Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.

Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me.

Because we already have evidence that building more of a thing makes things cheaper. The only people opposing this are rich SFH owners who are afraid that their house won't double in value on the backs of the middle class.

PP is flat wrong. First, the rich are not dependent on SFHs for their net worth. The middle class in contrast are highly dependent on the value of their SFHs for their net worth. Upzoning will hurt the middle class not the rich. Second, if "building more of a thing makes things cheaper," why does the County want to reduce the supply of SFHs. Reducing the SFH supply theoretically should drive SFH prices higher, according to PP. I fail to understand the logic, assuming there is some logic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.

Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me.

Because we already have evidence that building more of a thing makes things cheaper. The only people opposing this are rich SFH owners who are afraid that their house won't double in value on the backs of the middle class.

DP/prior PP. There are plenty of MoCo detached SFH owners who wouldn't qualify as "rich" in this area, and I imagine many of them would prefer not to have increased density in their neighborhoods, especially if the infrastructure (schools, etc.) would not be adequate to support that increase (or already isn't adequate, like much of the closer-in, quite diverse southeast of the county).

As far as building more housing to make it cheaper, current high density zoning in the immediate vicinity of existing rail is under-built, and would offer much lower per-unit costs (vs. the additional density proposed in current detached SFH-zoned areas), while greenfield development farther out would offer lower costs for required infrastructure (vs. upgrades/expansions/retrofits of infrastructure in already built-out areas, as access is considerably more burdensome) as well as lower housing cost for those seeking it. Of course, neither of those options places increased density in already-built-out detached SFH communities closer in, and that is what "Missing Middle" advocates had espoused.

I don't see an objection to the per-neighborhood/area caps or keeping the changes from being permanently by-right via a renewable sunset provision until the approach proves out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.

Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me.

Because we already have evidence that building more of a thing makes things cheaper. The only people opposing this are rich SFH owners who are afraid that their house won't double in value on the backs of the middle class.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.

Agree except in this case, we don't even need to do our own pilot. We can just wait and see what happens in Arlington and Alexandria. Why we're pushing this through now rather than giving it just a little more time to be able to base our policy on real world evidence is beyond me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

It reduces unmet demand for apartments, not SFH. Don’t you think it’s silly to offer an apartment to someone who wants a SFH? Do you think they’ll consider that a satisfactory outcome or do you think they’ll still want the SFH? This isn’t about whether one is better than the other. It’s about meeting demand, and apartments aren’t perfect substitutes for SFHs. Lack of SFH may be driving some out migration of higher income households who prioritize getting the house type they want over having a shorter commute. Do you think that’s a good environmental, fiscal, or housing outcome?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

I'm not PP, but I offer this to hep move the conversation forward.... It reduces UNMET demand.

Now proceed...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Building something reduces demand for it? Are you the same poster who earlier claimed that SFH prices keep going up because there’s no demand for SFH? You seem to have a great handle on Econ.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

It's not adding to the supply of places families can live. Sure, it's adding a fuzzy substitute for some who could live there, and would consider a larger unit, but at the expense of SFH supply,.which is where there is greatest demand.

If the greatest demand is for SFH, why is anybody supporting upzoning, which will reduce the number of SFHs. I have missed the logic here. Presumably. the focus should be on building more SFHs, including townhouses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

And that is a great reason, until it plays out a bit, to keep any policy adopted both limited with respect to number of builds permitted (not too limited across the county, as that would undermine the main objective of the policy in the first place, but keep any one area from being greatly impacted in the short term) and temporary (not granting any by-right that would be difficult to claw back). If results seemed favorable, caps could be increased and the horizon could be extended, and these could be lifted entirely with further positive community experience.

I'd say try a pilot in one area, but that would be unfair to that area, could produce results idiosyncratic to that area instead of broadly evidencing effectiveness, and would not allow the overall increased capacity sought.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Also, this is not at all cut and dry from economists' point of view, and suggesting it is just simple supply and demand is a straw man. It reveals a lack of desire to have a true debate and look at real evidence.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

It's not adding to the supply of places families can live. Sure, it's adding a fuzzy substitute for some who could live there, and would consider a larger unit, but at the expense of SFH supply,.which is where there is greatest demand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

You do know that some people like both and building apartments reduces the demand across the board? Or are you a troll account for not understanding basic Econ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.

This is a common disconnect in YIMBY rhetoric. People complain SFH are too expensive, so the YIMBYs turn around and offer apartments. How’s an apartment going to help someone buy a SFH?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Fewer SFHs in MC means fewer wealthy people in MC. Fewer wealthy residents mean fewer tax dollars that pay for the social services. This is not an Ayn Rand mentality. People who need social services need social services. But someone has to pay the taxes that pay for those services. The net payors are not likely to be residents of these multi-unit dwellings. Reducing the number of SFHs is counter-productive from a fiscal standpoint. And a focus on upzoning is particularly stupid given the quantity of underutilized commercial property in MC, especially along Rockville Pike and Georgia Avenue. Latter are both also convenient to roads and public transport.

