Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

The SFH were here first. What's actually wrong with moving the affordable housing complexes further out into the exurbs? It's both cheaper for the community and healthier for the residents thanks to all the beautiful nature. Win-win-win, plus a fourth win for the environment!

The forests were here first. Then the forests were replaced by farmland. Then the farmland was replaced by homogeneous subdivisions. Now the homogeneous subdivisions are getting replaced by heterogeneous subdivisions. If you think it's so nice to be way out in the exurbs, there are plenty of houses for you to choose from.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

The SFH were here first. What's actually wrong with moving the affordable housing complexes further out into the exurbs? It's both cheaper for the community and healthier for the residents thanks to all the beautiful nature. Win-win-win, plus a fourth win for the environment!

If the goal is to reduce homelessness, what you’re proposing is not effective. Sure, you could build a housing complex in rural Southern MD. You won’t find any takers; the people it attempts to serve will choose being homeless over going there. Then you’re back to square one.

You can find cheap land not that far out from MoCo.

Also, are you really suggesting a family would rather be homeless on the street than move into a nice unit with good amenities a little farther out, if given that choice? You seem like an armchair liberal who doesn't understand true poverty in that case.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

The SFH were here first. What's actually wrong with moving the affordable housing complexes further out into the exurbs? It's both cheaper for the community and healthier for the residents thanks to all the beautiful nature. Win-win-win, plus a fourth win for the environment!

If the goal is to reduce homelessness, what you’re proposing is not effective. Sure, you could build a housing complex in rural Southern MD. You won’t find any takers; the people it attempts to serve will choose being homeless over going there. Then you’re back to square one.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

The SFH were here first. What's actually wrong with moving the affordable housing complexes further out into the exurbs? It's both cheaper for the community and healthier for the residents thanks to all the beautiful nature. Win-win-win, plus a fourth win for the environment!

Because people who live in affordable housing complexes need access to public transportation and other services only available close-in. Increased suburban sprawl is terrible for the environment & increases the risk of traffic accidents. I’m not sure how having the most vulnerable people do the most driving is “healthier.”

Not true. Why not have a long-distance commuter bus? We could even make it free for low income riders.

What part of what I said is “not true”?

Your foregone conclusion that affordable housing must necessarily be placed in the most expensive downtown or close-in areas. You could actually save a lot of money moving developments further out and adding relevant infrastructure like a bus for example. Also, since money will go farther, developments could feature bigger units that would better serve big families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

The SFH were here first. What's actually wrong with moving the affordable housing complexes further out into the exurbs? It's both cheaper for the community and healthier for the residents thanks to all the beautiful nature. Win-win-win, plus a fourth win for the environment!

As if you care what’s good for the environment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

The SFH were here first. What's actually wrong with moving the affordable housing complexes further out into the exurbs? It's both cheaper for the community and healthier for the residents thanks to all the beautiful nature. Win-win-win, plus a fourth win for the environment!

Because people who live in affordable housing complexes need access to public transportation and other services only available close-in. Increased suburban sprawl is terrible for the environment & increases the risk of traffic accidents. I’m not sure how having the most vulnerable people do the most driving is “healthier.”

Not true. Why not have a long-distance commuter bus? We could even make it free for low income riders.

What part of what I said is “not true”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

The SFH were here first. What's actually wrong with moving the affordable housing complexes further out into the exurbs? It's both cheaper for the community and healthier for the residents thanks to all the beautiful nature. Win-win-win, plus a fourth win for the environment!

Because people who live in affordable housing complexes need access to public transportation and other services only available close-in. Increased suburban sprawl is terrible for the environment & increases the risk of traffic accidents. I’m not sure how having the most vulnerable people do the most driving is “healthier.”

Not true. Why not have a long-distance commuter bus? We could even make it free for low income riders.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

The SFH were here first. What's actually wrong with moving the affordable housing complexes further out into the exurbs? It's both cheaper for the community and healthier for the residents thanks to all the beautiful nature. Win-win-win, plus a fourth win for the environment!

Because people who live in affordable housing complexes need access to public transportation and other services only available close-in. Increased suburban sprawl is terrible for the environment & increases the risk of traffic accidents. I’m not sure how having the most vulnerable people do the most driving is “healthier.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

The SFH were here first. What's actually wrong with moving the affordable housing complexes further out into the exurbs? It's both cheaper for the community and healthier for the residents thanks to all the beautiful nature. Win-win-win, plus a fourth win for the environment!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

And I guarantee you that those 2 households will be paying less in taxes than that SFH. Net loss to MoCo. MoCo has plenty of places to build MFH.

Over the years, I've consistently been impressed by the frequency of posts suggesting that other people will care if the poster takes their ball and goes home.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

And I guarantee you that those 2 households will be paying less in taxes than that SFH. Net loss to MoCo. MoCo has plenty of places to build MFH.

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

Fine. Bye.

But, like, why? SFHs pervade in moco. It's not like they're all going to be torn down and replaced with MFHs.

Anonymous wrote:Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I'm ok with that. Maybe you can sell your house to a builder, who will replace it with a duplex, and then two households will have housing to move into. Win-win-win.

Ending SFH zoning is a sure way to get me to move out.

I have not heard of this…the end of the comment period is 3/31.

https://www.mwcog.org/community/planning-areas/housing-and-homelessness/regional-fair-housing-plan-comment-form/

There are area links at the bottom.

From the MoCo section, p 152:

Reform zoning and land use policies to expand access to fair housing choice by increasing the development, geographic distribution, and supply of affordable housing.
The prevalence of single-family residential zoning in the region makes it challenging to develop committed affordable housing that could offer housing opportunities to members of protected classes. Many cities across the country are allowing greater zoning density to meet the demand for housing, resulting in lower development costs per unit and new condo and cooperative homeownership models.
a. Revise zoning regulations to allow as-of-right ADUs.
Currently, the District of Columbia, Arlington County, Fairfax County, Loudoun County, and Montgomery County allow ADUs in most of their residential zones. ADUs have the potential to expand affordable housing options without expanding land development. This is particularly relevant in the region, where the preponderance of land is zoned for single-family housing.
b. Increase inclusionary zoning incentives for creating on-site affordable housing and increase fees in lieu of providing on-site affordable housing.
Inclusionary housing programs often lack enough financial incentives for providing on-site affordable housing. Increasing these incentives along with increasing fees for developers who choose alternative compliance options will increase the likelihood of creating additional committed affordable housing units in high opportunity areas.
c. Adopt zoning changes that facilitate the development of affordable housing as of right.
Multifamily housing remains the most effective way of producing deeply affordable housing that is critically necessary to meet the needs of Black and Hispanic households and persons with disabilities in the region. Zoning that allows affordable multifamily housing developments as of right in designated areas such as the Council of Government’s “Activity Centers,”43— denser, mixed-use housing and job centers—can reduce the cost of affordable housing development, thereby increasing the number of units that are able to be developed from year to year. Overlay districts are a way of achieving this goal while avoiding the opportunity cost of predominantly market-rate multifamily development and, particularly, development that yields few family-sized units and monopolizes desirable sites.