Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

Anonymous wrote:This is a direct result of the lobbying by developers in this county. It’s going to hurt middle class SFH owners whose entire nest egg is in a home in Wheaton or Glenmont or Silver Spring and whose neighborhoods are going to be overrun with multifamily homes and their homes will be reduced to nothing in value and they’ll sell at way less. Meanwhile schools in the DCC already bursting at the seams and no money to build new ones. Too bad for them, I guess.

Literally, this is a break for developers. It hurts middle and working class people terribly. It’s disgusting. Not to mention that the people who pass these regulations don’t live in the communities affected.

It’s kind of a weird play for developers. They make more money when there’s unmet demand. The local apartment association has been advocating for this, though, so they must have some members who see money in small apartment buildings.

The real estate agents are less of a surprise. Many of them take stakes in tear down projects, so some will view this as an investor, and all will benefit from more turnover. Times have gotten pretty lean for the real estate agents because inventory has been so low (in part because the recordation tax hike increased transaction costs).

Anonymous wrote:This is a direct result of the lobbying by developers in this county. It’s going to hurt middle class SFH owners whose entire nest egg is in a home in Wheaton or Glenmont or Silver Spring and whose neighborhoods are going to be overrun with multifamily homes and their homes will be reduced to nothing in value and they’ll sell at way less. Meanwhile schools in the DCC already bursting at the seams and no money to build new ones. Too bad for them, I guess.

Literally, this is a break for developers. It hurts middle and working class people terribly. It’s disgusting. Not to mention that the people who pass these regulations don’t live in the communities affected.

It’s also a break for real estate agents. Not surprisingly, there are a lot of real estate agents in the YImBY groups.

This is a direct result of the lobbying by developers in this county. It’s going to hurt middle class SFH owners whose entire nest egg is in a home in Wheaton or Glenmont or Silver Spring and whose neighborhoods are going to be overrun with multifamily homes and their homes will be reduced to nothing in value and they’ll sell at way less. Meanwhile schools in the DCC already bursting at the seams and no money to build new ones. Too bad for them, I guess.

Literally, this is a break for developers. It hurts middle and working class people terribly. It’s disgusting. Not to mention that the people who pass these regulations don’t live in the communities affected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Do you know how one would begin adding covenants?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People move to SFH neighborhoods specifically to have space. They are going to ruin the entire county until it is paved concrete jungle like Tokyo and we all get to live in sh!tty 400 sqft apts.

But hey, at least the crappy chipotle down the street is walkable. I can’t wait until this stupendously backfires and everyone with means (by and large part home owners) flees because all of the upzoning imports tons of poverty and trashy people into the county. Gee, you mean it sucks when your neighborhood street has 30000 cars parked all over because each triplex houses 20 people all with their own cars?

R.I.P. MoCo. Howard and AA Counties looking more attractive by the day.

Ugh. That is EXACTLY what happened to our neighborhood. Used to be a solidly middle-class neighborhood. Now overrun with multiple families crammed into one home, and cars all over. Very frustrating.

Hate to break it to you but those families are also middle class. Middle class is not only living in a SFH

Really? Middle class is cramming multiple families in a house? By Planning’s own definition, middle class is roughly $90k-$150k. Plenty of “luxury” apartments are available at prices that won’t make the lower end of middle class rent burdened.

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People move to SFH neighborhoods specifically to have space. They are going to ruin the entire county until it is paved concrete jungle like Tokyo and we all get to live in sh!tty 400 sqft apts.

But hey, at least the crappy chipotle down the street is walkable. I can’t wait until this stupendously backfires and everyone with means (by and large part home owners) flees because all of the upzoning imports tons of poverty and trashy people into the county. Gee, you mean it sucks when your neighborhood street has 30000 cars parked all over because each triplex houses 20 people all with their own cars?

R.I.P. MoCo. Howard and AA Counties looking more attractive by the day.

Ugh. That is EXACTLY what happened to our neighborhood. Used to be a solidly middle-class neighborhood. Now overrun with multiple families crammed into one home, and cars all over. Very frustrating.

Hate to break it to you but those families are also middle class. Middle class is not only living in a SFH

You’ve just made this up. At least you all are consistent.

Anonymous wrote:LATEST:

https://moco360.media/2024/07/26/county-council-may-consider-proposal-to-allow-more-housing-options-in-single-family-home-zones/

Maybe Andrew Friedson isn’t concerned about lawsuits (or so he says), but there could be a chance that he is interested in being reelected.

“While Friedson has been supportive of the proposed initiative, he told council staffers during Monday’s Parks, Housing and Planning Committee work session that they needed to clarify what the Planning Board is actually recommending before legislation could come before the council.

He described some of the proposed language and regulations in the initiative as confusing and “doublespeak.”

“I don’t think we need to wait on obtaining information. Knowledge is power here, so let’s get a handle on what we’re talking about,” Friedson said.”

The quality of planning staff’s work has been a consistent subject of complaints from the council. A lot of planning’s proposals don’t hold up intellectually and collapse even under modest scrutiny. When you have to write more than 280 characters to justify your proposal it’s hard.

I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People move to SFH neighborhoods specifically to have space. They are going to ruin the entire county until it is paved concrete jungle like Tokyo and we all get to live in sh!tty 400 sqft apts.

But hey, at least the crappy chipotle down the street is walkable. I can’t wait until this stupendously backfires and everyone with means (by and large part home owners) flees because all of the upzoning imports tons of poverty and trashy people into the county. Gee, you mean it sucks when your neighborhood street has 30000 cars parked all over because each triplex houses 20 people all with their own cars?

R.I.P. MoCo. Howard and AA Counties looking more attractive by the day.

Ugh. That is EXACTLY what happened to our neighborhood. Used to be a solidly middle-class neighborhood. Now overrun with multiple families crammed into one home, and cars all over. Very frustrating.

Hate to break it to you but those families are also middle class. Middle class is not only living in a SFH