Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

lol, Houston welcomes you:
https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bxs4896/files/images/Southmore%20then%20and%20now%20side%20by%20side.jpg

Yeah....I encourage anyone who is moved by this to look at Google Maps of the exact same block or two going back to 2007. This area hasn't been a SFH enclave...ever? It is smack between two museums with a ton of multi-unit and commercial all around it. The SFH in this picture is the outlier.

Houston doesn't have SFH zoning, AFAIK. When I'm down there, I like to play "Big House or Small Multifamily?" You generally can't tell unless you count the mailboxes or utility meters.

I'd never live in Texas, but not because of this

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When they say a mile to a metro stop, is that as the crow flies or as a human could walk? For instance, medical center backs to NIH—if you weee a bird that could fly over campus, that’s one thing, but if you need to walk around it, that’s another.

It's a simple one mile radius. So this includes many areas that are not actually walkable. The radius should be smaller. If people cannot walk to the metro in around 15 minutes or less it will be more convenient for most of them to drive.

Yeah I think we are within a one mile radius of a metro but it would take a half hour to forty minutes to walk there (because you couldn’t walk straight so it would be closer to 2 miles) and absolutely no one in my neighborhood does. There’s a few of us that take the bus but not many because by the time you take the bus to metro and wait for both it makes a 30-40 munute drive downtown take over an hour.

The bigger issue for me is the burden on schools. We are sooooo overcrowded in our HS and MS. Even with the new ones building built, there is just not a lot of capacity to add lots of multi family units to our catch area. If they don’t have room and money to build new schools, I just don’t see how this is at all feasible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

Ok - it’s not 1940, nothing to do with race..unless you are assuming certain races can’t ever obtain SFHs, which in itself, is racist.

We just want our neighbors to remain cohesive. I don’t care who lives in the homes.

>cohesive

Look, buddy, if you have a SFH, you are free to keep it a SFH. Nobody is forcing you to develop it into a duplex. You’ll still have neighborhoods that stay as they are due to neighbors’ preferences.

I have no problem with increasing zoned density within walking distance of the metro, but this is a complete mess and negligence by the planning department. There is no plan to this proposal other than a myopic focus on increasing density everywhere without concern for the impact on everything else in the county.

It personally offends some people that not everyone can afford to live everywhere, so they are going to try to stamp their feet and make changes no matter how little sense the changes make.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

lol, it’s edgy teen day on DCUM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Have any of these things happened with Missing Middle in Arlington?

You are trying to make a point to us, so just get to the point and tell us what you want to think. Or do you think we are so stupid that you have to ask us probing questions so we will finally get to a point where we realize how smart you are?

Not PP, but: This has not happened in Arlington. And the catastrophizing without any support about "financially ruined" should be scoffed at.

Because…

1. Arlington wisely limited the number of permits annually.
2. There is a lawsuit ongoing that was keeping developers from investing in projects that might be canceled.

So, it didn’t happen because it’s not happening.

Montgomery Cointy is trying to approve a ridiculous free for all. This really should be a referendum item.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

Ok - it’s not 1940, nothing to do with race..unless you are assuming certain races can’t ever obtain SFHs, which in itself, is racist.

We just want our neighbors to remain cohesive. I don’t care who lives in the homes.

>cohesive

Look, buddy, if you have a SFH, you are free to keep it a SFH. Nobody is forcing you to develop it into a duplex. You’ll still have neighborhoods that stay as they are due to neighbors’ preferences.

I have no problem with increasing zoned density within walking distance of the metro, but this is a complete mess and negligence by the planning department. There is no plan to this proposal other than a myopic focus on increasing density everywhere without concern for the impact on everything else in the county.

It personally offends some people that not everyone can afford to live everywhere, so they are going to try to stamp their feet and make changes no matter how little sense the changes make.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

lol, Houston welcomes you:
https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bxs4896/files/images/Southmore%20then%20and%20now%20side%20by%20side.jpg

Your response is bad and sad. Why doesn’t Maryland encourage trade between two consensual parties? This is still America, as far as I know. We value commerce and development. If you want a quiet fishing village go to Europe, which is an outdoor museum with nothing interesting modern happening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

lol, Houston welcomes you:
https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bxs4896/files/images/Southmore%20then%20and%20now%20side%20by%20side.jpg

Yeah....I encourage anyone who is moved by this to look at Google Maps of the exact same block or two going back to 2007. This area hasn't been a SFH enclave...ever? It is smack between two museums with a ton of multi-unit and commercial all around it. The SFH in this picture is the outlier.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are

lol, Houston welcomes you:
https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bxs4896/files/images/Southmore%20then%20and%20now%20side%20by%20side.jpg

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.

The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots.
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.

Except that's not their best policy lever. Increasing taxes on unused land is. They don't even seem to he considering that.

what unused land?

Anonymous wrote:When they say a mile to a metro stop, is that as the crow flies or as a human could walk? For instance, medical center backs to NIH—if you weee a bird that could fly over campus, that’s one thing, but if you need to walk around it, that’s another.

It's a simple one mile radius. So this includes many areas that are not actually walkable. The radius should be smaller. If people cannot walk to the metro in around 15 minutes or less it will be more convenient for most of them to drive.

When they say a mile to a metro stop, is that as the crow flies or as a human could walk? For instance, medical center backs to NIH—if you weee a bird that could fly over campus, that’s one thing, but if you need to walk around it, that’s another.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

Ok - it’s not 1940, nothing to do with race..unless you are assuming certain races can’t ever obtain SFHs, which in itself, is racist.

We just want our neighbors to remain cohesive. I don’t care who lives in the homes.

>cohesive

Look, buddy, if you have a SFH, you are free to keep it a SFH. Nobody is forcing you to develop it into a duplex. You’ll still have neighborhoods that stay as they are due to neighbors’ preferences.

I have no problem with increasing zoned density within walking distance of the metro, but this is a complete mess and negligence by the planning department. There is no plan to this proposal other than a myopic focus on increasing density everywhere without concern for the impact on everything else in the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

Ok - it’s not 1940, nothing to do with race..unless you are assuming certain races can’t ever obtain SFHs, which in itself, is racist.

We just want our neighbors to remain cohesive. I don’t care who lives in the homes.

>cohesive

Look, buddy, if you have a SFH, you are free to keep it a SFH. Nobody is forcing you to develop it into a duplex. You’ll still have neighborhoods that stay as they are due to neighbors’ preferences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How can neighborhood associations prevent this?

Could we create covenants to protect the neighborhood against our idiotic council?

Obviously voting these clowns out of office is the priority.

+1

Agreed

There was an earlier reply that had the backgrounds for each Council member there. It all makes sense when you read them.

Yes, meet a lawyer asap and rally the neighbors to join a covenant.

This is exactly how racial covenants were created btw. You are on the wrong side of history.

Ok - it’s not 1940, nothing to do with race..unless you are assuming certain races can’t ever obtain SFHs, which in itself, is racist.

We just want our neighbors to remain cohesive. I don’t care who lives in the homes.

+1 Agreed!