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]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]

Side question - are these listening sessions being recorded?  Minutes taken and distributed?  As far as I know they are not being recorded, and that strikes me as very odd that in 2024 that these sessions are each just one and done with no record of what transpired.

Happy to be wrong here if they are available.[/quote]

The recordings are available on this page:  https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/resources/AttainableHousingStrategies.html
A summary of the concerns raised can be found here:  https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/
[/quote]

Thanks for the link to the recordings.  The "What we're hearing" page does not cover those, having been posted before the listening sessions, and, though some of the concerns from those sessions are reflected, the undetailed summaries are hand-waived away in the same breath, without opportunity for response to the hand-waving.

For instance, the concern about school undercapacity is dismissed both by claiming that additional numbers will be too small to matter and by claiming that existing processes will cover that, without detailed analysis offered.  Meanwhile, there is no mechanism offered to ensure such limited numbers within a school catchment or neighborhood, and the lived experience of county residents is locally lumpy overcapacity of schools going unaddressed for decades while the Council continually underfunds associated MCPS budget requests, while they reduce school-related impact taxes that might help close the gap.  Neither of these considerations is given voice, and the same might be said for the rest of the items on that page, giving it the flavor of a propaganda piece.[/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