Anonymous wrote:I don't think it is a bad idea. Let market forces dictate what gets built where.

Anonymous wrote:

8 unit/acre density: my neighborhood was designed planned for 1 unit/acre density, roads cannot handle 6-8x traffic and there is no ROW to make roads with 8x density.

You realize for traffic to go 6 to 8 times every single unit would have to change to eight times.

With bombastic responses it’s hard to take you seriously.

8 unit/acre density: my neighborhood was designed planned for 1 unit/acre density, roads cannot handle 6-8x traffic and there is no ROW to make roads with 8x density.

Anonymous wrote:This is amazing news. Property owners should be free to build as much housing on their property as they want.

If you want to ensure that you only ever live next door to single family homes then you're free to buy that property and keep them as single family homes.

I can't wait for all the NIMBY whiners who gleefully tell hard working middle class people who can't afford a SFH in a decent school district that "nobody's entitled to live in a good neighborhood" to gnash their teeth and rend their garments to realize that they're no longer entitled to prevent progress for their own benefit.

Anonymous wrote:As I live in a dense neighborhood already with more huge apartment buildings going up, Wes Moore isn't going to have a chance of destroying my neighborhood, and I couldn't care less about protecting the suburban way of life. If he could help out with properly funding the schools and transit for this influx of kids, that would be cool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

-Eliminate single family zoning: All this means is that they will allow townhomes where there is single family zoning.

-Enforce a minimum zoned density of 8units/acre - this is only for townhomes with public water and this is a common industry standard.

-Eliminate lot coverage limits: This just means houses will be closer together like in the Kentlands in Maryland, essentially no yard. It makes houses more affordable.

-Make lot setbacks 5ft side/10ft front - IDK if I care about this or not, why do you?

-Eliminate height restrictions: This at 1st glance might make you think they can build bigger structure but it is so they can build smaller more affordable homes.

My response:
Eliminate SF zoning: A wall of 50 foot tall townhomes would block the sunlight to my yard and home
8 unit/acre density: my neighborhood was designed planned for 1 unit/acre density, roads cannot handle 6-8x traffic and there is no ROW to make roads with 8x density.
Lot coverage limits: This will increase run-off/impervious surfacwes. It will create a higher risk of flooding and water damage for homes in my neighborhood. I have already experienced an increase in flooding from my neighbors home addition, eliminating lot coverage requirements will make this much worse.
Reducing setbacks: Increases the risk of fires spreading from home to home and it will raise home insurance rates. Home insurance companies use the distance from neighboring buildings in their risk models because it increased the risk of wind damage, fire damage, etc.
Setbacks of 5-10ft can also create significant noise pollution issues, when homes have AC units right next to your property line.
Eliminating height limits: people are going to build whatever they are allowed to build a that is economically feasible to build. Yes people will absolutely build 45-50 foot homes on postage stamps lots. This will turn my house into a basement, kill my garden and make it feel like I live in a fishbowl.

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it is a bad idea. Let market forces dictate what gets built where.

Anonymous wrote:

-Eliminate single family zoning: All this means is that they will allow townhomes where there is single family zoning.

-Enforce a minimum zoned density of 8units/acre - this is only for townhomes with public water and this is a common industry standard.

-Eliminate lot coverage limits: This just means houses will be closer together like in the Kentlands in Maryland, essentially no yard. It makes houses more affordable.

-Make lot setbacks 5ft side/10ft front - IDK if I care about this or not, why do you?

-Eliminate height restrictions: This at 1st glance might make you think they can build bigger structure but it is so they can build smaller more affordable homes.

Anonymous wrote:As I live in a dense neighborhood already with more huge apartment buildings going up, Wes Moore isn't going to have a chance of destroying my neighborhood, and I couldn't care less about protecting the suburban way of life. If he could help out with properly funding the schools and transit for this influx of kids, that would be cool.

Anonymous wrote:

-Eliminate single family zoning: All this means is that they will allow townhomes where there is single family zoning.

-Enforce a minimum zoned density of 8units/acre - this is only for townhomes with public water and this is a common industry standard.

-Eliminate lot coverage limits: This just means houses will be closer together like in the Kentlands in Maryland, essentially no yard. It makes houses more affordable.

-Make lot setbacks 5ft side/10ft front - IDK if I care about this or not, why do you?

-Eliminate height restrictions: This at 1st glance might make you think they can build bigger structure but it is so they can build smaller more affordable homes.