Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

No, maybe, I rent in MC or own a condo in MC. But now I want to purchase a SFH in a SFH neighborhood. I guess I will move elsewhere, perhaps Howard or Fairfax, taking my growing income with me. Great business model.

If you rent in Montgomery County or own a condo in Montgomery County, you are a current resident of Montgomery County.

Or do you think that when the PP (or you, whoever the PP was) said "If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents."

what they really meant was "If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- people who are currently living in detached one-unit houses that they own."?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

No, maybe, I rent in MC or own a condo in MC. But now I want to purchase a SFH in a SFH neighborhood. I guess I will move elsewhere, perhaps Howard or Fairfax, taking my growing income with me. Great business model.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Yes, SFH owners and renters, who would benefit by the county making sure that additional housing reflects the nature of the neighborhood. It does not benefit them to have a sixplex of rental units next door. However, more modest changes with tight parameters would be more acceptable.

There are at least two ideas in your post that I would like to make explicit.

First, that it benefits current residents of detached one-unit houses to continue to exclude any other type of housing except detached one-unit houses (and, conversely, harms current residents of detached one-unit houses to allow other types of housing).

Second, that benefit (or harm) for current residents is only about what is good for themselves personally, right now. Basically that the benefit/harm test is: do I got mine, or don't I got mine.

I don't think either of those ideas is the basis for a good housing policy.

I also don't think most voters are focused so narrowly just on what is good for them personally, right now. I think the election results show that. So with the proposed zoning changes, the Councilmembers actually are doing what the majority of their constituents want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

Glass and steel are cheap, can use standard box designs, can be cheaply assembled and sold at a premium.

Shade, greenery, water, airflow, etc... require specific adaptation to a space, which requires thought and time. Things developers don't have. They all borrow money and have to deliver units before loans come due.

You want something better than that, then you need a Crown Prince with development as a hobby or something.

That's the thing. Even Saudi has realized the importance of green space and modern planning.

ha! All the princes get it. Maybe theres hope for PG County?

PG County realized the difficulty of asking every neighborhood to upzone and is only changing policy for the less wealthy neighborhoods.

What does that mean? Doesn't the Prince George's County Council have the zoning authority in Prince George's County?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

Glass and steel are cheap, can use standard box designs, can be cheaply assembled and sold at a premium.

Shade, greenery, water, airflow, etc... require specific adaptation to a space, which requires thought and time. Things developers don't have. They all borrow money and have to deliver units before loans come due.

You want something better than that, then you need a Crown Prince with development as a hobby or something.

That's the thing. Even Saudi has realized the importance of green space and modern planning.

ha! All the princes get it. Maybe theres hope for PG County?

PG County realized the difficulty of asking every neighborhood to upzone and is only changing policy for the less wealthy neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

Glass and steel are cheap, can use standard box designs, can be cheaply assembled and sold at a premium.

Shade, greenery, water, airflow, etc... require specific adaptation to a space, which requires thought and time. Things developers don't have. They all borrow money and have to deliver units before loans come due.

You want something better than that, then you need a Crown Prince with development as a hobby or something.

That's the thing. Even Saudi has realized the importance of green space and modern planning.

ha! All the princes get it. Maybe theres hope for PG County?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Yes, SFH owners and renters, who would benefit by the county making sure that additional housing reflects the nature of the neighborhood. It does not benefit them to have a sixplex of rental units next door. However, more modest changes with tight parameters would be more acceptable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

By definition though, current residents already have housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

That's certainly AN opinion. It's not the only possible opinion, though. My opinion is that it's incumbent on them to pursue policies that are the best for the future of Montgomery County. But, again, this is ultimately a question for the voters to decide.

I would like to see some links to where either the County Council or the Planning Department justify the proposed zoning changes based on New Residents Won't Have Cars or New Residents Will Take The Bus. So far, I've only seen it claimed, by opponents of the proposed zoning changes, that the County Council or Planning Department are doing this.

