Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

Assuming you have done this calculation, would you mind pointing me toward those sources?

You don’t need to do any calculations. Look at the rates that were published May 1 last year and then look at the revised rates. Or look at the law and see that the calculation sets them below recovery cost.

I was looking for help finding those rates and estimates. Here is what I found on my own:

The impact fees for schools are a calculation of average students per unit x school construction cost per student = school impact fees
That calculation was 57% for turnover multifamily (though I'm not sure what that is a percentage of) That is significantly higher due to construction cost *at that time* when there were serious supply chain issues
The county then capped that at 20% (though anything not collected COULD be collected at a later date)
The rate will be readjusted again this year.
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/schools/school-impact-taxes/

And there is an additional fee that developers pay for school impacts apparently:
https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/countywide/growth-and-infrastructure-policy/schools/school-impact-taxes/

Conclusion: Developers are required by law to pay a fee specifically to offset construction of a new school, should that becomes necessary. As of this moment, that amount is not enough to completely pay for a new school, new to abnormality in the supply chain at the time of calculation. Historically it was sufficient and in the future it should be sufficient. "waived" fees can be recouped. Tax revenue generated from new development is an ongoing source of funding for the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

Assuming you have done this calculation, would you mind pointing me toward those sources?

You don’t need to do any calculations. Look at the rates that were published May 1 last year and then look at the revised rates. Or look at the law and see that the calculation sets them below recovery cost.

Can you please point me to the per seat construction cost of schools? I have searched and cannot find that.

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:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

By that same straw man, you'd be arguing against schools.

The point is to enact legislation that properly covers both housing and schools at once, instead of supporting legislation that covers housing at the expense of schools, without guarantee of legislation to fill the gap. Anyone paying attention over the past 20+ years or more knows that adequate school funding doesn't magically follow.

Why is that the point? Let's support housing. Let's support schools. Your position - I oppose this more-housing bill because it doesn't also include more schools - is opposing more housing.

Sure. Show me the current bill that will ensure school capacity and quality. We can combine that at the housing bill into something of an omnibus.

No? You're opposing schools. Nya-nya!

(I mean, come on -- you're not bothering to seriously address the issue, here. I hope others who don't want to read through the back and forth just go to the 10:29 post at the bottom post of page 6, presuming your next post would do something like cut out the earlier quotes trail.)

The summary you are referencing is not comprehensive and confuses a few very different issues that have nothing at all to do with school crowding. I do agree that people should read the bill that is linked there. Alternatively, there are a variety of summaries out there:

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/02/20/gov-moore-says-housing-proposal-will-work-hand-in-hand-with-local-jurisdictions/
https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/01/17/moore-administration-previews-housing-legislation-as-marylanders-face-housing-crisis/

A comprehensive summary is something of an oxymoron, but I'm open to critique if there's a relevant bit that would really change the basis of the conversation, here. What issues did you find to be confused in the post? (That haven't been hashed to death, above, that is.)

The two Maryland Matters posts you've given are pretty much mouthpiece articles for Governor Moore. I'd also encourage folks to read through the bill to see if they concur with the thoughts presented, here.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

My point was that if people are interested in knowing what the entire housing package says they should read that. We are in agreement on reading the bill text. And the two summaries were the first I found in searching. Open to other sources.

The post, while I agree well intended, hit a strange middle ground of expanding beyond the APFO section, but not being inclusive of all of the aspects.

Thanks. In this polarized society, I doubt I'd find a truly balanced piece on the legislation, and I wouldn't want simply to pin something that comes from the opposite viewpoint. Reading through it to the level of comprehension is more than many legislators might permit themselves, much less folks here (though I hope some do; it isn't that long).

Understand about the perception of a strange middle ground. I was trying both to note the various scopes considered in the legislation and to keep it relevant to this school-oriented discussion, where the AFPO section (adequate public facilities like schools, for the benefit of other readers) would have indirect but highly likely application to development envisioned in the other sections by way of some amount of Federal or state funding for such projects. Many of the other specifics (e.g., the varying low income percentage accommodations for housing development depending on the section under which the land might fall) seemed not as applicable, here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

I'm having difficulty following you. The topic of this post is about a proposal to allow development with no consideration of impact on school crowding.
The only provision that allows for that is state-funded housing.

