Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is amazing news. Property owners should be free to build as much housing on their property as they want.

If you want to ensure that you only ever live next door to single family homes then you're free to buy that property and keep them as single family homes.

I can't wait for all the NIMBY whiners who gleefully tell hard working middle class people who can't afford a SFH in a decent school district that "nobody's entitled to live in a good neighborhood" to gnash their teeth and rend their garments to realize that they're no longer entitled to prevent progress for their own benefit.

its not "progress", its a grift to people like you, so you vote Moore back in. He really doesnt care but change will give him the national exposure, he so desperately craves. the people you want to live next door to, will just leave and go to another state like so many are doing in Maryland that backs SF zoning. Md is a leader in negative net migration, btw.

you should read up on "white flight" and how entire neighborhoods and school districts collapsed when they left. same will happen here but it will be economic based. Most can sell and take their equity and buy a house case in a lower cost state. developers will charge you an arm and a leg to build a townhome in a former SF lot, youll cheer with champagne as you have defeated the NIMBY's.

However, the sf homeowners you speak of, will sell and take their kids with them. the schools and testing wont be as high, good teachers will leave and people left will pull out for private. as property value decreases, the developers will add cheaper and cheaper options, then that "decent" neighborhood wont look so good to you either. you'll then move to another state and complain about NIMBY'ers and try to repeat the cycle over again

Anonymous wrote:I lived in a neighborhood out west with small single family homes dating back to the 1920's.

Building codes eliminated lot lines (you could build to the edge) for multiple dwellings.

It was horrible. It destroyed trees in the neighborhood. Parking which used to always be available was never available. Dumpsters were always overflowing with trash on the ground.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

-Eliminate single family zoning: All this means is that they will allow townhomes where there is single family zoning.

-Enforce a minimum zoned density of 8units/acre - this is only for townhomes with public water and this is a common industry standard.

-Eliminate lot coverage limits: This just means houses will be closer together like in the Kentlands in Maryland, essentially no yard. It makes houses more affordable.

-Make lot setbacks 5ft side/10ft front - IDK if I care about this or not, why do you?

-Eliminate height restrictions: This at 1st glance might make you think they can build bigger structure but it is so they can build smaller more affordable homes.

My response:
Eliminate SF zoning: A wall of 50 foot tall townhomes would block the sunlight to my yard and home
8 unit/acre density: my neighborhood was designed planned for 1 unit/acre density, roads cannot handle 6-8x traffic and there is no ROW to make roads with 8x density.
Lot coverage limits: This will increase run-off/impervious surfacwes. It will create a higher risk of flooding and water damage for homes in my neighborhood. I have already experienced an increase in flooding from my neighbors home addition, eliminating lot coverage requirements will make this much worse.
Reducing setbacks: Increases the risk of fires spreading from home to home and it will raise home insurance rates. Home insurance companies use the distance from neighboring buildings in their risk models because it increased the risk of wind damage, fire damage, etc.
Setbacks of 5-10ft can also create significant noise pollution issues, when homes have AC units right next to your property line.
Eliminating height limits: people are going to build whatever they are allowed to build a that is economically feasible to build. Yes people will absolutely build 45-50 foot homes on postage stamps lots. This will turn my house into a basement, kill my garden and make it feel like I live in a fishbowl.

The limit is 35 ft high.

It protects people trying to build smaller houses.

No it does not say this. It says notwithstanding any other law, a legislative body may not establish any requirements that directly or indirectly regulate exterior dimensions. That means that height limits for residential zoning will be unenforceable for areas subject to this law. You either did not read this bill or you are lying to reduce opposition to it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

8 unit/acre density: my neighborhood was designed planned for 1 unit/acre density, roads cannot handle 6-8x traffic and there is no ROW to make roads with 8x density.

You realize for traffic to go 6 to 8 times every single unit would have to change to eight times.

With bombastic responses it’s hard to take you seriously.

I don't think the initial argument here is wrong. But I would consider the public sewer first. An immediate doubling would overwhelm the current capacity. It's not like bussing where you can more busses and run them more often. Sewage treatment plants take years to build, even if the existing pipes can carry the additional flow. While you could get people to conserve water and electricity, you can't conserve sewage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

-Eliminate single family zoning: All this means is that they will allow townhomes where there is single family zoning.

-Enforce a minimum zoned density of 8units/acre - this is only for townhomes with public water and this is a common industry standard.

-Eliminate lot coverage limits: This just means houses will be closer together like in the Kentlands in Maryland, essentially no yard. It makes houses more affordable.

-Make lot setbacks 5ft side/10ft front - IDK if I care about this or not, why do you?

-Eliminate height restrictions: This at 1st glance might make you think they can build bigger structure but it is so they can build smaller more affordable homes.

My response:
Eliminate SF zoning: A wall of 50 foot tall townhomes would block the sunlight to my yard and home
8 unit/acre density: my neighborhood was designed planned for 1 unit/acre density, roads cannot handle 6-8x traffic and there is no ROW to make roads with 8x density.
Lot coverage limits: This will increase run-off/impervious surfacwes. It will create a higher risk of flooding and water damage for homes in my neighborhood. I have already experienced an increase in flooding from my neighbors home addition, eliminating lot coverage requirements will make this much worse.
Reducing setbacks: Increases the risk of fires spreading from home to home and it will raise home insurance rates. Home insurance companies use the distance from neighboring buildings in their risk models because it increased the risk of wind damage, fire damage, etc.
Setbacks of 5-10ft can also create significant noise pollution issues, when homes have AC units right next to your property line.
Eliminating height limits: people are going to build whatever they are allowed to build a that is economically feasible to build. Yes people will absolutely build 45-50 foot homes on postage stamps lots. This will turn my house into a basement, kill my garden and make it feel like I live in a fishbowl.

The limit is 35 ft high.

It protects people trying to build smaller houses.

Anonymous wrote:This is amazing news. Property owners should be free to build as much housing on their property as they want.

If you want to ensure that you only ever live next door to single family homes then you're free to buy that property and keep them as single family homes.

I can't wait for all the NIMBY whiners who gleefully tell hard working middle class people who can't afford a SFH in a decent school district that "nobody's entitled to live in a good neighborhood" to gnash their teeth and rend their garments to realize that they're no longer entitled to prevent progress for their own benefit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anytime you title your thread with "X wants to destroy your stuff", you lose credibility, OP. People won't fall for such gross exaggeration.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this passes, I will finally leave MD.

Moore is doing so badly in every aspect of his job, but this will be used to act like he cares about housing and put him back on the national stage.

this passing will be a disaster and the net migration #'s will get much worse

I see this all over social media. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya.

Anonymous wrote:If this passes, I will finally leave MD.

Moore is doing so badly in every aspect of his job, but this will be used to act like he cares about housing and put him back on the national stage.

this passing will be a disaster and the net migration #'s will get much worse

Anonymous wrote:This is amazing news. Property owners should be free to build as much housing on their property as they want.

If you want to ensure that you only ever live next door to single family homes then you're free to buy that property and keep them as single family homes.

I can't wait for all the NIMBY whiners who gleefully tell hard working middle class people who can't afford a SFH in a decent school district that "nobody's entitled to live in a good neighborhood" to gnash their teeth and rend their garments to realize that they're no longer entitled to prevent progress for their own benefit.

Anonymous wrote:This sounds like a good idea to me. They’re not going to destroy your suburban neighborhood.