Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

You can pay for schools with revenue other than from impact taxes. How do you think we built the schools for the baby boomers?

A lot of them were built via proffer. Developers either built the schools or contributed to schools on an ad hoc basis. The old system was actually more expensive for them. Are you suggesting we go back to that?

No, those came later, too, other than setting aside some land.

“Other than setting aside something really valuable” they didn’t provide anything. Except when they did provide something else like money or a building. Developers have never paid the full cost of building new schools but they don’t think they should have to pay anything and unfortunately the council president agrees with them.

Small scale development didn't set aside land for schools. And MCPS has some land for schools to be built, schools that could be expanded, and some older properties that could be renovated.

It's ultimately not the developers that for impact fees- it's the residents, just in a different way from direct taxes.

Where does MCPS have land?

Real Property Inventory Report:

https://www.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/departments/facilities/rem/reports/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

You can pay for schools with revenue other than from impact taxes. How do you think we built the schools for the baby boomers?

A lot of them were built via proffer. Developers either built the schools or contributed to schools on an ad hoc basis. The old system was actually more expensive for them. Are you suggesting we go back to that?

No, those came later, too, other than setting aside some land.

“Other than setting aside something really valuable” they didn’t provide anything. Except when they did provide something else like money or a building. Developers have never paid the full cost of building new schools but they don’t think they should have to pay anything and unfortunately the council president agrees with them.

Small scale development didn't set aside land for schools. And MCPS has some land for schools to be built, schools that could be expanded, and some older properties that could be renovated.

It's ultimately not the developers that for impact fees- it's the residents, just in a different way from direct taxes.

Where does MCPS have land?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many states and school districts deliver a significant share of their Pre-K through private-sector child care/preschools. Hopefully MCPS will do this as well. Not only does it help deal with space constraints, it's actually really important if you don't want expanded/universal Pre-K to screw up the child care system. (It's very hard for centers to operate financially if they lose most of their 3 and 4 year olds to public schools-- they either shut down or jack up costs for infant and toddler care exorbitantly to compensate. Keeping those kids in centers for Pre-K, and providing funding to those centers to help them hire qualified staff and meet all the requirements of the Pre-K program, can strengthen the child care system rather than weakening it.)

What will they cut to pay for this?

They won't make cuts. The county will raise property taxes, because of the Blueprint's underfunded mandate from the MD legislature. First in line to thank for this is state Senator Nancy King, from Montgomery Village.

Some things are worth paying for. This is one of them.

It will bankrupt the state.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

You can pay for schools with revenue other than from impact taxes. How do you think we built the schools for the baby boomers?

A lot of them were built via proffer. Developers either built the schools or contributed to schools on an ad hoc basis. The old system was actually more expensive for them. Are you suggesting we go back to that?

No, those came later, too, other than setting aside some land.

“Other than setting aside something really valuable” they didn’t provide anything. Except when they did provide something else like money or a building. Developers have never paid the full cost of building new schools but they don’t think they should have to pay anything and unfortunately the council president agrees with them.

Small scale development didn't set aside land for schools. And MCPS has some land for schools to be built, schools that could be expanded, and some older properties that could be renovated.

It's ultimately not the developers that for impact fees- it's the residents, just in a different way from direct taxes.

If impact fees are passed through to consumers then why didn’t housing prices fall after the last two impact fee cuts? And even if impact fee reductions are passed on to consumers, then only the wealthiest households benefit directly because the new housing is built for them. Affordable housing is impact fee free. What you’re advocating is a subsidy that benefits either developers or wealthy households. That’s a regressive subsidy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The plan is to allow multi unit dwellings throughout most of MoCo, goodbye single family housing in the name of "attainable" housing. This means in most area there is potential for duplexes, triplexes, quads, and near transit corridors small apartment type buildings. This will really stretch resources, hello overcrowding at schools.

