Anonymous wrote:PP again. For instance, in Bethesda and Chevy Chase, old houses get sold as tear downs. New, bigger houses go up in their place. Affordability declines but the neighborhood, by some measures, gets "nicer".

Do the changes discussed in the report mean that more of these tear downs are going to be rebuilt as duplexes, triplexes and small apartment buildings? In the middle of what otherwise are suburban single family neighborhoods? If so, how can we tell if our house, street falls into such a (re) zone?

Yes, so the developer who buys the older house will either build a giant one that he can sell for $3M+ in these nicer neighborhoods or a fourplex he can sell for $1M+ per unit, making the neighborhood now more “attainable” because a family can buy in at $1M vs $3M. But none of it is affordable.

Anonymous wrote:PP again. For instance, in Bethesda and Chevy Chase, old houses get sold as tear downs. New, bigger houses go up in their place. Affordability declines but the neighborhood, by some measures, gets "nicer".

Do the changes discussed in the report mean that more of these tear downs are going to be rebuilt as duplexes, triplexes and small apartment buildings? In the middle of what otherwise are suburban single family neighborhoods? If so, how can we tell if our house, street falls into such a (re) zone?

Yes, that's exactly what it means. And if it doesn't matter if your house is in a zone that's being targeted, because once they start down this path, they will not stop.

PP again. For instance, in Bethesda and Chevy Chase, old houses get sold as tear downs. New, bigger houses go up in their place. Affordability declines but the neighborhood, by some measures, gets "nicer".

Do the changes discussed in the report mean that more of these tear downs are going to be rebuilt as duplexes, triplexes and small apartment buildings? In the middle of what otherwise are suburban single family neighborhoods? If so, how can we tell if our house, street falls into such a (re) zone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure I understand the document. They are proposing to rezone single family lots into lots that could accommodate duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes — have I got that right?

And the rezoning would occur in these buffer zones that straddle the existing “growth corridors”?

And they want to expand that area around the growth corridors to include anything within a mile of a Metro station or a MARC station?

Now I understand why neighborhoods along River Road fought so hard (and unsuccessfully) to oppose the designation of the stretch of River from the Beltway to DC as a growth corridor.

There really isn’t much buildable space along that stretch unless you tear down existing single family homes and replace them with denser housing. A little bit of that kind of development might be ok but not along that whole stretch of a major road. It will totally change the look and feel of the area, to say nothing of the traffic.

Tell your neighbors and everyone you know in MOCO. There is still a chance to stop the madness with enough resident backlash.

Well, can someone define what the recommendation/possiblities are here? Are they looking to expand zoning for multifamily to within a quarter mile of the growth corridors? The report is impenetrable unless you already know this debate and what the report says.

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?

It has only been a year for Arlington. The new multifamily properties haven't even been built yet.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure I understand the document. They are proposing to rezone single family lots into lots that could accommodate duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes — have I got that right?

And the rezoning would occur in these buffer zones that straddle the existing “growth corridors”?

And they want to expand that area around the growth corridors to include anything within a mile of a Metro station or a MARC station?

Now I understand why neighborhoods along River Road fought so hard (and unsuccessfully) to oppose the designation of the stretch of River from the Beltway to DC as a growth corridor.

There really isn’t much buildable space along that stretch unless you tear down existing single family homes and replace them with denser housing. A little bit of that kind of development might be ok but not along that whole stretch of a major road. It will totally change the look and feel of the area, to say nothing of the traffic.

Tell your neighbors and everyone you know in MOCO. There is still a chance to stop the madness with enough resident backlash.

The problem that Arlington encountered is that people think this will make housing affordable (and the developers hammer that message), when it is not true. The Missing Middle townhouses in Arlington will cost $1.5 million or more because the developers are not in the business of being charitable and forgoing profits, but many people naively believed differently. So it's difficult to counter the misinformation, but I agree it's necessary to try.

Where is Elrich in all of this? Does he actually support it?

