Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1 Once DC #2 is done with college we are out of MC. There is no reason to continue to pay the high taxes of MoCo and Maryland with the types of policies the Council is looking at as well the school board. The biggest indicator that MoCo is making poor decisions is the lack of a growing business climate. Just walk around the Woodmont Triangle and notice all the empty storefronts and for lease signs. Look at all the empty office space in the County. Raising rates to cover for less and less people is a downward spiral which there is no recovery.

Yup. That's why rents are so high and Marriott is moving there.

Wait, what?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1 Once DC #2 is done with college we are out of MC. There is no reason to continue to pay the high taxes of MoCo and Maryland with the types of policies the Council is looking at as well the school board. The biggest indicator that MoCo is making poor decisions is the lack of a growing business climate. Just walk around the Woodmont Triangle and notice all the empty storefronts and for lease signs. Look at all the empty office space in the County. Raising rates to cover for less and less people is a downward spiral which there is no recovery.

Yup. That's why rents are so high and Marriott is moving there.

Wait, what?

No, [b]rents are artificially high, and the commercial real estate companies are happy to just leave them that way and consider it a loss. Or taxpayers step in and cover the difference.

There is definitely an abundance of empty office space in the County. Yes, that should mean rental rates should decrease, but that hasn't happened.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1 Once DC #2 is done with college we are out of MC. There is no reason to continue to pay the high taxes of MoCo and Maryland with the types of policies the Council is looking at as well the school board. The biggest indicator that MoCo is making poor decisions is the lack of a growing business climate. Just walk around the Woodmont Triangle and notice all the empty storefronts and for lease signs. Look at all the empty office space in the County. Raising rates to cover for less and less people is a downward spiral which there is no recovery.

Yup. That's why rents are so high and Marriott is moving there.[b]

Wait, what?

Anonymous wrote:

+1 Once DC #2 is done with college we are out of MC. There is no reason to continue to pay the high taxes of MoCo and Maryland with the types of policies the Council is looking at as well the school board. The biggest indicator that MoCo is making poor decisions is the lack of a growing business climate. Just walk around the Woodmont Triangle and notice all the empty storefronts and for lease signs. Look at all the empty office space in the County. Raising rates to cover for less and less people is a downward spiral which there is no recovery.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I certainly have no interest in living in a SFH neighorhood with a bunch of ADUs attached to the SFHs. Similarly, I question whether the cost comparison between a single ADU behind some SFH and the per apartment cost of a large apartment building. Not all (and certainly hopefully) apartments in MC need to be high rent or luxury buildings. Developers can be provided incentives to provide high quality but cost effective apartments. Further, I would be concerned about the negative effect on property values of SFH neighborhoods with substantial ADUs. I do not want to live in such a neighborhood and would move.

Fine. Then move.

By the way, there is no evidence that ADUs lower property values.

ADUs impact on the neighborhood values are hard to study and there is a big difference for me between an attached ADU and a detached ADU. I don't care if your detached ADU actually increases my property value (although I highly HIGHLY doubt it) because I am paying to live in a SFH on a SFH street and I pay property taxes to the county that reflect that arrangement. I'm not interested in a neighborhood with lots of detached ADUs that are poorly constructed. I'm not interested in having your duplexes sandwiched in between the SFHs. I can move to a jurisdiction where at least the property taxes are lower. I don't like to be paying enormous taxes in MoCo and then my neighbor drops a shipping container in the backyard and rents it out. You can say Fine, then move but please understand that you need higher wage earners to pay taxes. That's just how it works.

Nope. You own the property you own. That doesn't give you an ownership stake in your neighbor's property or in the neighborhood. If you don't want an attached or detached ADU, don't build one. If you don't want to live next to an attached or detached ADU, buy your neighbors' properties. Or move to a property large enough that, if your neighbors do build an attached or detached ADU, you'd never know.

