Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

They are not FORBIDDING parking. Builders will be allowed to provide as much parking as they want.

Developers don’t care about the well-being or county residents or marginalized communities. They only care about profits and they will not condenser negative externalities of their projects if the county does not force them to do so. The whole point of development standards is to provide a minimum baseline that ensures developers will not do things that have an excessively negative impact on overall community health and welfare. The market will not provide a solution to ensuring that elderly and disabled people have equitable access to society because it is more profitable to exclude them (in most circumstances). My family member is currently undergoing treatment for cancer and they literally cannot be around other people (so no public transit). This is a very rare disease and they would not have access to appropriate medical facilities (over 50 miles away) if they did not have a parking/a car to drive to the cancer treatment center. Letting developers do whatever they “want” without regard for the consequences/impact on the community is a recipe for disaster. I am not opposed to the MM idea, but it needs to be more narrowly targeted to ensure that growth does not outpace the availability of infrastructure and public services, or negatively impact vulnerable community members.

Anonymous wrote:They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

They are not FORBIDDING parking. Builders will be allowed to provide as much parking as they want.

They are not even requiring one parking spot per dwelling unit in some circumstances. There are many disabled or elderly people that legitimately need parking access to participate in society. Not to mention low and moderate income households that need to commute to work. Streetside parking is not a guaranteed spot and this will be unworkable for people with mobility issues that cannot walk long distances to their house. What about people that cannot ride the public transit because they are immunocompromised. Eliminating parking minimums altogether is discriminatory towards elderly people. persons with disabilities and other medical conditions.reducing them is fine, but there are many people that legitimately need a vehicle to have equitable access to society. We are effective excluding them (in many circumstances) from affordable housing if units are not required to have at least one spot.

Anonymous wrote:Did they do a traffic impact study or school enrollment projections? Some of the other places that have implemented MM zoning reforms were wildly off with their projections. So I think they need to thoroughly evaluate this idea first to understanding the impacts.

That is quite literally what they are doing right now.

Anonymous wrote:I live in Bethesda close to downtown, in a single-family home.

I support dense low-income housing specifically, and all dense housing complexes, in all neighborhoods, including mine and similarly wealthy ones.

However I do NOT support increasing housing availability without first assessing and expanding public services capacity, especially regarding PUBLIC SCHOOLS, road infrastructure, and police/emergency services. My kids lived through the experience of the last addition to Bethesda Elementary, then the rapid overpopulation of said addition. It's not sustainable to have our public services overwhelmed like this just because we prioritize housing without thinking of the impact on related community use.

Montgomery County has never, ever, ever built the schools before the housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

I don't know where the county council members live, but I do know that the Montgomery County Council does not have the authority to change the zoning in the City of Takoma Park or the Town of Kensington, because both are incorporated municipalities that have their own planning and zoning authority.

TP and Kensington as well as Rockville municipalities need to be dismantled then. Council members for the county cannot live in those little protected enclaves but then get to dominate and govern everyone outside of their protected borders. It's total hypocrisy. There should only be one governing body for the entire county if pols from the county are going to run the county. You can live in DC and run for office in MoCo, so why should we allow people in TP, Rockville, Kensington etc govern the county if none of the stuff they pass affects them while they get to dictate how people in Silver Spring get to live, for example.

Land use is only one small part of the decisions that County Councilmembers make. The rest of the decisions impact the municipalities (ie school funding)

Also, elected officials at all levels make decisions that affect areas other than the one in which they live. You know this.

Except council members conveniently protect themselves from all of their crappy land use decisions by living in protected enclaves. It's total hypocrisy. You want upzoning in MoCo? Fine, start upzoning ALL of Takoma Park, Kensington, etc. first. You're in MoCo too. No exceptions. Period.

Please list the councilmembers who live in "protected enclaves" aka incorporated municipalities with authority over land use.

I was just looking into this. I'm pretty sure the only member who *may* live in an incorporated municipality is Kate Stewart in TP.

I assume that Sidney Katz lives in the City of Gaithersburg.

He does not.

Did he move?

Did they do a traffic impact study or school enrollment projections? Some of the other places that have implemented MM zoning reforms were wildly off with their projections. So I think they need to thoroughly evaluate this idea first to understanding the impacts.

