Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Where in Montgomery County do you think they should go?

Same place as where all these apartments would go.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Or more townhome/duplex developments. They want to change the zoning so that SFHs can be torn down to build them but seems like whenever there is an open plot of land up goes another apartment/condo building. The plot near the Forest Glen metro comes to mind here- was a small townhome complex even considered? There seems to be a disconnect between what is being built and what people want.

Why would it make sense to build townhouses next to a Metro station? So that fewer people can live within walking distance of a Metro station, instead of more?

Anonymous wrote:So we want to create more school overcrowding to give people who contribute little or nothing to the county's finances a free ride?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Or more townhome/duplex developments. They want to change the zoning so that SFHs can be torn down to build them but seems like whenever there is an open plot of land up goes another apartment/condo building. The plot near the Forest Glen metro comes to mind here- was a small townhome complex even considered? There seems to be a disconnect between what is being built and what people want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Where in Montgomery County do you think they should go?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Or more townhome/duplex developments. They want to change the zoning so that SFHs can be torn down to build them but seems like whenever there is an open plot of land up goes another apartment/condo building. The plot near the Forest Glen metro comes to mind here- was a small townhome complex even considered? There seems to be a disconnect between what is being built and what people want.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

I’m totally open to the idea of parents and kids living in apartments. I just don’t want to be one of them. A lot of other people apparently don’t either, given that rents have leveled off but SFH prices keep increasing. Maybe the real solution to the housing crisis is building more SFH. It’s funny that none of the housing advocates ever suggest that. It’s almost as if their interests are perfectly aligned with those of big landlords.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

So now we need to build more housing for young adults from UMC families who want to be able to live wherever they want in their 20s? lol. I guess that makes sense when you consider most of the buildings going up will have 1-2BR apartments.

If you want young adults to live in Montgomery County, then yes, there needs to be housing in Montgomery County that they want to live in and can afford to live in.

Not PP and this is anecdotal, but the millennials I know who are looking for housing in MoCo are looking to move out of their apts/condos into houses/townhouses. There is definitely a shortage of the type of housing young families are looking for. But maybe we all need to be open to the idea of apartment living like families in other cities are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone remember Roger Berliners 'Keeping the Pace' forum some years back? People before you have been advocating for more school capacity (and funding for that capacity building) for decades. All its gotten us is billions behind and unable to ever catch up.

By allowing and supporting never ending building, with no checks and balances for school capacity, you are contributing to making a bad problem worse.

A big part of the problem? With 160,000 students, the families without children in schools outnumber those with children in schools by a wide margin. Not to mention, most students aren't old enough to vote and don't donate to political campaigns.

BTW, it is not a zero sum game: you can be for affordable housing and for more funds for school capacity at the same time

That was in 2015. Since then, what have we gotten? A lot of new schools, new school buildings, and additions. Of course, a big chunk of that has been in Clarksburg. if you want to argue that Clarksburg was a bad idea, I won't disagree. However, people who live in Clarksburg presumably will disagree.

DP. A more relevant observation would be whether we have more or less overcrowding since 2015. Not on average, as that would not represent the higher need areas, but comparing the percentages, then and now, of students attending school in facilities that are above capacity (including those needing to use portables, as those diminish outdoor facilities like playgrounds) or that present some other capital deficit. New schools are helpful, but only to those areas getting those schools (or nearby areas that get relief through associated boundary changes).

Why? MCPS has spent a large amount of money on new schools, and most of the enrollment growth (except in Clarksburg, obviously) comes from students who live in existing housing.

Because it would tell us if the capital outlays are keeping up with need or if more funding is required. If not, then the observation that there has been new construction & additions is largely irrelevant. Those things, pretty much, are always happening to some degree or other each year, to cover population growth and/or aging facilities in need of replacement.

It is unclear why you mention growth from existing housing. There will be those in the new, affordable housing that the bill aims to create who will have school-aged children in need of adequate (not overcrowded) school facilities, among other adequate public facilities. Most of that would be in older areas where overcrowding is already a problem.

The issue, here, is allowing additional development without consideration for school capacities in the first place, and I'd ask that you support a paradigm to ensure those capacities are adequate. Presuming from your post that you want the development, of course, that would mean ensuring coincident funding of school capital programs commemsurate to the need of the development area in question.

