Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

It has nothing to do with race or class and everything to do with density. Many areas cannot accommodate quadruple the population density and this policy does nothing to mitigate the costs imposed on residents or the county. They are even encouraging waivers of property taxes for these new plex units which will destroy the counties already strained finances. They are actively encouraging unfunded population growth and ignoring any possible consequences or infrastructure constraints that will harm county residents.

+1

I suspect there will be those like the responder who cry out with holier than though rhetoric, when we are simply facing the worst type of urban planning. This added density is sloppy, destructive, devaluing of current communities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

Developers paying a homeowner a boat load to redevelop their detached house into a quadriplex benefits the person receiving the cash, but does nothing to help their neighbors. It's not win-win.

And then there are the concerns about school capacity and other infrastructure, and similar concerns for those currently residing in the affected areas, which are expressed without that racist/classist invective. And they are treated as though they are invalid as density promoters frame them as having the same bias, even as they are presented without it, in order to avoid addressing those issues head on. It's appalling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

This is a pretty good concise summary, and I say that as somebody who is in favor of it. One clarification/question: where you wrote minimum, I think you meant maximum?

Well there are other proposed changes layered on top of the proposal that make it more complicated.
County changes
1) Eliminating single family zoning that make it more complicated.
2) Priority housing districts (with a 1 mile radius of metro stations or MARC stations)
3) Growth Corridors (within 500 feet of certain roads).

These county changes will stack with recent state laws overriding local zoning authority in some circumstances to allow well above 8x the current zoning for eligible properties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

It has nothing to do with race or class and everything to do with density. Many areas cannot accommodate quadruple the population density and this policy does nothing to mitigate the costs imposed on residents or the county. They are even encouraging waivers of property taxes for these new plex units which will destroy the counties already strained finances. They are actively encouraging unfunded population growth and ignoring any possible consequences or infrastructure constraints that will harm county residents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

It has nothing to do with race or class and everything to do with density. Many areas cannot accommodate quadruple the population density and this policy does nothing to mitigate the costs imposed on residents or the county. They are even encouraging waivers of property taxes for these new plex units which will destroy the counties already strained finances. They are actively encouraging unfunded population growth and ignoring any possible consequences or infrastructure constraints that will harm county residents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

This is a pretty good concise summary, and I say that as somebody who is in favor of it. One clarification/question: where you wrote minimum, I think you meant maximum?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties

I agree. If I were in the zone (we're just outside of it) I would be planning to either (i) sell out place to a developer, or (ii) build a 2-3 unit building that would be suitable for retirement (an accessible unit for us and 1-2 rental units for income).

And I can't get over the comments, and the subtext, on this thread. Racist, classist, the belief that people who live in multi-unit housing will destroy the neighborhood, Westbrook is now a Title 1 school because they redistricted an apartment into it, etc. It's appalling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

They are planning on building everywhere, by increasing zoned density by a minimum of 4-8x throughout most of the county. They will allow by right subdivision of existing lots to create new lots below the minimum size and also allow duplexes to quadplexes (almost) everywhere depending on the residential zoning category. So a subdivided will be able to create a minimum of 2 duplexes, which is 4x density. In other areas a subdivided lot will potentially allow a minimum of two quadplexes which is 8x the existing density.

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

Anonymous wrote:It will ruin neighborhoods and reduce properties values in some neighborhoods without protections from excessive density. Neighborhoods with protective covenants and HOA's that prevent multifamily housing will become more valuable. Some properties close in that have higher redevelopment potential will increase in value due to higher land prices. Many of the others will lose value and resident quality of life will go down hill. Single family communities close to high quality private schools with strong HOA/Covenants to protect thew neighborhood are likely safe. However, many middle class homeowners in desirable school attendance zones will be financially destroyed if this passes.

Anonymous wrote:It is too long post. Where are they building?

Anonymous wrote:To the actual topic at hand, for this to be successful, folks are going to have to sell to developers. Personally I have a property prime for this new plan, walkable to two metro stations (equidistant to both), right on a major corridor and entirely walkable. It’s why we bought the house. I’m not selling it until my kids are grown and away. But if a developer offered me 3x the value to walk away I totally would…. So to me, this could be a windfall. And I suspect my neighbors think of it the same way—- it won’t come to fruition unless developers pay up for the properties