Reply to MoCo Planning Board Meeting

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning"

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]Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.[/quote]

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development.  Start there.[/quote]

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?
[/quote]

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall[/quote]

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?[/quote]

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...[b]I'd like to keep it that way.[/b] There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.[/quote]

You have the option to move.[/quote]

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend [b]good neighborhoods[/b] so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas?  So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending.  MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good. [/quote]

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate.  More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.[/quote]

On 4, there is plenty of evidence that MoCo no longer attracts or retains the super wealthy.  Decades ago, Fairfax and MoCo [b]has similar average incomes.  Today, Fairfax far exceeds MoCo.[/b]  Separately, more people, particularly those needing services, does not increase the tax base.  At the Federal level, the bottom 50% pay roughly 3% of all income taxes, while top 50% pay roughly, and top 1% pay almost 40%.  I suspect many new residents do not pay for themselves.  Despite its absurdity, MoCo needs more rich people, not less.  Rich are not likely to be costing MoCo much.  MoCo seems to be more interested in attracting what might be called takers.  And, of course, MoCo needs to take of its own, within reason.

[/quote]

The average income per resident is not a proxy for how much revenue can be generated.  
More people absolutely does increase the tax base.
Federal taxes operate on a very different system.

Moreover, as has been discussed at length, the majority of housing that has been built is NOT subsidized housing.  There are a lot of people in between "very wealthy" and "non-tax paying takers" that are being housed.[/quote]

PP here.  This post says it well:

This is why the main, actionable takeaway from this research is to encourage the production of market-rate infill housing. In doing so, Montgomery County can become an innovator and a leader in solving a problem that many places have been slow to confront. If the county continues to provide enough housing to grow at all income levels, it can move past the zero-sum housing competition that currently exists. A growing housing “pie” reduces the competition for the last slice. Welcoming low-income residents becomes unsustainable only when the rate of increase of this population far outpaces those elsewhere along the income distribution—that is, when middle- and high-income population increases don’t keep pace. Montgomery County—along with others like it—needs to expand its middle-income group urgently, and the best way to do this is by adding housing that is attainable to this population. The Housing for All chapter of Thrive Montgomery 2050 notes several strategies for encouraging this type of housing.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/blog-design/2024/03/repositioning-montgomery-county-for-prosperity-part-3-abundant-housing-for-inclusive-growth/?fbclid=IwAR14UiOaW86zZLtrKlueISwylee4MdU2yfi74s82jqWe1dhGYJampiR75d0
[/quote]

That doesn’t mean that the county has to [b]just give up on any type of planning and analysis, throw everything at the wall, and see what sticks.[/b]  Upzoning is just lazy and punitive

Anyway, here is the planning presentation in case anyone is interested:

https://bit.ly/3w3jV5M[/quote]

I agree with you?

Which is why they are currently in the middle of planning and analysis....and why the study I posted and the video you posted exist.[/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