All of the other sections do propose some density changes and streamlined permitting processes, but NOT exemption from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

I thought we were talking about schools, not just development in general?

Not sure why you are having difficulty following, but here it is, again:

Most affordable housing projects to which the other sections would apply (land previously owned by the state, land within a mile of a passenger rail stop, land owned by non-profits) would qualify for Federal and/or state financial support of the sort listed in Section 7-105 (A)(4)(I & II).

Section 7-105 (B) then exempts development receiving such funding from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

This is about schools, not that other infrastructure isn't important. Why set up low-income housing to be under-served?

But following your own analysis none of those other sections matter at all, so why are you referencing them? State funded housing is state funded housing, whether or not they are also other things.

The other sections were originally cited for completeness, giving readers of the 10:29 post at the bottom of page 6, here, an overview of the whole bill. Those sections were further specified to respond to the person incorrectly claiming my post was wrong and incorrectly attributing some thought about luxury condos to it. And then the tie-in between those sections and the more directly relevant section was explained.

The other sections do end up mattering, in that they make more areas (those specified by those sections, with caveats that make related construction likely to get some Federal or state funding) open to school-consideration-exempted development.

How do they do that? In other words, what developments other than "state-funded" are exempt from APFO/school crowding considerations as a result of those sections? Zero

I have to assume you are a pundit, now, aiming to distract instead of engage responsibly. It's been explained, somewhat painstakingly, including in the just-responded-to post. But the response always ignores the explanation, trying to cast doubt without substance. Again:

Sections 7-502, 7-503 and 7-504 create new situations for development. Those situations largely come with the kind of development to which section 7-105 would apply. If the bill didn't have 7-105, the development from those other sections would not be likely to be exempt from adequate public facility conditions. If the bill didn't have the other three, 7-105, though coming with its own school crowding burden, would apply over a smaller scope of development. Together, there is a larger negative impact on public facilities such as schools.

PP, not a pundit, just the rare genuinely curious poster....maybe slower than most.
This response was the first that helped me understand the point. You are saying that as a result of "loosening" permit requirements in other ways not associated with school issues at all there will likely be more overall development that falls into that bucket. Seems plausible, though I don't have a sense of how much of an impact. My instinct is that developers will gravitate much more toward the "luxury condo" development near transit and stay away from anything that limits the amount of revenue they can generate associated with state funding. There is no real incentive. But could happen.

Got it. Thanks for the explanation -- the repetition of critique, perhaps from others, was getting to me.

I agree that developers would more likely go for luxury condos if they could. I think the thing is that they go for whatever is in their wheelhouse that has the best profit potential. It's a business, after all, and that is the way of things. The bill really isn't about luxury condos, though I suppose some might get built in a development that has a certain percentage of affordable housing. The bill does make other development more attractive by reducing costs/barriers (in the microeconomic sense), making that more likely, which is in line with its just intent of providing more affordable housing.

I also agree that we won't really know the full impact until and unless we see it in action. However, experience has shown that we underfund schools in the first place and the logical result of the bill, as written, would be to allow avoidance of one of the main mechanisms we have designed to ensure at least a modicum of adherence to school capacity needs. The incentive is money and the votes that go along with that -- profit for the developers, low-cost housing for those in greatest need and avoidance of taxes for those not willing to support schools independently. That last bit is why there's been the useless back-and-forth with presumably another poster, more clearly a pro-housing pundit.

This would be a good one to see where Shebra Evans and Laura Stewart sit, philosophically, in their contest for the BOE District 4 seat. (One presumes Mandel is opposed.) Do they support the legislation, as is? Would they claim that Blueprint money or the like will cover any shortfall? Or would they accede to the idea that there shouldn't be such public-facility-burden-producing mandates without a means of ensuring funding to bear that burden? Would they differ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

Assuming you have done this calculation, would you mind pointing me toward those sources?

