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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments.  We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place. [/quote]

Well congratulations, poster who should have noted sarcasm but didn't to set up a strawman!

The kind of development likely to be built won't be attainable by those who can't pay $2k/mo, and won't be supporting true altruism toward those with low incomes.  However, it sure will bring additional residents without providing the infrastructure to support them, and, unfortunately, that under-servicing will tend to drive existing residents with higher means, modestly or otherwise, disproportionately out (and disproportionately keep those with such means from deciding to move in).  So, not really poverty, but definitely not improvement.[/quote]
I just don’t get it. Basically the economic growth strategy for the county is based on building more urbanized housing to benefit a bedroom community with high quality schools. As this strategy has played out, they intentionally have overtaxed roads and overcrowded schools while creating no jobs. People who want to and can afford to live close to employment centers and don’t like overcrowded schools and traffic are moving away, replaced by less affluent people with fewer options. The claimed housing was necessary to expand the tax base but in fact increases the drag on county resources leading to further tax increases. Planning, who have had a huge role instigating this negative feedback loop, just keep doubling down on their failure and at their worst, present their failures as success. We’re not getting poorer thanks to them, they have successfully made the county more economically diverse. Increased poverty is because bad and racist NIMBYs oppose zoning “missing middle” zoning changes that their own analysis finally had to admit would not be affordable. But since they are so stuck on form, they’re now calling it “attainable”. [b]And why are they stuck on “missing middle”?[/b] Because they spend too much time online and want likes and retweets on social media and the opportunity to win a plastic door stopper at a conference. [/quote]

Why do you think people shouldn't have the choice to live in a duplex, triplex, or small apartment building?[/quote]
Why is a duplex or triplex so important to you over a multi family apartment building that delivers more housing at a lower cost per unit? It’s so stupid.

You all talk about Europe when it suits you. “Missing middle” is not a housing form anywhere in Europe that delivers walkable neighborhoods. It’s all midrise multi family, interspersed with some high rise multifamily.[/quote]

I'm for large multi-unit buildings. I'm also for small and very small multi-unit buildings. Why do you think people in the US should not be allowed to have the choice to live in small or very small multi-unit buildings?

If your point is that only large multi-unit buildings should be allowed because they deliver more housing at lower cost per unit (which is not necessarily true), well, that's an argument for banning detached single-unit housing. Your point, not mine.[/quote]
Sorry, here is another question. It’s already permissible to combine R-60 lots and convert to townhouses. Why are you against townhouses? [/quote]

I'm not. I think detached single-unit housing, attached single-unit housing, and multi-unit housing should all be allowed.

As you know, the proposed zoning changes in Montgomery County are for allowing more types of housing. Detached single-unit housing will continue to be allowed, and other types of housing will also be allowed.[/quote]
By removing the MPDU requirement for R-60 conversion to THs, which is already legal, you will immediately see a lot of new TH construction that no one would object to. Instead you’re hyper fixated on a “missing middle”. It makes no sense from a practical standpoint and marks you as aesthetically obsessive ideologues. [/quote]

First of all, if you think that nobody would object to attached single-unit housing (new or conversion from detached single-unit housing), then you haven't been to many public meetings about housing.

Second of all, I don't think it's a good idea to remove the MPDU requirement.

Third of all, I think detached single-unit housing, attached single-unit housing, and multi-unit housing should ALL be allowed. Why are you so invested in continuing to ban duplexes, triplexes, and other small multi-unit housing?[/quote]
I love that you have now reframed SFHs to “attached single unit housing”.

You’re ideologically opposed to SFHs to such a degree that you want to characterize it is multifamily in the hopes that other people would oppose it too.

The reality is that there are THs all over Montgomery County interspersed with unattached SFHs. People don’t care. What they do care about is a neighbors house getting chopped into apartments or a getting turned into an apartment building in the middle of a SFH neighborhood. [/quote]

A SFH is a detached building with one housing unit. A townhouse is an attached building with one housing unit. SFH = detached one-unit housing. (Unless it has an ADU; then it's detached two-unit housing. Or maybe attached two-unit housing? I'm really not sure.) Townhouse = attached one-unit housing.

There absolutely are people who live in detached one-unit housing (SFH) who object to attached one-unit housing (townhouses). And also multi-unit housing. There are also people who don't object.

A duplex is exactly the same as a townhouse, only it's a row of 2 attached housing units, instead of a row of 6 or 8 attached housing units. Why would you be for townhouses but against duplexes?[/quote]
I too love to make up my own definitions when it suits me. If you work for Planning, god help us all because the situation is worse than I imagined. [/quote]

So how do you define the terms SFH, townhouse, and duplex? How about two-story apartment buildings with a total of four apartments, two on each floor, which are very common where I grew up - what's your term for those? How about three-story buildings that have a total of three apartments, one on each floor, which are very common in the Boston area - what's your term for those?[/quote]
Read the Glossary in Thrive. Jeebus.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/THRIVE-Approved-Adopted-Final.pdf[/quote]

Is this what you're talking about?