They are proposing 40-50 percent fee cuts and a number of new exemptions. It doesn’t look like a lot of money in a single year based on recent housing production (which has been minimal) but if you add it up over the four years the law will be in place and add debt service costs it means either massive cuts to other parts of the budget or big tax increases. Planning claims the multi unit dwellings will pay fees but the fees won’t be enough to pay for the new demands on schools or roads. This is all so developers can get a tax cut and have higher profits.

MCPS only has two dedicated revenue sources to add school capacity (the other is the recordation tax, which was recently increased) so you think they’d say something about getting their funding cut but neither the sitting school board members nor the challengers have said a word.

The impact fees in Montgomery County are outrageous. It costs $50-60k to build a new SFH or townhome in MoCo. We didn't expect people to pay that in the 50s and 60s.

It's a terrible policy. You tax things you want to discourage. We shouldn't discourage creating more housing.

No, you tax things to raise revenue. Taxes aren’t punishments. Their primary purpose is funding the government. Every household will have to pay for these tax cuts. Under your logic, the county wants to discourage households.

Taxes can be punitive, and that’s what MoCo has done upcounty, which is the only place where the fees you quoted apply. That’s by design because the county wants to discourage SFHs. They’re around $8k for an apartment or condo downcounty and even less than that in Wheaton and Silver Spring.

As a percentage of the median home sales price, MoCo’s fees are not terribly out of line with what other jurisdictions like Austin charge, and Austin has been very successful in adding housing. MoCo has cut impact fees several times since 2016 and it has had no measurable impact on production. The extent to which impact fees discourage housing is a thing you say not a thing that is true.

What is true is that the fee reductions have helped developers make more money, and now the council president wants to take even more money from schools and give it to developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The plan is to allow multi unit dwellings throughout most of MoCo, goodbye single family housing in the name of "attainable" housing. This means in most area there is potential for duplexes, triplexes, quads, and near transit corridors small apartment type buildings. This will really stretch resources, hello overcrowding at schools.

They are proposing 40-50 percent fee cuts and a number of new exemptions. It doesn’t look like a lot of money in a single year based on recent housing production (which has been minimal) but if you add it up over the four years the law will be in place and add debt service costs it means either massive cuts to other parts of the budget or big tax increases. Planning claims the multi unit dwellings will pay fees but the fees won’t be enough to pay for the new demands on schools or roads. This is all so developers can get a tax cut and have higher profits.

MCPS only has two dedicated revenue sources to add school capacity (the other is the recordation tax, which was recently increased) so you think they’d say something about getting their funding cut but neither the sitting school board members nor the challengers have said a word.

The impact fees in Montgomery County are outrageous. It costs $50-60k to build a new SFH or townhome in MoCo. We didn't expect people to pay that in the 50s and 60s.

It's a terrible policy. You tax things you want to discourage. We shouldn't discourage creating more housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

You can pay for schools with revenue other than from impact taxes. How do you think we built the schools for the baby boomers?

A lot of them were built via proffer. Developers either built the schools or contributed to schools on an ad hoc basis. The old system was actually more expensive for them. Are you suggesting we go back to that?

No, those came later, too, other than setting aside some land.

“Other than setting aside something really valuable” they didn’t provide anything. Except when they did provide something else like money or a building. Developers have never paid the full cost of building new schools but they don’t think they should have to pay anything and unfortunately the council president agrees with them.

Small scale development didn't set aside land for schools. And MCPS has some land for schools to be built, schools that could be expanded, and some older properties that could be renovated.

It's ultimately not the developers that for impact fees- it's the residents, just in a different way from direct taxes.

Anonymous wrote:The plan is to allow multi unit dwellings throughout most of MoCo, goodbye single family housing in the name of "attainable" housing. This means in most area there is potential for duplexes, triplexes, quads, and near transit corridors small apartment type buildings. This will really stretch resources, hello overcrowding at schools.

They are proposing 40-50 percent fee cuts and a number of new exemptions. It doesn’t look like a lot of money in a single year based on recent housing production (which has been minimal) but if you add it up over the four years the law will be in place and add debt service costs it means either massive cuts to other parts of the budget or big tax increases. Planning claims the multi unit dwellings will pay fees but the fees won’t be enough to pay for the new demands on schools or roads. This is all so developers can get a tax cut and have higher profits.

