Anonymous wrote:Yes, they would.
1-higher buildings create shade on the sunny yards they are next to, not to mention invading privacy that used to exist;
2- would create parking problems (many drivers in the space where fewer were before). And, developers get points for creating fewer parking places because the Montgomery County Planning Board believes that if you don't build parking places people won't have cars (BS!).
3 - the infrastructure isnt there to support the additional people or concrete (already horrendous traffic throughout the County, already overcrowded schools, open green space is disappearing rapidly giving way to cement without taking water drainage into account, no mass-transit in suburbia, not to mention fire, police and other safety issues).

These are mostly bogus arguments.

1) Most high density buildings are going in on existing lots that in most cases are nowhere near single family homes.

2)Virtually all high density buildings are going in immediately proximate to public transit and the entire point of building near transit is to enable people to drive less and own fewer cars. It actually doesn't make sense to build a lot of parking near transit as it undercuts the purpose of the transit. And this trend is only accelerating with the explosive growth in car sharing which means people will have access to cars without needing to store the cars which makes a lot of sense.

3) Montgomery County does need to do a better job on school infrastructure (and Moco still has land so this should not be that hard) but the rest of these arguments are non-sense. Adjusting staffing levels for public safety is pretty easy to do. Green space is not disappearing because of transit oriented development - in fact TOD is how you preserve green space by better utilizing existing developed land. Most of the demand for cement is a result of sprawl - all of the roads necessary to support spread out development to say nothing of every single house having its own driveway etc. I addressed the traffic argument above but the way to get rid of horrendous traffic is to have people live near and use transit and live in walkable neighborhoods. And this region is actually required to take storm drainage into account on all new projects (buildings and roads) so any development that replaces an older project will almost certainly be a net improvement over what it replaces and this is especially true if you are getting LEED certified buildings.

I get that you drive everywhere and don't understand that other people make different choices but there is incredible unmet demand right now for walkable residential and commercial space in locations well served by transit and it so happens that contrary to what you state that there are many parts of the the suburbs that are well served by public transit and this will be even more true in the future when the Silver and Purple Lines are completed.

Yes, they would.
1-higher buildings create shade on the sunny yards they are next to, not to mention invading privacy that used to exist;
2- would create parking problems (many drivers in the space where fewer were before). And, developers get points for creating fewer parking places because the Montgomery County Planning Board believes that if you don't build parking places people won't have cars (BS!).
3 - the infrastructure isnt there to support the additional people or concrete (already horrendous traffic throughout the County, already overcrowded schools, open green space is disappearing rapidly giving way to cement without taking water drainage into account, no mass-transit in suburbia, not to mention fire, police and other safety issues).

Anonymous wrote:And you all think these high-rises and multifamily dwelling units should be allowed right in the middle of suburbia? Your nuts! We left the density of the city for the green yards for our kids to play in. Don't turn the suburbs into the next new urban neighborhood.

how will those high rises affect your private yard and single family home? they don't.

Let's build affordable housing in Edgemoor. The Sidwell Friends site is for sale. The county should buy it for affordable housing. Social justice in Bethesda now.

We are in one of the old "cheap" homes and none of the folks in the $2+ million new homes w/in a half mile of us even know the name of our public school. It's not why they bought, and it's not where Larla and siblings attend...

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Priced-out" = better neighbors moving in

No it means wealthier neighbors moving in. Having lived in neighborhoods of varying levels of wealth I can tell you that is not necessarily a positive thing - lots of wealthy folks think contributing to their community and helping out is for other people.

Whatever you have to tell yourself.

Anonymous wrote:Oh, god, who wants to live in Bethesda?

Not everyone can live in MoCo. Prices are much more affordable in PG.

Look at 4408 Chestnut for $865. Adorable!

Newsflash: all of those high rises contain MPDUs. So Bethesda is adding diversity. And there are still plenty small homes for sale in downtown Bethesda. You just need to settle for tiny closets and dusty plaster, like we did!