You don’t need to do any calculations. Look at the rates that were published May 1 last year and then look at the revised rates. Or look at the law and see that the calculation sets them below recovery cost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

There is a big difference between saying the impact fees don't meet per pupil cost and saying that the county loses money on housing units. Two erroneous assumptions off the top of my head: 1) not every unit results in a student; 2) It does not take into account ongoing tax revenue

I didn’t say pupil costs. I said average per seat construction costs. If impact fees are below cost recovery levels (which they are), then the county loses money every time it adds a housing unit. It is simple math. If fees are below cost recovery, the difference must be financed through debt issuance or taken from somewhere else. If it’s financed, then debt service costs eat away at the rest of the budget. (There’s also the choice of not building schools at all but that’s a bad outcome)

Ongoing tax revenue is going to support other services for new residents. For very expensive housing, ongoing tax revenue exceeds what services residents consume fairly quickly. For less expensive housing, it may take a long time. Either way, if impact fees are below recovery costs, something else gets hit or we don’t build schools.

And remember none of these fee cuts caused developers to lower prices or push the housing market into surplus. The fee cuts just made the developers’ profits bigger. It’s good for the county to spend money to achieve a public policy goal (lower housing prices in this case) but it’s not good for the county to spend scarce funds subsidizing developers to build high-end housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

Assuming you have done this calculation, would you mind pointing me toward those sources?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

There is a big difference between saying the impact fees don't meet per pupil cost and saying that the county loses money on housing units. Two erroneous assumptions off the top of my head: 1) not every unit results in a student; 2) It does not take into account ongoing tax revenue

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just don’t get why anyone would blindly support new developments without the infrastructure (like schools) to support it. Makes zero sense to me.

Montgomery County has NEVER built the schools before building the housing. Never.

Nobody is saying that Montgomery County needs to build the schools before the housing. However, it is reasonable to expect developers to set aside money or to designate a plot of land that can be used for future schools.

That is not happening.

Yes it is.

"Development Impact Taxes are, set by the Montgomery County Council, assessed on new residential and commercial buildings and additions to commercial buildings in the county to fund, in part, the improvements necessary to increase the transportation or public-school systems capacity, thereby allowing development to proceed."
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/DPS/fees/Taxes.html

What developers are paying is a fraction of what costs to support the students that new development generates. The county loses money on every housing unit it adds once you account for school costs. That’s a fact.

So two things:
1. The PP I was responding to said that developers are not required to set aside money to address schools. They are. That was false. You are now making a different point.
2. I genuinely and sincerely am interested in seeing anything that supports your "fact" that adding housing loses money for the county. And as you say not just theoretically or some, but "every unit" so indesputably true that "it is fact."

To your second point, look at the current impact fees and the average per seat cost of school construction. The impact fees are less than the average per seat cost of school construction. The county just lowered the impact fees again last year because school construction costs spiked and they didn’t want to burden developers with the cost increase. That impact fee cut last year was on top of the impact fee cut that they did three years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

By that same straw man, you'd be arguing against schools.

The point is to enact legislation that properly covers both housing and schools at once, instead of supporting legislation that covers housing at the expense of schools, without guarantee of legislation to fill the gap. Anyone paying attention over the past 20+ years or more knows that adequate school funding doesn't magically follow.

Why is that the point? Let's support housing. Let's support schools. Your position - I oppose this more-housing bill because it doesn't also include more schools - is opposing more housing.

Sure. Show me the current bill that will ensure school capacity and quality. We can combine that at the housing bill into something of an omnibus.

No? You're opposing schools. Nya-nya!

(I mean, come on -- you're not bothering to seriously address the issue, here. I hope others who don't want to read through the back and forth just go to the 10:29 post at the bottom post of page 6, presuming your next post would do something like cut out the earlier quotes trail.)

The summary you are referencing is not comprehensive and confuses a few very different issues that have nothing at all to do with school crowding. I do agree that people should read the bill that is linked there. Alternatively, there are a variety of summaries out there:

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/02/20/gov-moore-says-housing-proposal-will-work-hand-in-hand-with-local-jurisdictions/
https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/01/17/moore-administration-previews-housing-legislation-as-marylanders-face-housing-crisis/

A comprehensive summary is something of an oxymoron, but I'm open to critique if there's a relevant bit that would really change the basis of the conversation, here. What issues did you find to be confused in the post? (That haven't been hashed to death, above, that is.)