MCPS only has two dedicated revenue sources to add school capacity (the other is the recordation tax, which was recently increased) so you think they’d say something about getting their funding cut but neither the sitting school board members nor the challengers have said a word.

The plan is to allow multi unit dwellings throughout most of MoCo, goodbye single family housing in the name of "attainable" housing. This means in most area there is potential for duplexes, triplexes, quads, and near transit corridors small apartment type buildings. This will really stretch resources, hello overcrowding at schools.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

You can pay for schools with revenue other than from impact taxes. How do you think we built the schools for the baby boomers?

A lot of them were built via proffer. Developers either built the schools or contributed to schools on an ad hoc basis. The old system was actually more expensive for them. Are you suggesting we go back to that?

No, those came later, too, other than setting aside some land.

“Other than setting aside something really valuable” they didn’t provide anything. Except when they did provide something else like money or a building. Developers have never paid the full cost of building new schools but they don’t think they should have to pay anything and unfortunately the council president agrees with them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

You can pay for schools with revenue other than from impact taxes. How do you think we built the schools for the baby boomers?

A lot of them were built via proffer. Developers either built the schools or contributed to schools on an ad hoc basis. The old system was actually more expensive for them. Are you suggesting we go back to that?

No, those came later, too, other than setting aside some land.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many states and school districts deliver a significant share of their Pre-K through private-sector child care/preschools. Hopefully MCPS will do this as well. Not only does it help deal with space constraints, it's actually really important if you don't want expanded/universal Pre-K to screw up the child care system. (It's very hard for centers to operate financially if they lose most of their 3 and 4 year olds to public schools-- they either shut down or jack up costs for infant and toddler care exorbitantly to compensate. Keeping those kids in centers for Pre-K, and providing funding to those centers to help them hire qualified staff and meet all the requirements of the Pre-K program, can strengthen the child care system rather than weakening it.)

Public preK hours are very limited. It's not going to be useful to working families.

The plan has always called for a mix of public and private partners. There is a defined ratio. However getting to that ratio has proved challenging in many places. Not to mention space.

https://marylandmatters.org/2023/06/19/breaking-down-the-blueprint-major-changes-ahead-as-maryland-plans-dramatic-expansion-of-early-childhood-education/

And staff. Good luck finding staff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

You can pay for schools with revenue other than from impact taxes. How do you think we built the schools for the baby boomers?

A lot of them were built via proffer. Developers either built the schools or contributed to schools on an ad hoc basis. The old system was actually more expensive for them. Are you suggesting we go back to that?

Yes because it’s not like they are building affordable housing. If we are going to get unaffordable housing and density at least we should get quality schools.

Also MCPs should complete the full boundary study so available space can be used well.

We’re still short seats, more so when you consider Pre-K. There’s no magic wand anyone can wave and make enough capacity without more money. This is the wrong time for a tax cut.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

You can pay for schools with revenue other than from impact taxes. How do you think we built the schools for the baby boomers?

A lot of them were built via proffer. Developers either built the schools or contributed to schools on an ad hoc basis. The old system was actually more expensive for them. Are you suggesting we go back to that?

Yes because it’s not like they are building affordable housing. If we are going to get unaffordable housing and density at least we should get quality schools.

Also MCPs should complete the full boundary study so available space can be used well.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To make matters worse the Council is considering a bill to cut revenue for school construction so they can give tax breaks to developers. MCPS did not even bother to submit testimony on the bill.

This is to stimulate the upzoning, non-SFH residential construction in the county. Where the children living in this denser residential housing will go to school is a problem the council is kicking down the road.

You can pay for schools with revenue other than from impact taxes. How do you think we built the schools for the baby boomers?

A lot of them were built via proffer. Developers either built the schools or contributed to schools on an ad hoc basis. The old system was actually more expensive for them. Are you suggesting we go back to that?