"A single-family home or dwelling unit is one primary residence on a recorded piece of land. A single-family detached home is a stand-alone structure that does not share any walls with another housing unit. A duplex has two side-by-side units with a shared party wall. Duplexes are considered semi-detached single-family units. Townhouses are considered attached single-family homes."

How about this? "Missing Middle housing: The term Missing Middle housing encompasses a variety of housing types that range from low- to medium densities such as duplexes; triplexes; quadplexes, live-work units; and clustered housing such as townhouses, courtyard dwellings and smaller apartment buildings."

How about this? "Multifamily housing: A building containing three or more dwelling units on a single lot."

Which of those housing types do you think should be banned?[/quote]
DP. Essentially you’re the when did you stop beating your wife guy.

The PP speculated that you work for Planning and based on your aggressively arrogant posting, I think that checks out.

You and Planning are so fixated on “missing middle” that you are obviously missing the forest for the trees and making the county worse off. By my count, you have about 5 years more of this nonsense before the state reforms MNCPPC. It is going to happen, but not while Elrich is CE. Once it happens, I think you will be singing a different tune once you are actually accountable to county residents and not committed to your own ideological agendas.[/quote]

They'll have moved on.  There will be no repercussions for them, only for those living in the under-served areas they forced into creation.[/quote]

Yes this is absolutely true. The YIMBYs usually don't live in the areas that will be signficantly impacted by the proposals. Many of them don't even live in MOCO and they work full-time advocacy orgs funded by developers like GGW, or NOVA YIMBYs. Most people don't support changing the zoning to allow multifamily housing everywhere by right, without regard for infrastructure or school capacity. This will be a financial disaster, and it cause a significant increase in taxes for MOCO resident. This proposal also will allow by-right subdivision of existing lots above a specific size, allowing developers to tear down an SFH and build two quadplexes by right. The planning people are dishonest, and changing the zoning to allow 4-8x density is not light touch "infill" development that has minimal impact on communities. Most residential developments are tax-negative, and the property tax revenue from new multifamily units will not come close to covering the increased expenses required for residents. They intentionally use convoluted planning terminology to obscure the actual intent of this plan so they can force it on county residents. Ironically, the YIMBYS that advocate for these ridiculous Missing Middle Policies are almost exclusively White men, but they love to Point to "racial equity" to justify their absurd agenda. YIMBYs want to force their urbanist biker bro lifestyle on everyone else and they do not care about the well-being of minority groups. This policy will disproportionately harm middle-class black and Hispanic households by significantly increasing density, traffic, and school overcrowding in their neighborhoods due to lower average land prices. The affluent, predominately white neighborhoods are more likely to be in HOAs, which generally prevent the development of multifamily housing. The affluent white neighborhoods also have higher average land prices, which changes the risk-adjusted profile for redevelopment to favor tearing down older SFH's to build new multi-million dollar SFH's. This proposal will make the racial wealth gap in MOCO worse, by encouraging the redevelopment of middle-class minority communities in a way replaces owner-occupied SFH's with rental units. This proposal will reduce home ownership/wealth-building opportunities for minority households and displace middle class families. [/quote]

Wow that was quite a…rant… I can see that you have some serious hate for white men that ride bikes!

Lot’s of fear to scare people! The logic is flimsy at best. Do you have any data to back up your claims?

Basic economics explain how increases in supply leads to softening prices so I doubt that adding more units will somehow make affordability worse than it would have been with fewer units. Doesn’t make any sense. The wealth gap has been growing just fine with the status quo so we know for a fact that we need changes. [/quote]

Anybody who quotes basic economics to explain housing markets doesn’t understand housing markets or the limits of basic economics.

Have you accounted for the fact that construction costs plus financing costs plus acquisition costs plus builder profit for a new small unit may exceed market price for a larger existing unit? Have you accounted for the fact that a McMansion is more profitable with less risk for the builder than several small units? Have you accounted for the fact builders might not want prices to go down so they limit supply? Have you accounted for the fact that markets aren’t functioning properly due to landlord collusion?

You’re perpetuating slow housing growth and MoCo’s garbage economy with your cocktail economics. You are a bigger enemy to growth than any NIMBY.[/quote]

They missed the whole ceteris paribus thing in Econ I.[/quote]
They never took Econ. They learned all of their housing economics on social media. [/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