Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

What makes you think there will not be more traffic? That is simply not true.

Higher density means MORE traffic. More housing leads to more cars and that leads to more traffic.

No, higher density means less traffic. Because you can get where you need to go without driving and parking.

NYC is very high density. There is a a TON of traffic.

Montgomery County has increased density over the past decade. Definitely more traffic in MoCo than there was a decade ago.

Higher density means more people. More traffic.

Are you serious? Half of the households in New York City don't even own a car.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

+1

I fully support what the council wants to do.

As do the majority of Montgomery County voters. Seeing as how we all continue to vote for the same politicians.

Yay for overcrowded schools!!

The goal is to urbanize Montgomery County.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

What makes you think there will not be more traffic? That is simply not true.

Higher density means MORE traffic. More housing leads to more cars and that leads to more traffic.

No, higher density means less traffic. Because you can get where you need to go without driving and parking.

NYC is very high density. There is a a TON of traffic.

Montgomery County has increased density over the past decade. Definitely more traffic in MoCo than there was a decade ago.

Higher density means more people. More traffic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

What makes you think there will not be more traffic? That is simply not true.

Higher density means MORE traffic. More housing leads to more cars and that leads to more traffic.

No, higher density means less traffic. Because you can get where you need to go without driving and parking.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't the "more housing near Metro" (that's great and I totally support it), it's the "not increasing school capacity fast enough." We just need to stay on top of the county council and BOE as these developments come in and make sure that they're expanding schools/building new schools/re-working boundaries as needed.

This. I get that we need more housing. AND we need more schools (and land for those schools). Geez if only the pro-housing faction (looking at you GGW) weren't so short-sighted

Have the housing advocates advocated against schools? Not so's I've noticed.

Who even reads GGW, these days? The glory days were 10 years ago.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't the "more housing near Metro" (that's great and I totally support it), it's the "not increasing school capacity fast enough." We just need to stay on top of the county council and BOE as these developments come in and make sure that they're expanding schools/building new schools/re-working boundaries as needed.

This. I get that we need more housing. AND we need more schools (and land for those schools). Geez if only the pro-housing faction (looking at you GGW) weren't so short-sighted

Anonymous wrote:The problem isn't the "more housing near Metro" (that's great and I totally support it), it's the "not increasing school capacity fast enough." We just need to stay on top of the county council and BOE as these developments come in and make sure that they're expanding schools/building new schools/re-working boundaries as needed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County legislators are pushing a bill that would put more housing near metro without concern for overcrowding of schools.

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2024/02/moco-legislators-pushing-bill-that-will.html

Well Metro has a HUGE budget shortfall (I mean, so many fare avoiders!) that it has threatened to decrease service.

How is that going to work out when they cut lines and close stops?

Metro has a huge budget shortfall because Virginia and Maryland have not yet contributed their funding. If Metro had its own funding source, we wouldn't have to go through this song-and-dance all the time. Don't want Metro to cut lines and close stops? Tell your state legislators to fund Metro.

Metro fare evaders cost Metro $10 Million in 2022. That is no small amount.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

What makes you think there will not be more traffic? That is simply not true.

Higher density means MORE traffic. More housing leads to more cars and that leads to more traffic.

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County legislators are pushing a bill that would put more housing near metro without concern for overcrowding of schools.

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2024/02/moco-legislators-pushing-bill-that-will.html

Well Metro has a HUGE budget shortfall (I mean, so many fare avoiders!) that it has threatened to decrease service.

How is that going to work out when they cut lines and close stops?

Metro has a huge budget shortfall because Virginia and Maryland have not yet contributed their funding. If Metro had its own funding source, we wouldn't have to go through this song-and-dance all the time. Don't want Metro to cut lines and close stops? Tell your state legislators to fund Metro.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.