Anonymous wrote:And you all think these high-rises and multifamily dwelling units should be allowed right in the middle of suburbia? Your nuts! We left the density of the city for the green yards for our kids to play in. Don't turn the suburbs into the next new urban neighborhood.

You'll just have to move farther out in search of suburbia. PS nobody is going to take over your yard.

Oh, god, who wants to live in Bethesda?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are zoning laws responsible for people being priced out of the public school system in Bethesda, MD? Too many old SFHs are being torn down to build large McMansions in their place. The old SFHs cost from $800K to $1.25MM so for the builder to make profit, the new McMansions will have to sell for $2.5MM and up. The ratio of total square feet of home to square feet of lot area for the new McMansion is several multiple times that of the ratio for the old home. I blame zoning laws in Montgomery county to be the root cause of people being priced out of Bethesda, MD and its public schools resulting in increased class segregation.

Unless we elect county officials who value and promote economic diversity, racial diversity, and more equal access to all residents the situation will not change. We voters should realize that the special interest groups and lobbyists may shell out campaign contributions and offer other incentives but they also have only one vote per person. We are in much greater number than the special interest groups and the lobbyists.

You are sort of onto something but not quite.

We do need more development near transit and Bethesda is a good example of this. Though unless I'm mistaken most of what is currently planned for Bethesda is commercial and not residential.

Having said that the solution to under performing schools is not more transit oriented development.

Upper NW and Bethesda both have the same problem - there has been an explosion in their public school populations (though in Upper NW it is not really because of development of which there has been little) but in both jurisdictions there is a cap to how many more people can be squeezed into the public schools in the higher performing areas.

The solution in both places has to be improving lower performing public schools.

And maybe zoning in the form of transit oriented development can be a way to incentivize middle and upper middle class folks to live in neighborhoods they previously would not have considered and thus lift those schools.

In DC it appears that this is working at the Elementary school level but there isn't much evidence that this is working yet at the middle and high school level.

Perhaps the coming Purple Line, which will represent a big increase in transit capacity for Lower Montgomery County, will have a similar catalytic impact?

Agreed. And this will happen by (1.) increasing density near transit in order to provide cover to (2.) break up the current feed patterns and boundary lines. Only so many kids can go to BCC and WJ. They must shrink the current boundaries at some point.

Furthermore, I think we will see re-zoning, especially of SFH blocks right near major commercial strips. I'm looking squarely at Friendship Village, Chevy Chase, and Somerset blocks just adjacent to Wisconsin Ave commercial strip. I think it's only a matter of time (less than 5 years) where we see them allowing developers to tear down an old house and replace it with 3 unit condo buildings (similar to what you see in DC).

This simply won’t happen in Somerset. It’s a separate town that would have to vote to change any zoning laws within the town limits. I imagine that the close in parts of Chevy Chase Village are the same and they would not vote to change the laws either.

And you all think these high-rises and multifamily dwelling units should be allowed right in the middle of suburbia? Your nuts! We left the density of the city for the green yards for our kids to play in. Don't turn the suburbs into the next new urban neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't have to be a $2.5 million dollar house, that's just what the builders charge. They are making a killing. It doesn't cost them much over $100/foot plus the lot. You do the math.

However, it costs to build. So, if you want a smaller house, buy a teardown and build a 2000 sq ft. house, but it will cost not much less than a 6000 sq ft one, so you will lose money.

no its not just "what the builder charges" its what the market creates. A house is only worth what someone is willing to pay. I live in a transitioning neighborhood in DC with a terrible in bound schools, row houses are going for 900k. and its not like they can be torn down for a mcmansion. Restrictive zoning pushed by NIMBYs, especially in Bethesda, where people think any multifamily building will destroy the character of their neighborhood, does more to restrict housing supply and drive up costs. We need a lot more 4-4 bedroom multifamily buildings.

Anonymous wrote:"Priced-out" = better neighbors moving in

No it means wealthier neighbors moving in. Having lived in neighborhoods of varying levels of wealth I can tell you that is not necessarily a positive thing - lots of wealthy folks think contributing to their community and helping out is for other people.