Your logical is dead wrong. On your theory, my neighbor should be able to build whatever he or she wants, whether a SFH, a SFH with an ADU, a duplex, townhouses, apartment building, or maybe even a tall commercial building. You buy into a community based on the understanding/assumption that the your neighborhood will remain roughly the same. If that neighborhood is mostly SFH, you expect it will remain so. And your property taxes are based on a similar assumption. You are not taxed as if your property were commercial, for example. As a PP noted, what ADUs potential will do is to drive out upper income taxpayers. MC is already doing so, and driving more out will destroy MC's tax base. MC's relative success and prosperity is entirely dependent on upper income taxpayers. And MC does NOT have a growing business community to fall back on.

+1 Once DC #2 is done with college we are out of MC. There is no reason to continue to pay the high taxes of MoCo and Maryland with the types of policies the Council is looking at as well the school board. The biggest indicator that MoCo is making poor decisions is the lack of a growing business climate. Just walk around the Woodmont Triangle and notice all the empty storefronts and for lease signs. Look at all the empty office space in the County. Raising rates to cover for less and less people is a downward spiral which there is no recovery.

Anonymous wrote:

Your logical is dead wrong. On your theory, my neighbor should be able to build whatever he or she wants, whether a SFH, a SFH with an ADU, a duplex, townhouses, apartment building, or maybe even a tall commercial building. You buy into a community based on the understanding/assumption that the your neighborhood will remain roughly the same. If that neighborhood is mostly SFH, you expect it will remain so. And your property taxes are based on a similar assumption. You are not taxed as if your property were commercial, for example. As a PP noted, what ADUs potential will do is to drive out upper income taxpayers. MC is already doing so, and driving more out will destroy MC's tax base. MC's relative success and prosperity is entirely dependent on upper income taxpayers. And MC does NOT have a growing business community to fall back on.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I certainly have no interest in living in a SFH neighorhood with a bunch of ADUs attached to the SFHs. Similarly, I question whether the cost comparison between a single ADU behind some SFH and the per apartment cost of a large apartment building. Not all (and certainly hopefully) apartments in MC need to be high rent or luxury buildings. Developers can be provided incentives to provide high quality but cost effective apartments. Further, I would be concerned about the negative effect on property values of SFH neighborhoods with substantial ADUs. I do not want to live in such a neighborhood and would move.

Fine. Then move.

By the way, there is no evidence that ADUs lower property values.

ADUs impact on the neighborhood values are hard to study and there is a big difference for me between an attached ADU and a detached ADU. I don't care if your detached ADU actually increases my property value (although I highly HIGHLY doubt it) because I am paying to live in a SFH on a SFH street and I pay property taxes to the county that reflect that arrangement. I'm not interested in a neighborhood with lots of detached ADUs that are poorly constructed. I'm not interested in having your duplexes sandwiched in between the SFHs. I can move to a jurisdiction where at least the property taxes are lower. I don't like to be paying enormous taxes in MoCo and then my neighbor drops a shipping container in the backyard and rents it out. You can say Fine, then move but please understand that you need higher wage earners to pay taxes. That's just how it works.

Nope. You own the property you own. That doesn't give you an ownership stake in your neighbor's property or in the neighborhood. If you don't want an attached or detached ADU, don't build one. If you don't want to live next to an attached or detached ADU, buy your neighbors' properties. Or move to a property large enough that, if your neighbors do build an attached or detached ADU, you'd never know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I certainly have no interest in living in a SFH neighorhood with a bunch of ADUs attached to the SFHs. Similarly, I question whether the cost comparison between a single ADU behind some SFH and the per apartment cost of a large apartment building. Not all (and certainly hopefully) apartments in MC need to be high rent or luxury buildings. Developers can be provided incentives to provide high quality but cost effective apartments. Further, I would be concerned about the negative effect on property values of SFH neighborhoods with substantial ADUs. I do not want to live in such a neighborhood and would move.

Fine. Then move.

By the way, there is no evidence that ADUs lower property values.

ADUs impact on the neighborhood values are hard to study and there is a big difference for me between an attached ADU and a detached ADU. I don't care if your detached ADU actually increases my property value (although I highly HIGHLY doubt it) because I am paying to live in a SFH on a SFH street and I pay property taxes to the county that reflect that arrangement. I'm not interested in a neighborhood with lots of detached ADUs that are poorly constructed. I'm not interested in having your duplexes sandwiched in between the SFHs. I can move to a jurisdiction where at least the property taxes are lower. I don't like to be paying enormous taxes in MoCo and then my neighbor drops a shipping container in the backyard and rents it out. You can say Fine, then move but please understand that you need higher wage earners to pay taxes. That's just how it works.