As far as I know, all or almost all of that land is already zoned C/R. If any of it is not yet zoned C/R, I would support rezoning to C/R. What do you propose to encourage those property owners to redevelop their commercial use to commercial/residential use?

The county has to make it more attractive to redevelop those properties than tear down existing SFHs. They give breaks to developers all the time.

I agree that there are some real eyesore stretches of Georgia and Rockville pike that at the same time have so much potential due to the public transport options.

The developers who redevelop the commercial properties are big developers like JBG or Saul or Pulte. I doubt they will be interested in tiny projects to replace a one-unit building with a four-unit building. I doubt even a medium-big developer like EYA will be interested.

But really, why not both? Not everyone in the buying or renting market for a unit in a multi-unit building wants a unit in a large multi-unit building right on a large road with lots of cars. Some people want a unit in a small multi-unit building on a quiet street with few cars. Why shouldn't that be an option, too?

Ah that’s the rub though- if you convert SFHs on a currently quiet street to multi unit buildings, the cars and noise increase.

It’s pretty much impossible to have everything you want in this area unless you are wealthy. I can’t afford to live in Bethesda and that’s ok.

No, that's not a rub. That's just the same old idea that multi-unit housing contaminates single-unit housing. It is 100% possible to build a duplex in an area that is currently exclusively uniplexes.

It’s possible but it’s improbable because the profit incentive overwhelmingly favors McMansions. Unless your also propose to seize property unless it has a duplex on it you’re not going to see many duplexes in transit-oriented neighborhoods.

Ok, great. Then the people who are all up in arms about it can put down their arms.

You’ll be satisfied when this policy fails?

When this policy fails to do what?

When it fails to produce more than a couple hundred housing units over five years and when it fails to lower prices. You’ll be happy with that outcome?

Yes, I would be happy with a couple hundred additional housing units over five years, in areas that were previously zoned exclusively-SFH. I would consider that a success.

What would the point of that be? Do you think it would lower prices?

The point of it would be a couple hundred additional housing units for people to live in, in areas that were previously zoned exclusively-SFH. I would have thought that went without saying.

I think there is someone on this thread that feigns ignorance and is being deliberately obtuse. For sh¡ts and giggles, presumably. Rephrasing statements or asking inane questions.

I guess you're thinking that everyone assumes what you assume, believes what you believe, and comes from where you're coming from. That's not true, though. Thus, the questions. Some of those questions are from me, but not all of them. If you can't answer questions about your opinions, maybe your opinions need more thought.

I had someone ask me for clarification twice when my point was pretty clear. Maybe it wasn’t you. Maybe there’s another person who doesn’t understand simple English. If that wasn’t you my apologies.

Yeah, sorry, that was me. I found it hard to believe that your argument against the proposed zoning changes was "I don't want more people in my neighborhood." But that actually was your argument.

Why is that hard to believe? Serious question.

lol, let's try this again:

Public service reminder:

Don't engage with The Questioner. They pose as earnestly seeking to understand your thoughts, but only aim to undermine others' understanding by twisting those into hyperbole against which to spout strawman arguments. They tend not to expose their own reasoning in a critiquable manner, and avoid fulsome dialogue or directly addressing any salient points made. Instead, they concentrate on any portion of a response that might be so twisted, so that any discourse serves only the twin purposes of casting doubt exclusively on that explained in a response and of building argumentative rhetorical responses to bring to bear in public meetings, allowing those supporting their perspective more effectively to paint and dismiss strawmen, and to avoid the difficult questions more reasonably posed by those expressing concern.

You’re right. My bad.

Anonymous wrote:At least we know who to blame when election time rolls around again.

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/07/weve-got-to-do-something-montgomery-county-takes-closer-look-zoning-in-single-family-neighborhoods/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0Wr4vTnRmwqOYAUiX7WIUFNzdDPP4UjmHIsC-GO1-2irqWbtfSxJu6OuI_aem_GMLQNZrgZi1qxwK1VNfU4w

Friedson explained that there is no legislation before the county council — yet.

“Ultimately, we’ll have additional community input and outreach, and we will have legislation that is before us,” he said.

Will they completely ignore all of the concerns? Absolutely.

His version of a “creative solution” is to just completely give up?

On top of it though, they keep saying things about "families" not being able to live in MOCO, but then turn around and suggest the smallest units possible to fit into the space. They're allowing extra density for projects with a unit size below 1500 sf. What in the...? How is this supposed to do anything other than add to the large supply of small apartments? It really does start to feel punitive.