Make Moco Great Again!

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:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

Yup....this is how they take away land from the middle class. They are destroying the last pillar of obtaining wealth for the middle class. Ruin neighborhoods and turn everyone into a permanent renter for life.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People move to SFH neighborhoods specifically to have space. They are going to ruin the entire county until it is paved concrete jungle like Tokyo and we all get to live in sh!tty 400 sqft apts.

But hey, at least the crappy chipotle down the street is walkable. I can’t wait until this stupendously backfires and everyone with means (by and large part home owners) flees because all of the upzoning imports tons of poverty and trashy people into the county. Gee, you mean it sucks when your neighborhood street has 30000 cars parked all over because each triplex houses 20 people all with their own cars?

R.I.P. MoCo. Howard and AA Counties looking more attractive by the day.

Did you know that most Dupont circle SFH are now multi unit condos? They converted old victorian homes with many bedrooms into subdivided smaller condos. Is Dupont circle a trashy place? Also, why shouldn’t poor people live near wealthy people? Why should the government allow wealthy people to isolate themselves through government policy? Why not let the market decide?

Do you listen to yourself? The market will decide and it won't benefit the lower income individuals..

And yes, Dupont is a sh*thole now...

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:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

Yup....this is how they take away land from the middle class. They are destroying the last pillar of obtaining wealth for the middle class. Ruin neighborhoods and turn everyone into a permanent renter for life.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

DP, but a PP. It's about a lot more than that, but you can't seem to make an argument without resorting to half-truths, strawmen and/or hyperbole.

Given the likely housing forms and infrastructure deficits resulting from this rezoning/redefinition-of-zoning push, it appears that the Planning Board and County Council are arguing that developers should always get wealthier on the backs of residents, both current and future, by virtue of the increased housing stock more likely than existing housing stock to be rental (then often controlled by REIT-type interests outside the community) and by relative lack of adequate public facilities. It's about increasing developer/investor profit, riding misguided ultra-progressive sentiment and feelings of entitlement (what I want, where I want it), that disproportionately will take from the more modest detached SFH communities of inner MoCo due to the lower cost of land acquisition (which completely undercuts the Robin Hood narrative).

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:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

Yup....this is how they take away land from the middle class. They are destroying the last pillar of obtaining wealth for the middle class. Ruin neighborhoods and turn everyone into a permanent renter for life.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

Huh? There is no tension between maintaining or even expanding the stock of SFH and increasing the stock of rental housing. You are so stuck on one specific type of rental housing when large multi family is more economical and provides better density benefits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations.

This is the problem. The various policy changes combine to undercut the detached SFH communities in the closer-in suburbs that are among the most affordable.

Bye bye Four Corners. Bethesda & Chevy Chase? No real change. Just widening the gap.

Four Corners already has SFH subdivided into rental apartments, but any new multiplex rentals probably will end up commanding more in rent than most owners pay on their mortgage right now, so maybe you get some gentrification but the new residents aren’t going to bring the neighborhood down.

Though new residents may change the character of a neighborhood in a way, the effects of overcrowding, both in structures and in burden on shared/public resources, is as big or bigger. The currently pushed policies offer no real protections from that.

Not much of this sort is likely to happen in the Bethesda/CC area in the near future because the projects don't pencil as well for developers due to the higher cost of acquisition. The Georgia/University/Colesville triangle, on the other hand, is much more likely to see such change.

When it comes down to it, those elected representatives don't really care about the middle.

They don’t pencil at all in Bethesda/CC or in Woodside or E Silver Spring for that matter. They don’t pencil well in the Colesville, University, or Georgia area. That could change if there’s a lot of white collar job growth in that area.

They work a little better for owner occupancy, but unless the lot is split they’d have to be condos, which seems like an absolute nightmare for the owners.

They pencil much better in the Colesville/University/Georgia triangle than in Bethesda/CC. Quadplexes to small apartment blocs. Investment rental properties.

This is what the County Council and Planning Board are pushing, though they frame it in fairy tale terms.

Was up in Olney this weekend and didn’t realize that the Ag Reserve was in such big trouble. Most farms were fallow. Poverty increasing. Preferring poverty over “sprawl” doesn’t seem like a good long term policy choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

Yup....this is how they take away land from the middle class. They are destroying the last pillar of obtaining wealth for the middle class. Ruin neighborhoods and turn everyone into a permanent renter for life.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

Here, let me fix this for you.

Yes, this state law completely shreds [NIMBY] authority and allows developers to almost build whatever [PEOPLE NEED IN ORDER TO GET HOUSING AND LIVE].

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.

The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

All of it needs a really careful review to make sure they don’t create any tax loopholes. The county’s finances are pretty shaky as it is. Development that results in any increased demand on services without a break even increase in revenue will put the county into severe fiscal distress.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations.

This is the problem. The various policy changes combine to undercut the detached SFH communities in the closer-in suburbs that are among the most affordable.

Bye bye Four Corners. Bethesda & Chevy Chase? No real change. Just widening the gap.

Four Corners already has SFH subdivided into rental apartments, but any new multiplex rentals probably will end up commanding more in rent than most owners pay on their mortgage right now, so maybe you get some gentrification but the new residents aren’t going to bring the neighborhood down.

Though new residents may change the character of a neighborhood in a way, the effects of overcrowding, both in structures and in burden on shared/public resources, is as big or bigger. The currently pushed policies offer no real protections from that.