Nope. You own the property you own. That doesn't give you an ownership stake in your neighbor's property or in the neighborhood. If you don't want an attached or detached ADU, don't build one. If you don't want to live next to an attached or detached ADU, buy your neighbors' properties. Or move to a property large enough that, if your neighbors do build an attached or detached ADU, you'd never know.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I did not buy this house (which is small on a small lot) to have more overcrowding. Claiming that I'm trying to get an ownership stake in my neighbor's property makes no sense. Rather, my neighbor is encroaching on my property with their additional roof and their lack of storm water management.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I certainly have no interest in living in a SFH neighorhood with a bunch of ADUs attached to the SFHs. Similarly, I question whether the cost comparison between a single ADU behind some SFH and the per apartment cost of a large apartment building. Not all (and certainly hopefully) apartments in MC need to be high rent or luxury buildings. Developers can be provided incentives to provide high quality but cost effective apartments. Further, I would be concerned about the negative effect on property values of SFH neighborhoods with substantial ADUs. I do not want to live in such a neighborhood and would move.

Fine. Then move.

By the way, there is no evidence that ADUs lower property values.

ADUs impact on the neighborhood values are hard to study and there is a big difference for me between an attached ADU and a detached ADU. I don't care if your detached ADU actually increases my property value (although I highly HIGHLY doubt it) because I am paying to live in a SFH on a SFH street and I pay property taxes to the county that reflect that arrangement. I'm not interested in a neighborhood with lots of detached ADUs that are poorly constructed. I'm not interested in having your duplexes sandwiched in between the SFHs. I can move to a jurisdiction where at least the property taxes are lower. I don't like to be paying enormous taxes in MoCo and then my neighbor drops a shipping container in the backyard and rents it out. You can say Fine, then move but please understand that you need higher wage earners to pay taxes. That's just how it works.

Nope. You own the property you own. That doesn't give you an ownership stake in your neighbor's property or in the neighborhood. If you don't want an attached or detached ADU, don't build one. If you don't want to live next to an attached or detached ADU, buy your neighbors' properties. Or move to a property large enough that, if your neighbors do build an attached or detached ADU, you'd never know.

Anonymous wrote:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/affluent-liberals-in-washington-dc-suburb-resort-to-racial-and-economic-stereotypes-to-protest-affordable-housing-proposal

This is making national news. Here they point out the irony of a solidly blue district being against affordable housing in their neighborhoods...

Anonymous wrote:The people who oppose ADUs because it attracts developers may not realize that it requires the owner to live in either the main house or the ADU. This will keep the developer out of the equation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I certainly have no interest in living in a SFH neighorhood with a bunch of ADUs attached to the SFHs. Similarly, I question whether the cost comparison between a single ADU behind some SFH and the per apartment cost of a large apartment building. Not all (and certainly hopefully) apartments in MC need to be high rent or luxury buildings. Developers can be provided incentives to provide high quality but cost effective apartments. Further, I would be concerned about the negative effect on property values of SFH neighborhoods with substantial ADUs. I do not want to live in such a neighborhood and would move.

Fine. Then move.

By the way, there is no evidence that ADUs lower property values.

ADUs impact on the neighborhood values are hard to study and there is a big difference for me between an attached ADU and a detached ADU. I don't care if your detached ADU actually increases my property value (although I highly HIGHLY doubt it) because I am paying to live in a SFH on a SFH street and I pay property taxes to the county that reflect that arrangement. I'm not interested in a neighborhood with lots of detached ADUs that are poorly constructed. I'm not interested in having your duplexes sandwiched in between the SFHs. I can move to a jurisdiction where at least the property taxes are lower. I don't like to be paying enormous taxes in MoCo and then my neighbor drops a shipping container in the backyard and rents it out. You can say Fine, then move but please understand that you need higher wage earners to pay taxes. That's just how it works.