They have already changed the terminology of affordable housing to “attainable” housing, which is in no way attainable to the missing middle they are trying to solve for. The only people who benefit from new zoning laws that allow multi family housing are developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure I understand the document. They are proposing to rezone single family lots into lots that could accommodate duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes — have I got that right?

And the rezoning would occur in these buffer zones that straddle the existing “growth corridors”?

And they want to expand that area around the growth corridors to include anything within a mile of a Metro station or a MARC station?

Now I understand why neighborhoods along River Road fought so hard (and unsuccessfully) to oppose the designation of the stretch of River from the Beltway to DC as a growth corridor.

There really isn’t much buildable space along that stretch unless you tear down existing single family homes and replace them with denser housing. A little bit of that kind of development might be ok but not along that whole stretch of a major road. It will totally change the look and feel of the area, to say nothing of the traffic.

Tell your neighbors and everyone you know in MOCO. There is still a chance to stop the madness with enough resident backlash.

The problem that Arlington encountered is that people think this will make housing affordable (and the developers hammer that message), when it is not true. The Missing Middle townhouses in Arlington will cost $1.5 million or more because the developers are not in the business of being charitable and forgoing profits, but many people naively believed differently. So it's difficult to counter the misinformation, but I agree it's necessary to try.

Where is Elrich in all of this? Does he actually support it?

The house I grew up in build 1923 backed to a 160 acre farm.

After WWII there was a housing shortage for all the returning soldiers.

So they built 1,600 garden apt style apartments back in 1953. My house now 101 years old is worth around 100k less.

It was a bigger percentage discount because of an apartments in 1974 when parents bought hose as done. But they went coop in 1985 which brought in owners and better maintenance of buildings

The devaluation Effect is forever

Anonymous wrote:I am not sure I understand the document. They are proposing to rezone single family lots into lots that could accommodate duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes — have I got that right?

And the rezoning would occur in these buffer zones that straddle the existing “growth corridors”?

And they want to expand that area around the growth corridors to include anything within a mile of a Metro station or a MARC station?

Now I understand why neighborhoods along River Road fought so hard (and unsuccessfully) to oppose the designation of the stretch of River from the Beltway to DC as a growth corridor.

There really isn’t much buildable space along that stretch unless you tear down existing single family homes and replace them with denser housing. A little bit of that kind of development might be ok but not along that whole stretch of a major road. It will totally change the look and feel of the area, to say nothing of the traffic.

Tell your neighbors and everyone you know in MOCO. There is still a chance to stop the madness with enough resident backlash.

I am not sure I understand the document. They are proposing to rezone single family lots into lots that could accommodate duplexes, triplexes or quadplexes — have I got that right?

And the rezoning would occur in these buffer zones that straddle the existing “growth corridors”?

And they want to expand that area around the growth corridors to include anything within a mile of a Metro station or a MARC station?

Now I understand why neighborhoods along River Road fought so hard (and unsuccessfully) to oppose the designation of the stretch of River from the Beltway to DC as a growth corridor.

There really isn’t much buildable space along that stretch unless you tear down existing single family homes and replace them with denser housing. A little bit of that kind of development might be ok but not along that whole stretch of a major road. It will totally change the look and feel of the area, to say nothing of the traffic.

Anonymous wrote:progressive love density and destroying neighborhoods that have good public schools. Then they live in these condo/apartments/dense areas for a few years, riding their bikes, walking around to get coffee and talk about how good it is. that is until they have kids and then they move further out into the suburbs for the same type of land and housing that existed close-in until they ruined it. They will blame it on their child needing specialized teachers that are certified in this or that b/c of how their child learns. its rinse and repeat across this country

David Blair wasn't a progressive, and yet his unsuccessful campaign was funded by developers. The developers are smart -- calling themselves things like "Progressive PAC." (https://marylandmatters.org/2022/06/29/progressive-pac-in-montgomery-county-is-really-a-bunch-of-developers/)