The two Maryland Matters posts you've given are pretty much mouthpiece articles for Governor Moore. I'd also encourage folks to read through the bill to see if they concur with the thoughts presented, here.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

My point was that if people are interested in knowing what the entire housing package says they should read that. We are in agreement on reading the bill text. And the two summaries were the first I found in searching. Open to other sources.

The post, while I agree well intended, hit a strange middle ground of expanding beyond the APFO section, but not being inclusive of all of the aspects.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

I'm having difficulty following you. The topic of this post is about a proposal to allow development with no consideration of impact on school crowding.
The only provision that allows for that is state-funded housing.

All of the other sections do propose some density changes and streamlined permitting processes, but NOT exemption from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

I thought we were talking about schools, not just development in general?

Not sure why you are having difficulty following, but here it is, again:

Most affordable housing projects to which the other sections would apply (land previously owned by the state, land within a mile of a passenger rail stop, land owned by non-profits) would qualify for Federal and/or state financial support of the sort listed in Section 7-105 (A)(4)(I & II).

Section 7-105 (B) then exempts development receiving such funding from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

This is about schools, not that other infrastructure isn't important. Why set up low-income housing to be under-served?

But following your own analysis none of those other sections matter at all, so why are you referencing them? State funded housing is state funded housing, whether or not they are also other things.

The other sections were originally cited for completeness, giving readers of the 10:29 post at the bottom of page 6, here, an overview of the whole bill. Those sections were further specified to respond to the person incorrectly claiming my post was wrong and incorrectly attributing some thought about luxury condos to it. And then the tie-in between those sections and the more directly relevant section was explained.

The other sections do end up mattering, in that they make more areas (those specified by those sections, with caveats that make related construction likely to get some Federal or state funding) open to school-consideration-exempted development.

How do they do that? In other words, what developments other than "state-funded" are exempt from APFO/school crowding considerations as a result of those sections? Zero

I have to assume you are a pundit, now, aiming to distract instead of engage responsibly. It's been explained, somewhat painstakingly, including in the just-responded-to post. But the response always ignores the explanation, trying to cast doubt without substance. Again:

Sections 7-502, 7-503 and 7-504 create new situations for development. Those situations largely come with the kind of development to which section 7-105 would apply. If the bill didn't have 7-105, the development from those other sections would not be likely to be exempt from adequate public facility conditions. If the bill didn't have the other three, 7-105, though coming with its own school crowding burden, would apply over a smaller scope of development. Together, there is a larger negative impact on public facilities such as schools.

PP, not a pundit, just the rare genuinely curious poster....maybe slower than most.
This response was the first that helped me understand the point. You are saying that as a result of "loosening" permit requirements in other ways not associated with school issues at all there will likely be more overall development that falls into that bucket. Seems plausible, though I don't have a sense of how much of an impact. My instinct is that developers will gravitate much more toward the "luxury condo" development near transit and stay away from anything that limits the amount of revenue they can generate associated with state funding. There is no real incentive. But could happen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

By that same straw man, you'd be arguing against schools.

The point is to enact legislation that properly covers both housing and schools at once, instead of supporting legislation that covers housing at the expense of schools, without guarantee of legislation to fill the gap. Anyone paying attention over the past 20+ years or more knows that adequate school funding doesn't magically follow.

Why is that the point? Let's support housing. Let's support schools. Your position - I oppose this more-housing bill because it doesn't also include more schools - is opposing more housing.

Sure. Show me the current bill that will ensure school capacity and quality. We can combine that at the housing bill into something of an omnibus.

No? You're opposing schools. Nya-nya!

(I mean, come on -- you're not bothering to seriously address the issue, here. I hope others who don't want to read through the back and forth just go to the 10:29 post at the bottom post of page 6, presuming your next post would do something like cut out the earlier quotes trail.)

The summary you are referencing is not comprehensive and confuses a few very different issues that have nothing at all to do with school crowding. I do agree that people should read the bill that is linked there. Alternatively, there are a variety of summaries out there:

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/02/20/gov-moore-says-housing-proposal-will-work-hand-in-hand-with-local-jurisdictions/
https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/01/17/moore-administration-previews-housing-legislation-as-marylanders-face-housing-crisis/

A comprehensive summary is something of an oxymoron, but I'm open to critique if there's a relevant bit that would really change the basis of the conversation, here. What issues did you find to be confused in the post? (That haven't been hashed to death, above, that is.)