Advocate as you like as to who should pay for that in order to achieve the social end of that development being affordable, but please don't try to unlink the two. As previously mentioned, it would be terribly unjust to create housing that those with lower income can afford only to see residents, particularly children, then lacking public infrastructure, especially schools.

We know they're not. MCPS says so, every year. Every year they issue a requested capital budget, and every year the County Council funds less than the requested amount. And that's not because of new housing.

As for the interests of kids in low-income families - they're already living here, in overcrowded housing, and they're already attending MCPS, potentially in overcrowded schools. Unless you think the new units would spontaneously generate new kids?

That's what usually happens with new development. More families and more kids...

Where are these families and kids living now?

DP. You're back on the clock after having to attend to Super Tuesday yesterday evening, we see.

Not all of those families and kids who would reside in new development, affordable units or otherwise, are currently residing in the affected communities/MoCo, and those moving in would create a need for additional/expanded public facilities, such as schools, to keep them providing adequate service levels to those communities.

Do you have data about this? Does anyone? Or do you just have assumptions?

Back at ya. You aren't showing any data supporting the point of view you push with "earnest-truth-seeker" questioning, that new development won't present an additional burden or that changes can't/shouldn't be made to this bill that currently undermines ensurance of adequate public facilities for the very population it is intended to help. At least some of us lay out our reasoning when advocating for changes to the bill so that encouraging affordable housing development wouldn't present, e.g., additional school overcrowding issues. (Cue the next argumentative question from you in 3...2...1...)

The data, if it has been collected, would be with government offices or public research organizations. Typically not easily accessed for analysis by the general public. It would be great to have such at our fingertips, but not having it doesn't, by itself, invalidate the associated thoughts.

Nah. If you're saying it will be a burden, you really ought to have data for it. How many additional, new MCPS students will live in these units? How many of the students who will live in these units are already MCPS students? It's not possible to come up with effective policy or legislative solutions without data to answer those questions.

By the same token, those saying it wouldn't be a burden and are pushing for this bill as it exists, without ensuring adequate schools, would need to come up with data to support that, but that hasn't been offered.

No, that's not how it works. All I'm saying is: pass the housing bill now, then work on school capacity. You're saying: the housing bill must not be passed unless it has a plan for school capacity too. What do you need for a plan for school capacity? Data on how many new students will live in the housing.

Double standard, much?

I'm saying the bill should have a plan for school capacity, yes, as the current language changes one of the few structures currently in place to help ensure that schools don't get overcrowded. Given that municipalities like MoCo already fail in that regard, there's little hope of it not getting worse with even more housing capacity unless there is a reinstatement of the protection.

Governments/organizations plan for uncertain outcomes all the time. Estimates, risk management strategies, etc. Among those are expected student population yields from new housing, which are...wait for it...based on data analyses!

Good stuff. So, do you know what they say about how many new-to-MCPS students would be expected from the allowable housing?

DP. That’s being analyzed for this bill right? Right? Seems irresponsible not to.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. But we're advocating, here, for changing the bill to ensure school capacity with the additional units. As much as you might like to paint it as anti-housing.

A certain prior resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is a developer who is known to have provided housing in NY, but with substandard facilities. It would be a shame to emulate that kind of "progressive" housing.

Units don't go to school. Kids do.

Please drop the allusions to Former President Rapist Guy, they're not relevant here.

Kids live in...(guess what?!)...housing units. But you go on with your disingenuity, there.

As for relevance, you are advocating for creation of underserved housing for less wealthy families when you could be advocating for properly served housing for the same. That's really poor progressivism. But I'd bet it's the kind that rightist developers like.

This. I just don’t understand sometimes. Their shouts of “you’re against housing!” can’t mask that they are essentially supporting the creation of an underclass.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. But we're advocating, here, for changing the bill to ensure school capacity with the additional units. As much as you might like to paint it as anti-housing.

A certain prior resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave is a developer who is known to have provided housing in NY, but with substandard facilities. It would be a shame to emulate that kind of "progressive" housing.

Units don't go to school. Kids do.

Please drop the allusions to Former President Rapist Guy, they're not relevant here.

Kids live in...(guess what?!)...housing units. But you go on with your disingenuity, there.

As for relevance, you are advocating for creation of underserved housing for less wealthy families when you could be advocating for properly served housing for the same. That's really poor progressivism. But I'd bet it's the kind that rightist developers like.