It seems like you've been deceived into thinking this is a progressive movement. It is not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t wanna upzone because of progressive values. I want to upzone because I am a libertarian that believes in minimal zoning. Zoning is literally big government telling me what to do with my property. We need to abolish zoning short of industrial facilities. No reason commercial needs to be separated from residential. The corner store ideal and all the wonderful neighborhood interactions are dead thanks to zoning. The suburbs killed society and everybody is too alienated because they have to drive everywhere

Alright, well have fun with your libertarian utopia. I'm sure you will love it when you are unable to sleep at night because of noise pollution and your property smell like marijuana due to the halfway house next door. Unlimited property rights cost everyone else in the community from negative externalities. If you eliminate zoning and let people do whatever they want, you are going to have problems with school overcrowding, traffic, there will be increased flooding excessive impervious surfaces, etc. There needs to be some balance between individual property rights and impact on the community.

Negative externalities are something you can put a price on, and mitigate accordingly.

Theoretically yes, but it usually doesn't work this way in practice. Oftentimes, it is not possible require developers to cover the full cost of negative externalities because there are constitutional restrictions on impact fees charged by municipalities. Municipalities almost never give payments to the nearby property owners for the impact it has on the use and enjoyment of their own properties. Surrounding properties near the development have to deal with increased traffic, noise pollution, reduction in sunlight, loss of privacy they don't receive compensation for this. Completely unregulated zoning is a textbook example of privatized gains and socialized losses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are we sure this won't override neighborhood protective clauses? That is how they're pushing this through in some NE towns. I can't find information about that anywhere.

This. It is unclear if the county will be forced to comply with a municipality who has stricter zoning laws. Our understanding is that they might be able to override those and make multi unit housing on SFH zones area. And yes, this is developer’s dreams.

Municipalities and states generally don't have the legal authority to override protective covenants established by private parties that prevent the subdivision of lots or multifamily housing. This will likely be overturned by federal courts because it is generally not permissible to invalidate contracts that were legally valid at the time they were established. They likely can ban the establishment of new protective covenants with certain conditions though.

I am certain that MOCO will sue these neigborhoods into oblivion to get what they want. The good thing is the county cant do anything quickly except road diets, so you literally may have to wait a decade or more before the lawsuits and then possibly developers even start.

They literally cannot do this and there is no way this would be legal at the state level. Even if they try to strong arm single family residential neighborhoods in repealing covenants/HOA bylaws, it usually requires a supermajority to do this. No one will bother to go court over state rules restrict hanging clothing on yards in peoples yards, but people will definitely sue the county/state over a ban on single family neighborhoods. There is no way that 2/3rds of existing property owners in most neighborhoods will consent to this and a county lawsuit to invalidate covenants will only create more community opposition repealing them. There would likely be an injunction on this law for the entire impacted area until the courts rule on it. I would be very surprised if federal courts don't overturn these laws invalidating protective covenants. Invalidating protective covenants (that were legally valid at the time of establishment) would potentially have much wider implications on things outside of housing like irrevocable trusts, conservation easements, and voluntary proffers on rezoning applications.

Anonymous wrote:thankfully my neighborhood off Mass Ave just missed the priority housing districts...for now!

You still need to fight back because your neighborhood will be next. YIMBYs are never satisfied and they won't stop until zoning rules are nonexistent with unlimited density everywhere in the county. It will be a death by a thousand cuts and ultimately everyone in MOCO will suffer from these bad decisions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t wanna upzone because of progressive values. I want to upzone because I am a libertarian that believes in minimal zoning. Zoning is literally big government telling me what to do with my property. We need to abolish zoning short of industrial facilities. No reason commercial needs to be separated from residential. The corner store ideal and all the wonderful neighborhood interactions are dead thanks to zoning. The suburbs killed society and everybody is too alienated because they have to drive everywhere

What is that famous quote about Libertarians and house cats? Apropos.

if libertarians believe in minimal zoning and want to build whatever they want, who is responsible for the infrastructure that connects your "whatever you build" to the rest of the services you need including water, gas, power..etc. you cant just build whatever you want unless you live far out in unzoned land and are responsible for your own services.