy, with the consequence of electoral loss (and possibly legal action under certain circumstances) in the balance, to try to dissuade them from the objectionable approach.

Similarly, one might reasonably expect the same when a sizeable minority (or majority in one area) is disproportionately negatively affected, as appears to be the case, here, with residents of neighborhoods along University bearing the brunt of the change but not nearly representing a majority of the county electorate.  While they may not have an expectation of no change at all, they may have a reasonable expectation of fully informed agency, proportional to the relative expected impacts for them, when such change is considered, and that does [i]not[/i] appear to have been the case.

The "no change" charge, there, is just another strawman argument.[/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