There’s also crime on Public transit and it will only get worse. Sure I can be carjacked but that’s also your fault

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll need to read this bill myself but this sounds discriminatory or eliteist (I’m searching for the right word). How are the people supposed to get to work, shop, visit family, go to places not accessible to metro? It does not seem like a well thought out bill. It seems like a pat yourself on the back bill.

You know how, when you're driving around in your car, and you look through your windshield, you sometimes see people out and about who aren't in cars? Have you ever asked yourself what those people are doing?

I’m the PP quoted and to answer your question It was very hard. I was one of those people for about 20 years of my life here in MoCo. It would take me about an hour and a half to two hours on public transportation to get to a destination. I had the time metro and bus schedules. I would have to help my parents carry groceries home. I had calluses on my hands from walking 15 to 20 minutes from the grocery store to my house carrying gallons of milk, cans and general groceries. I could go on and on about our hardships without a car and relying on public transportation but I think you’re going to dismiss my experience because it doesn’t fit your narrative. When my parents finally got a car, it was life-changing for us.

So when I’m driving around in my car and look through my windshield, I’m very thankful that I have my own transportation. My groceries are safe in the trunk, and I don’t have to wait outside in freezing, rainy, or extreme heat. And my husband scolds me for this, but when I see a woman and child waiting out in these elements, I will offer them rides.

That's very kind of you. So, on a personal level, for you, if this bill becomes law, all you will have to do in response is not move into a condo near a Metro station, if it doesn't have a parking space. And, on a policy level, the solution is not for everyone to have a car and drive it everywhere; it's for transportation and land use policies, including better public transportation, so that people don't have to have a car and drive it everywhere in order to meet their daily needs.

Question for nanny staters. How do you go to Costco type places using public transit ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll need to read this bill myself but this sounds discriminatory or eliteist (I’m searching for the right word). How are the people supposed to get to work, shop, visit family, go to places not accessible to metro? It does not seem like a well thought out bill. It seems like a pat yourself on the back bill.

You know how, when you're driving around in your car, and you look through your windshield, you sometimes see people out and about who aren't in cars? Have you ever asked yourself what those people are doing?

I’m the PP quoted and to answer your question It was very hard. I was one of those people for about 20 years of my life here in MoCo. It would take me about an hour and a half to two hours on public transportation to get to a destination. I had the time metro and bus schedules. I would have to help my parents carry groceries home. I had calluses on my hands from walking 15 to 20 minutes from the grocery store to my house carrying gallons of milk, cans and general groceries. I could go on and on about our hardships without a car and relying on public transportation but I think you’re going to dismiss my experience because it doesn’t fit your narrative. When my parents finally got a car, it was life-changing for us.

So when I’m driving around in my car and look through my windshield, I’m very thankful that I have my own transportation. My groceries are safe in the trunk, and I don’t have to wait outside in freezing, rainy, or extreme heat. And my husband scolds me for this, but when I see a woman and child waiting out in these elements, I will offer them rides.

I’m all for it. Enough with the cars and the fools who drive them. Use the space for parks, pedestrian areas, retail, whatever. The world does not need more parking!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ll need to read this bill myself but this sounds discriminatory or eliteist (I’m searching for the right word). How are the people supposed to get to work, shop, visit family, go to places not accessible to metro? It does not seem like a well thought out bill. It seems like a pat yourself on the back bill.

You know how, when you're driving around in your car, and you look through your windshield, you sometimes see people out and about who aren't in cars? Have you ever asked yourself what those people are doing?

They’re obviously walking to their car.

🙄

Anonymous wrote:Can somebody post to the actual legislation?

Whatever it says, I'm sure it doesn't "limit parking." What it most likely does is reduce the existing mandatory minimum parking spaces in code. That does not mean there will be no parking spaces. What it means is that rules that are not needed and are FREQUENTLY granted exemptions will no longer be in place.

Found it, and I was correct:

SUMMARY OF KEY DISCUSSION POINTS
• ZTA 23-10 will exempt residential uses from the baseline parking minimums in the Zoning
Ordinance if located near transit.
• To qualify as “near transit”, the use will need to be: within ½ mile of a Metro station; within ½
mile of a Purple Line station; or within ¼ mile of an existing Bus Rapid Transit station or a Bus
Rapid Transit station that has been funded for construction in the 6-year CIP at the time of
application.
• A public hearing is tentatively scheduled for January 16, 2024.
https://montgomerycountymd.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=169&event_id=15982&meta_id=167865

Can somebody post to the actual legislation?

Whatever it says, I'm sure it doesn't "limit parking." What it most likely does is reduce the existing mandatory minimum parking spaces in code. That does not mean there will be no parking spaces. What it means is that rules that are not needed and are FREQUENTLY granted exemptions will no longer be in place.

Anonymous wrote:Simple, we will not shop there and businesses will lose business.

You will not shop where? At new housing near transit hubs? What would you be shopping there for?

Anonymous wrote:I’ll need to read this bill myself but this sounds discriminatory or eliteist (I’m searching for the right word). How are the people supposed to get to work, shop, visit family, go to places not accessible to metro? It does not seem like a well thought out bill. It seems like a pat yourself on the back bill.

You know how, when you're driving around in your car, and you look through your windshield, you sometimes see people out and about who aren't in cars? Have you ever asked yourself what those people are doing?

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

Using transit (for example, Metro or a bus), their feet, a bike or e-bike, an e-scooter, a taxi, a ridehailing service, a rental vehicle, and/or delivery. How is this even a question?

What's more, the proposal would not forbid developers from providing parking spaces, and also would not require people to live in units without parking spaces. So if the developers were worried that people would be unable to shop without having a parking space, all they would have to do is: provide parking spaces. Similarly, if potential residents were worried that they would be unable to shop without having a parking space, all they would have to do is: not move there.

Are you seriously suggesting that the county must continue to require developers to provide parking spaces for condo units within one-half mile of a Metro or Purple Line station (a 10-minute walk) or within a quarter mile of a bus rapid transit station (a 5-minute walk), because otherwise people will be unable to escape from domestic abusers?

There are currently, right now, plenty of people in Montgomery County who don't own a car. If you don't know any, then it might be a good idea for you to get out more and meet some.

https://www.mymcmedia.org/council-considers-reducing-parking-requirements-for-new-housing/

I’ll need to read this bill myself but this sounds discriminatory or eliteist (I’m searching for the right word). How are the people supposed to get to work, shop, visit family, go to places not accessible to metro? It does not seem like a well thought out bill. It seems like a pat yourself on the back bill.

Anonymous wrote:At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable

Developers and their Smart Growth spinners assert the same thing in DC, but then argue that their new projects should enjoy residential street parking. The notion that any cost savings are passed on in the form of lower housing prices is fiction. The savings go right to the developer’s bottom line, and the situation is a classic economic case of shifting the cost/externalities (parking) on to the public.

Simple, we will not shop there and businesses will lose business.

At new condos etc. meaning not providing parking spaces . How do people shop? Buy large items? Get away to avoid a domestic abuser? He claims it costs less to not have parking spots so costs go down. Laughable