Your hyperbolic strawman aside, if you haven't seen those justifications (e.g., low expected car ownership rates with bus given as a reason) claiming limited impact on the affected communities it is because you have not read the Attainable Housing report amd have not listened to/viewed the public meetings. Go find them.

I did a search on bus in https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf On p. 9, there's a reference to a ZTA that former councilmember Hans Riemer offered in 2021 to allow certain new housing types along the county’s Bus Rapid Transit corridors. The other instances of 'bus" are in "robust" and "business."

Then I did a search on car. On p. 30, the Planning Board supports a form-based standard for "On-Site Parking Layout – Options for sustainable parking designs that are environmentally friendly and ensure that asphalt, car ports, and garages don’t dominate the site." (Sounds good to me.) On p. 44, they support modified parking requirements including "Allowing tandem parking, which would allow two parking spaces that are a configured like a single spot, one in front of the other. This means that the car in the front spot has to move in order to allow the back spot to move out of the space." (My neighbors do that!) The other instances of "car" are in "care" and "carry."

I’m confused. It kind of sounds like you’re saying that planning hasn’t consider the impact of increasing density on transportation but that can’t possibly be the case because their organization is named planning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

That's certainly AN opinion. It's not the only possible opinion, though. My opinion is that it's incumbent on them to pursue policies that are the best for the future of Montgomery County. But, again, this is ultimately a question for the voters to decide.

I would like to see some links to where either the County Council or the Planning Department justify the proposed zoning changes based on New Residents Won't Have Cars or New Residents Will Take The Bus. So far, I've only seen it claimed, by opponents of the proposed zoning changes, that the County Council or Planning Department are doing this.

Your hyperbolic strawman aside, if you haven't seen those justifications (e.g., low expected car ownership rates with bus given as a reason) claiming limited impact on the affected communities it is because you have not read the Attainable Housing report amd have not listened to/viewed the public meetings. Go find them.

I did a search on bus in https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2024-AHS-Final-Report.pdf On p. 9, there's a reference to a ZTA that former councilmember Hans Riemer offered in 2021 to allow certain new housing types along the county’s Bus Rapid Transit corridors. The other instances of 'bus" are in "robust" and "business."

Then I did a search on car. On p. 30, the Planning Board supports a form-based standard for "On-Site Parking Layout – Options for sustainable parking designs that are environmentally friendly and ensure that asphalt, car ports, and garages don’t dominate the site." (Sounds good to me.) On p. 44, they support modified parking requirements including "Allowing tandem parking, which would allow two parking spaces that are a configured like a single spot, one in front of the other. This means that the car in the front spot has to move in order to allow the back spot to move out of the space." (My neighbors do that!) The other instances of "car" are in "care" and "carry."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was chatting with someone who lives in Alexandria. They said their older building's systems can barely keep up in this heat wave. They also said that the neighbors in their building said the situation had gotten markedly worse when a high rise was put up across the street a few years back, its glass panels reflecting heat onto their building. I thought the density types were promising that density would have a net climate cooling effect, but it sounds like the trade off is heat island misery for the folks who actually live in the dense stretches. Why do they only talk about multiplexes, but never parks and tree planting and smart heat adaptive surfaces as part of their climate cooling sell? All they ever talk about is mitigating commuting.

Glass and steel are cheap, can use standard box designs, can be cheaply assembled and sold at a premium.

Shade, greenery, water, airflow, etc... require specific adaptation to a space, which requires thought and time. Things developers don't have. They all borrow money and have to deliver units before loans come due.

You want something better than that, then you need a Crown Prince with development as a hobby or something.

That's the thing. Even Saudi has realized the importance of green space and modern planning.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I frequently hear that missing middle housing is designed with teachers, nurses, police officers, and firefighters in mind.

As a teacher, I can tell you that in general, we don’t take the bus to get to work. A few, yes, but probably 98% do not because we bring work home regularly. Police officers, nurses, and firefighters have crazy work hours. They will drive to work as well.

