Reply to Where do MoCo council members live?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Where do MoCo council members live?"

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]I think the effects of this will be very marginal. To build a triplex a developer has to buy a sfh lot, which means someone has to sell it to them. My guess is they might add 3-5 triplexes in my neighborhood in one year. So 6-10 new units. Really nothing compared to an apartment building. I think prefer that to the massive McCraftsman homes they are building on narrow lots in the neighborhood.[/quote]

Likely to be concentrated in areas where the new housing options provide the best return for developers.  Also to accelerate tear-down/rebuild overall, again given the increased and more varied return opportunities, so not so good if you prefer not to be near construction.  You may prefer a large structure split among three owners to a large structure that is only for one, but recognize that [b]not all share that preference[/b], with particular concern over inadequacy of schools and other public facilities.  The notes of the plan basically pooh-pooh those concerns, glossing over meaningful detail and suggesting that it will all just work out through other mechanisms without at all suggesting measures to hold off on increased density where and while that infrastructure remains inadequate.[/quote]

DP. Individual people can have whatever preference they have. But when the goal is increasing the supply of housing, it does look like a good option.[/quote]

It's the only option that their [b]hand-picked [/b]Planning Board and Planning Director bothered to have worked up.

Increase the supply of housing by encouraging high density in Metro-served areas where it already is zoned?  By incentivising development in and providing transportation to greenfield areas, where infrastructure can be better planned and where it can be more economically built, while at the same time incentivising job center development nearby?  These and others weren't put forth as options in anything but the most strawman fashion, much less worked up to allow comparative analysis and public consideration.

But doing that would only make sense if the goal actually [i]was[/i] increasing the supply of housing...[/quote]

I agree with you that there are a range of options and many if not all of them should be pursued.  But they ARE doing most of it.

Incentivizing development:  https://montgomeryplanning.org/development/zoning/incentive-zoning-update/
Incentivizing job center development: https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/a-new-20m-program-aims-to-boost-montgomery-countys-lagging-economy/
The greenfield development has been analyzed and concluded there isn't much left without touching the preserve.  People could argue to get away with the preserve.  And maybe that is worth exploring.

Not to mention the AHS itself is a multi-faceted proposal.  I would urge people to think about what parts of it they actually object to, as opposed to the whole thing.  Is it the number of units allowed?  Maybe it should be less?  Which areas are a problem specifically?  Is transit corridor defined a little too broadly?

(And as an aside, what is the point of the phrase "hand picked" in your first sentence?  How do you think these people should be selected?  And does that apply to all such Boards?)[/quote]

Regarding “hand-picked,” I think that poster is saying that the council and previous planning board had already shoved Thrive through and then the council specifically chose planning board members that they knew would continue to grease those wheels rather than anyone that would be critical of that plan.[/quote]

In other words, the County Council duly adopted the general plan update (Thrive), and then chose to appoint people to the Planning Board who support the County Council's policy directions. Which...yeah? Why should the County Council choose to appoint people to the Planning Board who oppose the County Council's policy directions?[/quote]

I guess that’s one interpretation.  Another is that they pushed through a vague and poorly vetted “Plan” that was dreamed up by a former planning board that had to resign in disgrace, picked up that plan right where they left off and assembled a new group of lackeys and yes people to push it right along.

Legal? Sure, I suppose.

Sleazy, definitely.[/quote]

The general plan update began in July 2018, and it was approved in October 2022. The last time the general plan was fully updated was in 1964.

It's the [u]general[/u] plan.

I don't know what you mean by "poorly vetted" or who - in your opinion - should have been doing the vetting but didn't.

I don't know why you put square quotes around the word "plan", given that it literally is a plan.

The Planning Board did not dream it up.

Maybe you can explain why you think the Planning Department should have had to start over from the beginning after the County Council asked the members of the Planning Board to resign.

The County Council appointed qualified people to serve on the Planning Board and as Planning Director. The Planning Director serves at will, so I suppose in that sense, all at-will employees are yes people. The Planning Board members might be surprised to hear that they are the County Council's lackeys.

And finally, y'all need to get over this. How can you be properly infuriated by the attainable housing initiative, if you're still using up your infuriation on the general plan update?[/quote]

Um, because it's a coordinated and multi-faceted approach, including elements at the state level, that relied on the understanding of each element's impact being poorly understood by the general public due to their being presented in relative vacuums and that took advantage of the exigencies of the pandemic to limit typical public engagement processes.  That's not to mention the utter lack of public engagement/review of the deeper and more sweeping aspects of the AHS prior to its being presented to the Council.  The whole effort has been to ensure things are effectively faits accomplis, with the resistance during later pro-forma engagement being met with claims of no viable alternatives when those alternatives that might have addressed concerns would have to have been worked up in the time when there was neither impact awareness nor engagement opportunity that would have encouraged more robust options analyses (and galvanized political opposition at an appropriate time had those options/analyses not materialized).[/quote]

I ain't reading all that.[/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