The two Maryland Matters posts you've given are pretty much mouthpiece articles for Governor Moore. I'd also encourage folks to read through the bill to see if they concur with the thoughts presented, here.

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

By that same straw man, you'd be arguing against schools.

The point is to enact legislation that properly covers both housing and schools at once, instead of supporting legislation that covers housing at the expense of schools, without guarantee of legislation to fill the gap. Anyone paying attention over the past 20+ years or more knows that adequate school funding doesn't magically follow.

Why is that the point? Let's support housing. Let's support schools. Your position - I oppose this more-housing bill because it doesn't also include more schools - is opposing more housing.

Sure. Show me the current bill that will ensure school capacity and quality. We can combine that at the housing bill into something of an omnibus.

No? You're opposing schools. Nya-nya!

(I mean, come on -- you're not bothering to seriously address the issue, here. I hope others who don't want to read through the back and forth just go to the 10:29 post at the bottom post of page 6, presuming your next post would do something like cut out the earlier quotes trail.)

You're the one who says you won't support the bill unless it includes school funding.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

Does the bill ban new schools? Because if not, it seems like you should be busy advocating for more schools instead of against more housing.

Straw man, there, or non sequitur, at best.

Plenty, myself included, have advocated for schools -- more and better. I am not advocating against housing, but the adequate public facility statutory/regulatory framework was put in place to ensure that school funding, among other essential infrastructures. Kneecapping it is not necessary to promote affordable housing; what is necessary is the public will to fund affordable housing efforts at levels that make those adequate public facility guardrails work.

But that's not what we have, here, with SB0484/HB0538. That's more of an unfunded mandate from the state to the localities, and, again, sets those new affordable housing-residing citizens up to live in an area without adequate public facilities. They don't win...

Those others already in the community dealing with further overcrowding don't win...

Let's advocate for housing and schools, instead of dividing the issue, addressing only one side and demonizing those who object to that approach.

I agree with you: let's argue for housing AND schools. Unfortunately, you are arguing against housing.

By that same straw man, you'd be arguing against schools.

The point is to enact legislation that properly covers both housing and schools at once, instead of supporting legislation that covers housing at the expense of schools, without guarantee of legislation to fill the gap. Anyone paying attention over the past 20+ years or more knows that adequate school funding doesn't magically follow.

Why is that the point? Let's support housing. Let's support schools. Your position - I oppose this more-housing bill because it doesn't also include more schools - is opposing more housing.

Sure. Show me the current bill that will ensure school capacity and quality. We can combine that at the housing bill into something of an omnibus.

No? You're opposing schools. Nya-nya!

(I mean, come on -- you're not bothering to seriously address the issue, here. I hope others who don't want to read through the back and forth just go to the 10:29 post at the bottom post of page 6, presuming your next post would do something like cut out the earlier quotes trail.)

The summary you are referencing is not comprehensive and confuses a few very different issues that have nothing at all to do with school crowding. I do agree that people should read the bill that is linked there. Alternatively, there are a variety of summaries out there:

https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/02/20/gov-moore-says-housing-proposal-will-work-hand-in-hand-with-local-jurisdictions/
https://www.marylandmatters.org/2024/01/17/moore-administration-previews-housing-legislation-as-marylanders-face-housing-crisis/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The actual bill is #484 in the MD Senate and #835 in the House. You can review it at

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/bills/sb/sb0484f.pdf

It's more than development near transit. That's the second of three categories, and is anything within a mile of any passenger rail station. (Hellllooooo Garret Park!)

The first includes any property that was formerly owned by the State (no specification of how long back, so it could be anything that MD owned in, say, 1835) with a building over 50 years old.

The second includes any land owned by a nonprofit (e.g., house of worship).

There are variations in that which is forced to be allowed for the various subsections, but they follow the themes of increased density above anything permitted by local zoning (e.g., expressly allowing "middle" housing/2-. 3- & 4-plexes and townhouses in SFH-zoned areas) and affordable housing (per their definition, housing cost at or below 18% of the area median household income).