There's fewer people taking the bus today than there were 20 years ago. Use of all forms of public transportation crashed after the pandemic, even after accounting for remote work. Driving has gotten a lot more popular.

Are you saying that mode share has shifted in favor of driving? Do you have any data for that? Bus service post-covid is also worse, of course. If the point you're making is that inadequate bus service is not popular, I won't argue. Bus riders will be the first to tell you about that, in detail, because they actually ride the bus. However, I think the conclusion to draw from this is that we need better bus service.

Now could you please explain how this relates to the zoning proposals?

DP.

Sure. Shouldn't the planning board and county council be focused on workable initiatives to make the lives of the residents they represent better?

The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things. Yet there is not adequate bus service, existing or as planned, to support increased density making things better for current residents.

Just like most of the infrastructure that would be necessary. Yet they do not propose tying increased density to achieving adequate infrastructure.

Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus.

[background conversation among, generally. YIMBYs & NIMBYs]

YIMBY: Let's increase density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods, moreso close in where BRT corridors and Metro start to converge. There isn't enough housing there for those who want to live in those locations.

NIMBY: I don't want the added burdens in my neighborhood that come with what you are proposing. [Gives laundry list, including increased local vehicle traffic and cramped street parking with the proposed zoning allowing fewer on-site parkong spaces per unit].

YIMBY: That's OK, the new residents are going to take advantage of the bus, especially the BRT along those corridors.

NIMBY: Not enough of them will, and probably not very many at all. Folks tend to take the most convenient form of transportation, and that tends to be cars for many reasons.

YIMBY: You are being classist [phrases such responses to hint at racist, too].

[a whole lot of unproductive yes/no responses]

TEACHER: [starting new post vs. a direct reply] We, and other public servants who are among the classes that the density appears to be proposed for, don't tend to take the bus.

[NIMBY throws in more of same]

YIMBY: Sure, bus is inadequate and therefore unpopular. How does this relate to the increased density proposal?



DP: The proposed change depends on bus, but bus and other infrastructure won't be adequate to support it.

YIMBY: "Why do you say that? I don't think it's dependent on the bus."



The report that Montgomery Planning put to the County Council on this has bus/BRT as a support. They've used public transit in the past as a support to permit lower parking minimums. They've discussed the same in public meetings on the current initiative.

When someone asks you where you have heard people say things, they are probably not expecting a response of "In the conversation I made up in my head."

^^^and to clarify: I think the zoning proposals are generally a good idea, even if not a single one of the residents of the new housing ever sets foot on a bus.

Way to avoid the issue. Good thing most can see that avoidance as merely a rhetorical/political ploy.

Way to avoid which issue? The PP said, "The increased density in detached SFH neighborhood initiatve is dependent on bus, among many other things." However, I don't think it is dependent on the bus. I think it's a good idea completely irrespective of bus usage. If you have a different opinion about this, please explain. Or don't explain, it's up to you.

DP. If it’s not dependent on the bus, does this mean you’re for road widening to serve the additional density?

Nope. That would encourage more driving, more traffic, more traffic congestion, and of course more pavement and more heat. I think there's general agreement that we don't want any of those things. Right?

Please stop thinking of car traffic as some natural phenomenon, and start thinking of it as the result of people's choices. When it's more convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive more. When it's less convenient for people to go places by driving, people drive less. When it's more convenient for people to go places without driving, people also drive less.

I think most people agree with this in general. What I think they disagree with is that Moco will ever be able to put together a system in which the convenience of using it outweighs driving.

But MoCo already has that. Do you drive for every single trip? Every time you go anywhere, you get in a car first? And do you never make decisions like, I will take the mid-day appointment instead of the 8:30 am appointment so I don't have to drive south on 270 during rush hour? or As long as I'm already at Giant, I will just run next door to CVS instead of making a separate trip? Those are also examples of choices people make.

Insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car is a unrealistic as expecting 100% of people to make 100% of trips by car, and I don't think anybody is insisting on 100% of people making 0% of trips by car. We just need change on the margins - more people making fewer trips by car, compared to now.

Which can be done without the kinds of density in existing detached SFH neighborhoods being put forth currently. Far more effective to encourage build-out of under-built semi-urban areas within a half mile of Metro, like downtown Silver Spring, already zoned for higher densities. Or purposefully dense greenfield development, where work-life-shop-services can be planned with well aligned densities and served directly by high-frequency linking transit, rather than expensively and disruptively shoehorning that blend of uses into areas where infrastructure/etc., would not support the increase (and in many cases hasn't been kept up enough to support existing populations/uses).

Yes it can, you're right! Which demonstrates that it's possible. And if the county makes it legal to build small multi-unit housing where currently it's only legal to build detached single-unit housing, then it can be done more, by more people.

Also, there's no reason why the county can't or shouldn't allow small multi-unit housing (as above) AND more types of housing near Metro. Both are good. It's not one OR the other, it's both.

But if you don't want to increase driving or pavement, then you shouldn't support new greenfield development.

Nah. There's plenty of reason. Those advocating for the change simply ignore the reasons provided. ( Or they lie outright, as Planning did when they put forth the tortured suggestion that there would be de minimis impact to student generation, completely ignoring, themselves, the already overcrowded conditions and the Council's persistent underfunding of the MCPS capital budget.

If they've determined that housing is needed, it should be incumbent on them to pursue the types of additional housing that would be to the best benefit of those they were elected/appointed to represent -- current residents. Adding density beyond current zoning without ensuring adequate infrastructure/public facilities would not benefit those residents.

Separately, you may not consider bus transportation tied to increased densities, as was stated several posts back (with the conversation now restored), but the Council and Planning certainly present it as a major justification for the density increases.

The bus issue is not quite a red herring, as it plays a part, but the extensive (and mostly unnecessary/ unenlightening) discussion about it, here, has drowned out too much of the more holistic imperative to ensure appropriate infrastructure. The Council and planning have essentially said that that happens in other processes, eschewing any need to put in tie-ins and guardrails. That is highly deceptive given both the Council's poor track record on such in recent decades and the many examples in this country of overbuilt suburbia suffering from that lack.

That's certainly AN opinion. It's not the only possible opinion, though. My opinion is that it's incumbent on them to pursue policies that are the best for the future of Montgomery County. But, again, this is ultimately a question for the voters to decide.

I would like to see some links to where either the County Council or the Planning Department justify the proposed zoning changes based on New Residents Won't Have Cars or New Residents Will Take The Bus. So far, I've only seen it claimed, by opponents of the proposed zoning changes, that the County Council or Planning Department are doing this.

Your hyperbolic strawman aside, if you haven't seen those justifications (e.g., low expected car ownership rates with bus given as a reason) claiming limited impact on the affected communities it is because you have not read the Attainable Housing report amd have not listened to/viewed the public meetings. Go find them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are complaining that the Montgomery County Council is following their well-established processes for considering and enacting laws, after the Montgomery Planning Board followed their well-established processes for considering and making recommendations.

It reminds me of people standing up at public meetings to complain that they do not have any opportunity to make their voice heard.

People wanting their voice heard want the opportunity for well-informed agency/impact that is inherent to well functioning societies. The council & board must follow their processes in that spirit, not just in name, as they have here with recommendations far beyond anything they had vetted widely with the impacted communities.

Or they can simply decide to get one over on their constituents. It looks like that's the approach they decided to take.

People who don't like the outcome (or the likely outcome) complain about the process.

If the constituents don't like the outcome, or the actions of their elected representatives, they can express their disapproval at the polls.

This has been discussed many times in this thread. That is a specious dismissal.

Which part do you think is a fallacy? The part about complaining about the process when you don't like the outcome? The part about voters deciding? Or both?

The part where it's a specious dismissal. Go back and find the relevant posts, Questioner.