+1!!!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

Speak for yourself. My kids school is significantly over capacity and the roads are already full of cars parked on both sides. Building a 50 foot tall sfh 5 feet from my property line would absolutely ruin my families quality of life.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be voting republicans next election. Sadly, I realize there are too many communist/socialist/progressives in MD for my vote to make any difference.

As much as I'd like to live here my whole life (I truly do), I think I'll have to move once I have some financial independence.

Where are you going? Everyone keeps claiming they will leave, but nobody says where they are going.

The states with the most permissive zoning / no zoning are red states. Go to FL or TX and you can literally build a quasi-industrial site in residential neighborhoods, not to mention condos or apartments.

It’s quite strange to say you will vote Republican in order to get more government regulation.

Virginia

You're going to go to Virginia to escape upzoning? Good luck with that. Arlington was the first mover on upzoning in this area with its missing middle concept.

Seems to be a smooth process so far lol.

Anyway, the key isn’t necessarily by state. Buying property just means doing more research. Potential upzoning is just another potential hazard, like buying in a flood zone. You want to be as close to the water or beach without potentially being in it.

I bought a vacation house, which might eventually be a retirement house, in an area with a structured long term plan.

STRUCTURED. Not lazy libertarian trickle down free for all YIMBYism.

Lots of multifamily being built using old commercial space, industrial space, and vacant lots. However, there no appetite at all for upzoning SFH, because it’s stupid and ruins the characters of the very neighborhoods that make it a nice place to live and draws people there. Mixed use is still coming, infrastructure is being improved (IMAGINE THAT), and generally it’s not some libertarian fantasy simcity hellhole.

Then, for a little extra safety, I bought in a legally protected historic district. So, still might come up near me, but it’s well planned and there will be new stores and shops and the value of my home will go up while I enjoy it. This is the zoning equivalent of living close to the water but away from the flood zone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone should be emailing their state senator and representatives. This is a huge government overstep. We have local municipalities and county officials who know the specifics of the neighborhoods they represent.

No. The government overstep is dictating what owners of private property can and cannot build on their land.

That’s right, I’m going to sue because they won’t let me build a fracking site.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proving yet again that these attempts to change zoning and add density only make wealthy people and builders wealthier. They don’t help people move into areas they previously couldn’t afford. They just ensure that more very expensive housing options fill the space.

What exactly about supply and demand are you too dumb to understand?

No one is contesting supply and demand, but the market does not determine infrastructure, prevent environmental damage, or build public schools. The purpose of zoning is to mitigate externalities and protect quality of life for residents.

The supply and demand thing is the only car they have to play. They never made it far enough to study externalities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

Agree! What an exaggerated hysterical title for a post.

why is it a good idea? and please note this wont add any "affordable" housing. it will mostly allow developers to take a 1.5 mill SFH and create 2 or more 900K townhomes. I guess the county/state will see more property tax income, but theyll burn through that.

will we get lower property taxes, better services, what is good about it?

Uh.. $900k is more affordable than $1.5 million

How high do you need to make minimum wage so that the dishwasher at McDonald's can afford a $900k SFH?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

Agree! What an exaggerated hysterical title for a post.

why is it a good idea? and please note this wont add any "affordable" housing. it will mostly allow developers to take a 1.5 mill SFH and create 2 or more 900K townhomes. I guess the county/state will see more property tax income, but theyll burn through that.

will we get lower property taxes, better services, what is good about it?

Uh.. $900k is more affordable than $1.5 million

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be voting republicans next election. Sadly, I realize there are too many communist/socialist/progressives in MD for my vote to make any difference.

As much as I'd like to live here my whole life (I truly do), I think I'll have to move once I have some financial independence.

Where are you going? Everyone keeps claiming they will leave, but nobody says where they are going.

The states with the most permissive zoning / no zoning are red states. Go to FL or TX and you can literally build a quasi-industrial site in residential neighborhoods, not to mention condos or apartments.

It’s quite strange to say you will vote Republican in order to get more government regulation.

Virginia

You're going to go to Virginia to escape upzoning? Good luck with that. Arlington was the first mover on upzoning in this area with its missing middle concept.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'll be voting republicans next election. Sadly, I realize there are too many communist/socialist/progressives in MD for my vote to make any difference.

As much as I'd like to live here my whole life (I truly do), I think I'll have to move once I have some financial independence.

Where are you going? Everyone keeps claiming they will leave, but nobody says where they are going.

The states with the most permissive zoning / no zoning are red states. Go to FL or TX and you can literally build a quasi-industrial site in residential neighborhoods, not to mention condos or apartments.

It’s quite strange to say you will vote Republican in order to get more government regulation.

Virginia

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Proving yet again that these attempts to change zoning and add density only make wealthy people and builders wealthier. They don’t help people move into areas they previously couldn’t afford. They just ensure that more very expensive housing options fill the space.

What exactly about supply and demand are you too dumb to understand?