I live in Bethesda close to downtown, in a single-family home.

I support dense low-income housing specifically, and all dense housing complexes, in all neighborhoods, including mine and similarly wealthy ones.

However I do NOT support increasing housing availability without first assessing and expanding public services capacity, especially regarding PUBLIC SCHOOLS, road infrastructure, and police/emergency services. My kids lived through the experience of the last addition to Bethesda Elementary, then the rapid overpopulation of said addition. It's not sustainable to have our public services overwhelmed like this just because we prioritize housing without thinking of the impact on related community use.

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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

A good neighborhood...one that is safe, quiet and very well maintained by homeowners or the neighborhood association. I would gladly pay substantially more to my association if there was a way to protect the current status of my close in neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't fleeing Moco yet as these idiotic, everyone is a winner, policies haven't come to their front door yet.

Housing does provide oppotunity...but it doesn't need to be in the areas most expensive places. It makes no sense. Why is it bad that people don't want density? I guess people always want what they can't have

Because it just so happens that the expensive areas are that way in part because of proximity to metro. More density near metro —> fewer cars.

So this is about…cars?

We understand that the council is already laying the groundwork for zoning changes by reducing or eliminating parking requirements near purple line and bus rapid transit stops, but it’s not fooling anyone into thinking that there will be a reduction in cars. They will just be parked on streets in front of houses where they would now be in driveways, and there will be MORE cars because people aren’t taking the bus to the grocery store or Target or to move their kids around the county. You might be able to sell that near a metro stop, but the bus and purple line?

People actually are doing this, whether or not you consider them to be people. In fact, they're doing this with the regular old bus. So yes, I think that people will also do this with BRT and with the Purple Line.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

I don't know where the county council members live, but I do know that the Montgomery County Council does not have the authority to change the zoning in the City of Takoma Park or the Town of Kensington, because both are incorporated municipalities that have their own planning and zoning authority.

TP and Kensington as well as Rockville municipalities need to be dismantled then. Council members for the county cannot live in those little protected enclaves but then get to dominate and govern everyone outside of their protected borders. It's total hypocrisy. There should only be one governing body for the entire county if pols from the county are going to run the county. You can live in DC and run for office in MoCo, so why should we allow people in TP, Rockville, Kensington etc govern the county if none of the stuff they pass affects them while they get to dictate how people in Silver Spring get to live, for example.

Land use is only one small part of the decisions that County Councilmembers make. The rest of the decisions impact the municipalities (ie school funding)

Also, elected officials at all levels make decisions that affect areas other than the one in which they live. You know this.

Except council members conveniently protect themselves from all of their crappy land use decisions by living in protected enclaves. It's total hypocrisy. You want upzoning in MoCo? Fine, start upzoning ALL of Takoma Park, Kensington, etc. first. You're in MoCo too. No exceptions. Period.

Please list the councilmembers who live in "protected enclaves" aka incorporated municipalities with authority over land use.

I was just looking into this. I'm pretty sure the only member who *may* live in an incorporated municipality is Kate Stewart in TP.

I assume that Sidney Katz lives in the City of Gaithersburg.

He does not.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

A good neighborhood...one that is safe, quiet and very well maintained by homeowners or the neighborhood association. I would gladly pay substantially more to my association if there was a way to protect the current status of my close in neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't fleeing Moco yet as these idiotic, everyone is a winner, policies haven't come to their front door yet.

Housing does provide oppotunity...but it doesn't need to be in the areas most expensive places. It makes no sense. Why is it bad that people don't want density? I guess people always want what they can't have

Because it just so happens that the expensive areas are that way in part because of proximity to metro. More density near metro —> fewer cars.

So this is about…cars?

We understand that the council is already laying the groundwork for zoning changes by reducing or eliminating parking requirements near purple line and bus rapid transit stops, but it’s not fooling anyone into thinking that there will be a reduction in cars. They will just be parked on streets in front of houses where they would now be in driveways, and there will be MORE cars because people aren’t taking the bus to the grocery store or Target or to move their kids around the county. You might be able to sell that near a metro stop, but the bus and purple line?

