Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

The beyond-awful traffic is because of the spread-out-ness, actually.

Partly. But I live walking distance to a metro station, which is where they want to build more dense housing, and we are still very car dependent for anything beyond going to downtown DC. There’s no plan to build more walkable amenities like a grocery store, etc., just more apartments. Whose residents will also largely be car dependent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

The beyond-awful traffic is because of the spread-out-ness, actually.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

Anonymous wrote:In MoCo, where many downcounty schools are severely overcrowded (and have been for years with no relief or delayed relief), and traffic is beyond awful (roads fail the county's own road tests, again with no relief in site), it makes no sense to make policies to add density without also doing something to these other infrastructures. Which is exactly what the planning board intends to do

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

You might be right. The applications in Arlington are few…though per the article some of that is due to the pending lawsuit. No worries, though, the YIMBYs are going to try to crank it back up by removing lot cover rules. Won’t that be nice?

https://www.arlnow.com/2024/03/19/a-new-era-of-housing-questions-for-arlington-one-year-after-passing-missing-middle/

Arlington has a permitting process with a numerical cap that limits the infill development to a hopefully manageable rate for this decade. The numerical cap will be lifted entirely sometime in the 2030s, but I do not recall which year.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

You might be right. The applications in Arlington are few…though per the article some of that is due to the pending lawsuit. No worries, though, the YIMBYs are going to try to crank it back up by removing lot cover rules. Won’t that be nice?

https://www.arlnow.com/2024/03/19/a-new-era-of-housing-questions-for-arlington-one-year-after-passing-missing-middle/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.