Reply to The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution "

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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Oh see you're talking about like lawns[/quote]

Oh, see, you don't have appreciation for mature trees & foliage in existing neighborhoods that would more frequently be removed with increased pace of turnover/construction, for fields in proximity that aren't oversubscribed/driven to mud & dust any more than thry already are, or for parkland that isn't eliminated, itself, as the only parcel options for the additional area schools that would be needed.[/quote]

New suburban lawn developments are not going to have mature trees either. One form of growth is going to leave  more space for nature than another. [/quote]

One form of growth preserves space for nature near where people are and where that space might be well used.  The other preserves space for nature where people aren't.[/quote]

Which one of those is rock creek park?[/quote]

Are you suggesting that they should rezone park land to allow devlopment density?[/quote]

You put the density next to it. That way people are closer to the park than with SFHs.[/quote]

Great, as long as the park doesn't get overbooked, ending up with dirt playing fields, etc.  Just as with schools.  Or utility infrastructure.  So, basically, not most of the closer in neighborhoods built out long ago where the parks/schools/infrastructure/public services are already overbooked.  Or not until those are addressed such that they then could absorb the additional capacity without leaving the area under-served.[/quote]

If only we knew the relative per-capita utility infrastructure costs of low vs high density development....[/quote]

Quite, which is why it is terribly curious why there wasn't parallel analysis of similar rigor to Montgomery Planning's Attainable Housing Strategies covering additional density from high-rises within a half mile of a Metro.  Surely anyone considering such sweeping change responsibly would want to do that in full light of alternatives to the expressed societal need for additional housing, no?

And if only we knew the useful-life-amortized per-capita cost of infrastructure costs in greenfield development when compared to those useful-life-amortized per-capita costs of retrofit in already built-out areas.  I mean, it isn't like they have relevant examples with school additions or the Purple Line or anything... :roll:[/quote]

Schools are the most expensive thing by far in the county budget (more than 50%). Any increase in school enrollment will be at least 5-10X times the cost of alleged potential savings from "density". [/quote]

Schools are primarily funded through the county whereas major transportation projects are generally funded by the state, often with additional federal funding.

Also, schools will need to continue to grow regardless. The population is growing, and more housing is needed. The question isn't whether or not we'll build more housing, but where it will go and what it will look like.

When including all infrastructure costs, it is certainly cheaper to build with higher density rather than extending sprawl.[/quote]

If we are talking greenfield development and new infrastructure.  In this case, that is not what we are talking about.  We are talking about infill development and pre-existing infrastructure.[/quote]

There aren't many opportunities for infill development in Montgomery County. Even where we see it, it is usually moderately far out (e.g., White Oak, Rockville). Increasing density in developed areas is going to have cheaper overall infrastructure costs than more sprawl in Clarksburg.[/quote]

No it isn't.  Infill needs infrastructure upgrades which are more expensive than new build.  One can argue that the existing infrastructure needs upgrading already due to age but that's a different discussion.[/quote]

The big-ticket item is roads. While everyone likes to complain about any traffic, the main problem we have is with arteries, not local roads. The further out you put people from their jobs, the longer stretch of arterial roads need to be updated.[/quote]

Roads are still much cheaper than schools and the federal government/state cover a large portion of the cost of roads, so this comment is largely irrelevant. [/quote]

You realize kids go to school even if they don't live in your neighborhood, don't you?[/quote]

Once again, not rational for the county to pursue polices that will result in massive increases in school enrollment. The county share of school spending is $21,113 per year for each student. Policies that significantly increase student enrollment without a commensurate increase in tax revenue will bankrupt the county. This includes MM housing units, if they are truly "affordable" the tax additional property tax revenue will not come close to covering cost of educating additional students. [/quote]

Anti natalist MoCo boomers.[/quote]

I am not a boomer and I’m literally having a baby next year. The county cannot afford to import a bunch of tax negative residents that will create a fiscal deficit. A SFH house needs an assessed value of 1.685M for property taxes to cover the cost if providing local government services to those residents. A MM unit needs an assessed value of 1.37M to fund the cost fi providing local government services to those residents.  This MM policy will bankrupt the county by producing housing units that don’t cover their share of government spending and overwhelming local infrastructure. [/quote]

The worst offenders for  creating a fiscal deficit are the committed affordable units. They literally have higher student generation factors than brand new single family houses and they contribute minimal property tax revenue . The student generation. Factor for commuted affordable units is so high that each unit cost the county $14,525 per year to provide school services. The assessed value at most is around 300k so the county collects $3,100 for property tax revenue and loses $11,425 per affordable unit each year. Including the costs of other local government services, the county loses $18,838 per year (net of property tax revenue) for each committed affordable unit. Wake up committed affordable units will destroy the Arlington. The budget impact from low income housing units is completely unsustainable. https://www.arlingtonva.us/files/sharedassets/public/v/3/projects/documents/data-and-research/profile/profile_report_2024_final_4_3_24.pdf[/quote]

We get it. You don't want more kids in schools. Those of us who came here as kids and went to school? We don't mind so much that others get this opportunity as well.[/quote]

Nice mischarachterization of the PP.  They want school capacity to match the need.  Density proponents need to address this and other infrastructure issues in a far more appropriate manner.[/quote]

When this area went from rural to suburban,  growing its population, one weird trick that was done was more schools were built. I suggest a similar approach. If housing can grow vertically,  so can schools.[/quote]

5-10 story school buildings are much more expensive to build per Sq ft than shorter buildings. The land is also more expensive. No free lunch here. Do you want to raise everyone property taxes by 20%* to cover this more expensive construction style that cost close to double (per sq ft) in comparison with to building a single/double story school. [/quote]

Do not have to build schools. Buy the many vacant office buildings that are about to be demolished to build residential.[/quote]

Why don't you have to build more schools if you increase the population?[/quote]

Apparently not. There's always room for a few more. [/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