No one is contesting supply and demand, but the market does not determine infrastructure, prevent environmental damage, or build public schools. The purpose of zoning is to mitigate externalities and protect quality of life for residents.

Anonymous wrote:Proving yet again that these attempts to change zoning and add density only make wealthy people and builders wealthier. They don’t help people move into areas they previously couldn’t afford. They just ensure that more very expensive housing options fill the space.

What exactly about supply and demand are you too dumb to understand?

“Moore falsely claimed that he was born and grew up in Baltimore, which he did not; that he was inducted into the Maryland College Football Hall of Fame, an organization that doesn't exist; that he received a Bronze Star for his service in Afghanistan, which he had not…”

His entire life story is fake.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

I fully intend to help destroy my suburban neighborhood, and make a nice pile of cash doing it.

We’re on a big corner lot in Chevy Chase View, and if this goes through, we’ll form a developer LLC, knock our current SFH down, and replace it 5-7 townhomes. At the current market, we’d clear about $1.6M after construction and sales.

I hate this neighborhood and I hate my neighbors, and nothing would delight me more than to stick a bunch of low-end townhouses right here on the corner for everyone to look at.

I'm not understanding the math here. Wouldn't you clear more than that just selling your house to a developer? They still have to bid against people that may want to keep it as a SFH, so it's not like they can only bid your land value. They can bid more because they intend to do just what you mention.

If you aren't in the business, it sounds crazy to me that you will assume 100% of the risk and expense (not to mention, where are you living during the 2 years to do all this and how much does that cost?), just to clear $1.6MM vs. what would you clear just selling to a developer and moving on.

Why would we sell to a developer for $1.5ishM when that developer will just turn around and net $1.6M after demo and construction expenses for some builder-grade townhouses?

Makes a lot more sense for us to just keep the property, form our developer LLC, hire a contractor, spend $100k raising our home and doing site prep, then another $7-800k building a half dozen townhouses, and selling each for $500k.

After paying off the remaining balance on our loan, and permitting fees and construction expenses, we’re still up $1.6(or more)M.

So to be clear: you’re asking “why we’d rather walk away with $1.6M instead of $600k?”


I don’t really understand why you’d ask that question.


I don’t understand you….. at all.

Because unless you are in the business of building homes, I guarantee your numbers are off by likely a wide margin.

Just your $100k estimate for razing your home and doing prep work is probably off by like $150k in the DMV. How are you possibly building 6 townhomes for $800k? How big are these townhomes?

If you are directly in the business, then maybe you do know what you are talking about.

Why are you only getting $600K if you sell your house to a developer for $1.5MM?

Yes, I’m tangentially “in the business”, so my figures are nailed down.

If you’re in the business why would you sel your townhouses for $600k each when you could get twice that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

I fully intend to help destroy my suburban neighborhood, and make a nice pile of cash doing it.

We’re on a big corner lot in Chevy Chase View, and if this goes through, we’ll form a developer LLC, knock our current SFH down, and replace it 5-7 townhomes. At the current market, we’d clear about $1.6M after construction and sales.

I hate this neighborhood and I hate my neighbors, and nothing would delight me more than to stick a bunch of low-end townhouses right here on the corner for everyone to look at.

I'm not understanding the math here. Wouldn't you clear more than that just selling your house to a developer? They still have to bid against people that may want to keep it as a SFH, so it's not like they can only bid your land value. They can bid more because they intend to do just what you mention.

If you aren't in the business, it sounds crazy to me that you will assume 100% of the risk and expense (not to mention, where are you living during the 2 years to do all this and how much does that cost?), just to clear $1.6MM vs. what would you clear just selling to a developer and moving on.

Why would we sell to a developer for $1.5ishM when that developer will just turn around and net $1.6M after demo and construction expenses for some builder-grade townhouses?

Makes a lot more sense for us to just keep the property, form our developer LLC, hire a contractor, spend $100k raising our home and doing site prep, then another $7-800k building a half dozen townhouses, and selling each for $500k.

After paying off the remaining balance on our loan, and permitting fees and construction expenses, we’re still up $1.6(or more)M.

So to be clear: you’re asking “why we’d rather walk away with $1.6M instead of $600k?”


I don’t really understand why you’d ask that question.


I don’t understand you….. at all.

Because unless you are in the business of building homes, I guarantee your numbers are off by likely a wide margin.

Just your $100k estimate for razing your home and doing prep work is probably off by like $150k in the DMV. How are you possibly building 6 townhomes for $800k? How big are these townhomes?

If you are directly in the business, then maybe you do know what you are talking about.

Why are you only getting $600K if you sell your house to a developer for $1.5MM?

Yes, I’m tangentially “in the business”, so my figures are nailed down.

So, you are a developer yourself. It's just you will reap the rewards vs. a 3rd party developer.