People actually are doing this, whether or not you consider them to be people. In fact, they're doing this with the regular old bus. So yes, I think that people will also do this with BRT and with the Purple Line.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

Agree. So many empty office buildings. Those are much better suited to convert into apartments. They converted a hotel off 270 around Shady Grove into an apartment. That makes more sense.

FWIW, I'm not opposed to duplexes or apts. I'm actually thinking of moving into a duplex when I retire.

Who says it has to be one OR the other? It can be both. Owners of empty office buildings can build multi-unit housing. Owners of strip malls can build multi-unit housing. Owners of motels can build multi-unit housing. And owners of one-unit housing can build multi-unit housing.

As a PP pointed out, there is already a dearth of available and affordable SFH. Start with multiuse buildings and convert them.

Single-family-only zoning is not preserving available and affordable SFHs. All it's doing is encouraging McMansions.

Maybe in your part of the county? There are relatively fewer tear downs to build McMansions east county. I suppose if you can afford to tear down and rebuild in Wheaton you probably would have gone somewhere else to begin with. Renovating/additions are more common in my neighborhood.

Whether it's a brand-new, larger, newer house, or a renovated, larger, newer house - neither one preserves available and affordable SFHs.

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:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

A good neighborhood...one that is safe, quiet and very well maintained by homeowners or the neighborhood association. I would gladly pay substantially more to my association if there was a way to protect the current status of my close in neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't fleeing Moco yet as these idiotic, everyone is a winner, policies haven't come to their front door yet.

Housing does provide oppotunity...but it doesn't need to be in the areas most expensive places. It makes no sense. Why is it bad that people don't want density? I guess people always want what they can't have

Because it just so happens that the expensive areas are that way in part because of proximity to metro. More density near metro —> fewer cars.

So this is about…cars?

We understand that the council is already laying the groundwork for zoning changes by reducing or eliminating parking requirements near purple line and bus rapid transit stops, but it’s not fooling anyone into thinking that there will be a reduction in cars. They will just be parked on streets in front of houses where they would now be in driveways, and there will be MORE cars because people aren’t taking the bus to the grocery store or Target or to move their kids around the county. You might be able to sell that near a metro stop, but the bus and purple line?

For reference:

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/no-parking-here-montgomery-co-considers-dropping-parking-minimum-provisions-in-some-developments/

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=44870&Dept=1

Ugh I despise every council member.

Make Moco Great Again!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

A good neighborhood...one that is safe, quiet and very well maintained by homeowners or the neighborhood association. I would gladly pay substantially more to my association if there was a way to protect the current status of my close in neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't fleeing Moco yet as these idiotic, everyone is a winner, policies haven't come to their front door yet.

Housing does provide oppotunity...but it doesn't need to be in the areas most expensive places. It makes no sense. Why is it bad that people don't want density? I guess people always want what they can't have

Because it just so happens that the expensive areas are that way in part because of proximity to metro. More density near metro —> fewer cars.

So this is about…cars?

We understand that the council is already laying the groundwork for zoning changes by reducing or eliminating parking requirements near purple line and bus rapid transit stops, but it’s not fooling anyone into thinking that there will be a reduction in cars. They will just be parked on streets in front of houses where they would now be in driveways, and there will be MORE cars because people aren’t taking the bus to the grocery store or Target or to move their kids around the county. You might be able to sell that near a metro stop, but the bus and purple line?

For reference:

https://wtop.com/montgomery-county/2024/03/no-parking-here-montgomery-co-considers-dropping-parking-minimum-provisions-in-some-developments/

https://www2.montgomerycountymd.gov/mcgportalapps/Press_Detail.aspx?Item_ID=44870&Dept=1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

A good neighborhood...one that is safe, quiet and very well maintained by homeowners or the neighborhood association. I would gladly pay substantially more to my association if there was a way to protect the current status of my close in neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't fleeing Moco yet as these idiotic, everyone is a winner, policies haven't come to their front door yet.

Housing does provide oppotunity...but it doesn't need to be in the areas most expensive places. It makes no sense. Why is it bad that people don't want density? I guess people always want what they can't have

Because it just so happens that the expensive areas are that way in part because of proximity to metro. More density near metro —> fewer cars.

Not necessarily. In Bethesda/FH corridor, most of the expensive homes are not near a metro - Kenwood, Westmoreland Hills, Sumner, etc