7-105, as a whole, says that state-funded projects (Federal or MD, in whole or in part) can't be restricted by "adequate public facility law" (this is where school-capacity limits come in), whether related to density or to something else that would affect the "viability" of the project, which could mean just about anything that would make it harder to build.

There are other parts where somewhat vague or open-ended wording can be used to justify a lot that might not be immediately apparent. For example:

7-505 (6), states "Similar requirements" to height, setback, and others. There's so much that could go in that bucket.

IMO, forcing development without ensuring adequate public facilities is a sure-fire way to create poor living conditions, whether from sprawl (housing far out without, e.g., effective public transportation) or from slums (housing close in without, e.g., proper school capacity). Those advocating for this bill are effectively supporting the latter.

The bill apparently already had its day with the Delegates. The MD Senate is set to discuss it up at 9 AM tomorrow.

Thank you for this detailed post. I hope people read it and that it makes them think (at the very least). And, maybe share this information with others.

Except that it is wrong. The ONLY part of the bill that allows for development without taking into account public facilities (school crowding) is state-funded affordable housing projects. This is section 7-501. This is a very narrow subset of development that must by definition be providing needed affordable housing, not luxury condos.

For everything else, impact on schools is still considered in granting a permit.

Except you didn't read the post before calling it wrong. It clearly points to section 7-105 and federal/state-funded development when referring to school capacity exemption; section 7-501 (your mention) is just the definitions section of the statute. The post made no mention of luxury condos.

Separately, many of the affordable housing developments to which sections 7-502 (prior state-owned), 7-503 (within a mile of passenger rail) and 7-504 (owned by a nonprofit) apply would qualify for Federal or state funding support of some sort, which would then make them subject to section 7-105's restriction against localities considering adequacy of public facilities (e.g., schools).

It's still a bad idea not to have infrastructure, including school capacity, for new housing, whether that development is funded by the state or not. One might think about that a bit, and realize that the net result of 7-105 would be exactly the creation of more under-served communities that was mentioned. For those who, one might think, would most need those services, particularly education.

I'm having difficulty following you. The topic of this post is about a proposal to allow development with no consideration of impact on school crowding.
The only provision that allows for that is state-funded housing.

All of the other sections do propose some density changes and streamlined permitting processes, but NOT exemption from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

I thought we were talking about schools, not just development in general?

Not sure why you are having difficulty following, but here it is, again:

Most affordable housing projects to which the other sections would apply (land previously owned by the state, land within a mile of a passenger rail stop, land owned by non-profits) would qualify for Federal and/or state financial support of the sort listed in Section 7-105 (A)(4)(I & II).

Section 7-105 (B) then exempts development receiving such funding from APFO/school capacity restrictions.

This is about schools, not that other infrastructure isn't important. Why set up low-income housing to be under-served?

But following your own analysis none of those other sections matter at all, so why are you referencing them? State funded housing is state funded housing, whether or not they are also other things.

The other sections were originally cited for completeness, giving readers of the 10:29 post at the bottom of page 6, here, an overview of the whole bill. Those sections were further specified to respond to the person incorrectly claiming my post was wrong and incorrectly attributing some thought about luxury condos to it. And then the tie-in between those sections and the more directly relevant section was explained.

The other sections do end up mattering, in that they make more areas (those specified by those sections, with caveats that make related construction likely to get some Federal or state funding) open to school-consideration-exempted development.

How do they do that? In other words, what developments other than "state-funded" are exempt from APFO/school crowding considerations as a result of those sections? Zero

I have to assume you are a pundit, now, aiming to distract instead of engage responsibly. It's been explained, somewhat painstakingly, including in the just-responded-to post. But the response always ignores the explanation, trying to cast doubt without substance. Again:

Sections 7-502, 7-503 and 7-504 create new situations for development. Those situations largely come with the kind of development to which section 7-105 would apply. If the bill didn't have 7-105, the development from those other sections would not be likely to be exempt from adequate public facility conditions. If the bill didn't have the other three, 7-105, though coming with its own school crowding burden, would apply over a smaller scope of development. Together, there is a larger negative impact on public facilities such as schools.