Not much of this sort is likely to happen in the Bethesda/CC area in the near future because the projects don't pencil as well for developers due to the higher cost of acquisition. The Georgia/University/Colesville triangle, on the other hand, is much more likely to see such change.

When it comes down to it, those elected representatives don't really care about the middle.

They don’t pencil at all in Bethesda/CC or in Woodside or E Silver Spring for that matter. They don’t pencil well in the Colesville, University, or Georgia area. That could change if there’s a lot of white collar job growth in that area.

They work a little better for owner occupancy, but unless the lot is split they’d have to be condos, which seems like an absolute nightmare for the owners.

They pencil much better in the Colesville/University/Georgia triangle than in Bethesda/CC. Quadplexes to small apartment blocs. Investment rental properties.

This is what the County Council and Planning Board are pushing, though they frame it in fairy tale terms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations.

This is the problem. The various policy changes combine to undercut the detached SFH communities in the closer-in suburbs that are among the most affordable.

Bye bye Four Corners. Bethesda & Chevy Chase? No real change. Just widening the gap.

Four Corners already has SFH subdivided into rental apartments, but any new multiplex rentals probably will end up commanding more in rent than most owners pay on their mortgage right now, so maybe you get some gentrification but the new residents aren’t going to bring the neighborhood down.

Though new residents may change the character of a neighborhood in a way, the effects of overcrowding, both in structures and in burden on shared/public resources, is as big or bigger. The currently pushed policies offer no real protections from that.

Not much of this sort is likely to happen in the Bethesda/CC area in the near future because the projects don't pencil as well for developers due to the higher cost of acquisition. The Georgia/University/Colesville triangle, on the other hand, is much more likely to see such change.

When it comes down to it, those elected representatives don't really care about the middle.

They don’t pencil at all in Bethesda/CC or in Woodside or E Silver Spring for that matter. They don’t pencil well in the Colesville, University, or Georgia area. That could change if there’s a lot of white collar job growth in that area.

They work a little better for owner occupancy, but unless the lot is split they’d have to be condos, which seems like an absolute nightmare for the owners.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations.

This is the problem. The various policy changes combine to undercut the detached SFH communities in the closer-in suburbs that are among the most affordable.

Bye bye Four Corners. Bethesda & Chevy Chase? No real change. Just widening the gap.

Four Corners already has SFH subdivided into rental apartments, but any new multiplex rentals probably will end up commanding more in rent than most owners pay on their mortgage right now, so maybe you get some gentrification but the new residents aren’t going to bring the neighborhood down.

Though new residents may change the character of a neighborhood in a way, the effects of overcrowding, both in structures and in burden on shared/public resources, is as big or bigger. The currently pushed policies offer no real protections from that.

Not much of this sort is likely to happen in the Bethesda/CC area in the near future because the projects don't pencil as well for developers due to the higher cost of acquisition. The Georgia/University/Colesville triangle, on the other hand, is much more likely to see such change.

When it comes down to it, those elected representatives don't really care about the middle.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations.

This is the problem. The various policy changes combine to undercut the detached SFH communities in the closer-in suburbs that are among the most affordable.

Bye bye Four Corners. Bethesda & Chevy Chase? No real change. Just widening the gap.

Four Corners already has SFH subdivided into rental apartments, but any new multiplex rentals probably will end up commanding more in rent than most owners pay on their mortgage right now, so maybe you get some gentrification but the new residents aren’t going to bring the neighborhood down.

I get that it isn’t Chevy Chase, but some parts of 4corners is actually pretty nice right now, but hasn’t had the chance to go full cycle with home rehabs throughout the neighborhoods. There is now way that it won’t drag it down.

Construction for multiplexes won’t be cheap. Those costs alone will push rent toward $2k and that’s before land and operating costs. If those rents are too high for the market, no one is going to build.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one should worrry about slummy properties or multiplexes changing the economic profile of their neighborhoods. Even making optimistic assumptions about land, construction costs, financing costs, and operating costs, rent would need to be north of $3,500 a month per unit to achieve a 7 percent cap rate. That rent requires a $140k annual household income.

The problem for potential small apartment building investors is that there are already a lot of units in DTSS and Bethesda available for less than $3,500 a month. The problem for potential small apartment builders who need financing is that there are already a lot of investments that deliver a better cap rate than 7 percent with less risk.

If you live in a marginal neighborhood then you could see a lot of change as a result of upzoning.

This is all a show. Planning even knows it. Planning and the council want it to look like they’re doing something on housing and economic growth but this iteration of smart growth isn’t going to move the needle any more in the right direction than the previous iterations.

This is the problem. The various policy changes combine to undercut the detached SFH communities in the closer-in suburbs that are among the most affordable.

Bye bye Four Corners. Bethesda & Chevy Chase? No real change. Just widening the gap.

Four Corners already has SFH subdivided into rental apartments, but any new multiplex rentals probably will end up commanding more in rent than most owners pay on their mortgage right now, so maybe you get some gentrification but the new residents aren’t going to bring the neighborhood down.

I get that it isn’t Chevy Chase, but some parts of 4corners is actually pretty nice right now, but hasn’t had the chance to go full cycle with home rehabs throughout the neighborhoods. There is now way that it won’t drag it down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is filling their pockets? Name & Shame them.

You are! All except Friedson used public financing. Friedson is backed by land use lawyers and developers.

Let’s be real here. “Public Financing” is effectively a developers subsidy. They get to write $500 checks and have them matched by taxpayers instead of $1000 checks. If you look at who is donating, it’s the same people.