Newly built townhomes in Chevy Chase View would go for $1.2M easy. PP would way more than what they think they would. These townhomes fetched almost $1.5M each and they are under The Beltway.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Chevy-Chase/3729-Glenmoor-Reserve-Ln-20815/home/167686977

They would cost way more than $135,000 each to build...unless they are like 800 sq ft townhomes. None of the math makes much sense...building townhomes for $135,000 and selling them for $500,000.

these are really ugly for 1.5M

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

I fully intend to help destroy my suburban neighborhood, and make a nice pile of cash doing it.

We’re on a big corner lot in Chevy Chase View, and if this goes through, we’ll form a developer LLC, knock our current SFH down, and replace it 5-7 townhomes. At the current market, we’d clear about $1.6M after construction and sales.

I hate this neighborhood and I hate my neighbors, and nothing would delight me more than to stick a bunch of low-end townhouses right here on the corner for everyone to look at.

I'm not understanding the math here. Wouldn't you clear more than that just selling your house to a developer? They still have to bid against people that may want to keep it as a SFH, so it's not like they can only bid your land value. They can bid more because they intend to do just what you mention.

If you aren't in the business, it sounds crazy to me that you will assume 100% of the risk and expense (not to mention, where are you living during the 2 years to do all this and how much does that cost?), just to clear $1.6MM vs. what would you clear just selling to a developer and moving on.

Why would we sell to a developer for $1.5ishM when that developer will just turn around and net $1.6M after demo and construction expenses for some builder-grade townhouses?

Makes a lot more sense for us to just keep the property, form our developer LLC, hire a contractor, spend $100k raising our home and doing site prep, then another $7-800k building a half dozen townhouses, and selling each for $500k.

After paying off the remaining balance on our loan, and permitting fees and construction expenses, we’re still up $1.6(or more)M.

So to be clear: you’re asking “why we’d rather walk away with $1.6M instead of $600k?”


I don’t really understand why you’d ask that question.


I don’t understand you….. at all.

Because unless you are in the business of building homes, I guarantee your numbers are off by likely a wide margin.

Just your $100k estimate for razing your home and doing prep work is probably off by like $150k in the DMV. How are you possibly building 6 townhomes for $800k? How big are these townhomes?

If you are directly in the business, then maybe you do know what you are talking about.

Why are you only getting $600K if you sell your house to a developer for $1.5MM?

Yes, I’m tangentially “in the business”, so my figures are nailed down.

So, you are a developer yourself. It's just you will reap the rewards vs. a 3rd party developer.

Newly built townhomes in Chevy Chase View would go for $1.2M easy. PP would way more than what they think they would. These townhomes fetched almost $1.5M each and they are under The Beltway.

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Chevy-Chase/3729-Glenmoor-Reserve-Ln-20815/home/167686977

They would cost way more than $135,000 each to build...unless they are like 800 sq ft townhomes. None of the math makes much sense...building townhomes for $135,000 and selling them for $500,000.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.

I fully intend to help destroy my suburban neighborhood, and make a nice pile of cash doing it.

We’re on a big corner lot in Chevy Chase View, and if this goes through, we’ll form a developer LLC, knock our current SFH down, and replace it 5-7 townhomes. At the current market, we’d clear about $1.6M after construction and sales.

I hate this neighborhood and I hate my neighbors, and nothing would delight me more than to stick a bunch of low-end townhouses right here on the corner for everyone to look at.

I'm not understanding the math here. Wouldn't you clear more than that just selling your house to a developer? They still have to bid against people that may want to keep it as a SFH, so it's not like they can only bid your land value. They can bid more because they intend to do just what you mention.

If you aren't in the business, it sounds crazy to me that you will assume 100% of the risk and expense (not to mention, where are you living during the 2 years to do all this and how much does that cost?), just to clear $1.6MM vs. what would you clear just selling to a developer and moving on.

Why would we sell to a developer for $1.5ishM when that developer will just turn around and net $1.6M after demo and construction expenses for some builder-grade townhouses?

Makes a lot more sense for us to just keep the property, form our developer LLC, hire a contractor, spend $100k raising our home and doing site prep, then another $7-800k building a half dozen townhouses, and selling each for $500k.

After paying off the remaining balance on our loan, and permitting fees and construction expenses, we’re still up $1.6(or more)M.

So to be clear: you’re asking “why we’d rather walk away with $1.6M instead of $600k?”


I don’t really understand why you’d ask that question.


I don’t understand you….. at all.

Because unless you are in the business of building homes, I guarantee your numbers are off by likely a wide margin.

Just your $100k estimate for razing your home and doing prep work is probably off by like $150k in the DMV. How are you possibly building 6 townhomes for $800k? How big are these townhomes?

If you are directly in the business, then maybe you do know what you are talking about.

Why are you only getting $600K if you sell your house to a developer for $1.5MM?

Yes, I’m tangentially “in the business”, so my figures are nailed down.

Proving yet again that these attempts to change zoning and add density only make wealthy people and builders wealthier. They don’t help people move into areas they previously couldn’t afford. They just ensure that more very expensive housing options fill the space.