Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I am also great dismayed by how the Council and Planning Board seem to be ramming this through, with smug dismissals of their constituents concerns. The responses to concerns voiced in the listening sessions, on the website are so condescending, it is maddening. They just don't care about the communities.

So, what's next-- assuming this is passed, are we going to have to band together and sue?

Curious, I wasn’t able to join last night’s session. What was the tone of council members in attendance? Smug? The MoCo 360 article simply said they corrected mischaracterizations of the proposal but gave little additional info.

As for suing, I’d contribute. I think it’s despicable that they’re ramming this thing through and also doing so under a fog of limited outreach to communities, especially communities with higher rates of homeowners who are POC. It’s sneaky and exploitative of the developers.

It’s very funny to read the YIMBY complaints this morning. Apparently there is no good or fair way to oppose them.

How about we vote on it? NO WE SHOULDNT VOTE ON ZONING ISSUES.

How about online meeting? NO, EVERYONE MUST SHOW UP TO TESTIFY. ITS TOO HARD TO RECORD. ITS NOT FAIR.

Ok, so we will show up to the in person meetings. ITS NOT FAIR, THEY HAVE MORE PEOPLE. ALL OF OUR SECRET INVISIBLE SUPPORTERS CANT SHOW UP AT THAT TIME AND THEY HAD TO WASH THEIR HAIR AND THEY LIVE IN CANADA YOU WOULDNT KNOW THEM.

How about a thorough analysis with projections for density and density targets for each area? Maybe something that proves that this will work and won’t disrupt existing communities? SURPLAH AND DERMAMD!!!! ITS IN THE RULES!

we don’t support this as it stands, maybe let’s test it out in some way on a small scale, maybe build density only in areas that are already dense. EVERYONE LOVES THE IDEA, YOU ARE JUSY MEAN RACIST NIMBYS AND THERE ARE LIKE FIVE OF YOU.

So, vote on it? NOOOOO, WE WILL DO IT ON THE STATE LEVEL.

So well put.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I am also great dismayed by how the Council and Planning Board seem to be ramming this through, with smug dismissals of their constituents concerns. The responses to concerns voiced in the listening sessions, on the website are so condescending, it is maddening. They just don't care about the communities.

So, what's next-- assuming this is passed, are we going to have to band together and sue?

Curious, I wasn’t able to join last night’s session. What was the tone of council members in attendance? Smug? The MoCo 360 article simply said they corrected mischaracterizations of the proposal but gave little additional info.

As for suing, I’d contribute. I think it’s despicable that they’re ramming this thing through and also doing so under a fog of limited outreach to communities, especially communities with higher rates of homeowners who are POC. It’s sneaky and exploitative of the developers.

Friedson didn’t allow any other council members to speak but Jawando and Balcombe attended.

Friedson wants to run for CE. People thinking about opposing him would do well to line up on the other side of this and make him own this very poorly thought out and nonserious proposal even more than he already does. Upzoning may actually be a an effective approach to lowering housing costs but it’s hard to know whether this particular proposal would have that effect here because planning hasn’t analyzed the effects of the recommendations.

It’s disappointing to see the trajectory that Friedson has taken. He came into office with a reputation for being good at budgets and data but he’s been pretty duplicitous and has committed the county to big decisions based on little or no analysis.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

I just hope the council listens. I’m in district 6 and Fani-Gonzalez seems completely uninterested in hearing from residents who have concerns about this issue.

She is pretty erratic except when it comes to planning. You have no hope of changing her mind. She’s definitely a yes along with Friedson and Glass.

I have no doubt that they will sell us out. This whole thing is Friedson’s baby.

I don’t know who “us” is in your sentence but Planning has done no assessment of whether the AHS could make the housing crisis even worse. That’s malpractice.

Us = homeowners

Homeowners who vote, which is why it would never have been put to a vote. We will be voting in 2026, though.

Which will be too late. You don't fully appreciate the orchestration and timing that have gone into this. The intention is to enact it quickly in the new year, with the only current concern being the impact to Alsobrook's Senate candidacy that might come from collateral damage if it were to move forward sooner.

I do appreciate that, and I’ve been saying the same. My point is that they have to hear from us when we have the opportunity. This might be passed, but nothing is irreversible. Also, if they are willing to do this, what else do they have planned? We can put a stop to some of it in the next election.

It is not necessarily reversible due to provisions in HB 538 and constitutionally vested property right that can occur from rezoning. Reversing it could potentially be a takings clause violation and therefore be illegal.

This. They should time limit it as a pilot, which would probably have the effect of pulling some development forward and help the initiative show some results more quickly than if it’s a perpetual grant of density. For that reason, the YIMBYs should support that approach.

I might be characterized as a YIMBY and I do in concept support a pilot. (I also support scaling back this proposal...to start by taking the "octo-plex" off the table.)

But how would a pilot work? Presumably any lot that was granted a permit for a multi-unit structure would remain that way, right? Just those that had not would not? And I feel like you would need a somewhat long time horizon to appropriately evaluate results? Minimum of 8 years or so to allow for lots to become available, permits to be issued, construction, and to see the effects of new units on the market?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

I just hope the council listens. I’m in district 6 and Fani-Gonzalez seems completely uninterested in hearing from residents who have concerns about this issue.

She is pretty erratic except when it comes to planning. You have no hope of changing her mind. She’s definitely a yes along with Friedson and Glass.

I have no doubt that they will sell us out. This whole thing is Friedson’s baby.

I don’t know who “us” is in your sentence but Planning has done no assessment of whether the AHS could make the housing crisis even worse. That’s malpractice.

Us = homeowners

Homeowners who vote, which is why it would never have been put to a vote. We will be voting in 2026, though.

This is a one party county and no one will run against Friedson or the others.

It is what it is, but I don’t have to support any of them ever again, with my votes or my finances, for the remainder of their careers. There will be others to run against them, eventually, for these positions or others. I’m just not as pessimistic as you are.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

I just hope the council listens. I’m in district 6 and Fani-Gonzalez seems completely uninterested in hearing from residents who have concerns about this issue.

She is pretty erratic except when it comes to planning. You have no hope of changing her mind. She’s definitely a yes along with Friedson and Glass.

I have no doubt that they will sell us out. This whole thing is Friedson’s baby.

I don’t know who “us” is in your sentence but Planning has done no assessment of whether the AHS could make the housing crisis even worse. That’s malpractice.

Us = homeowners

Homeowners who vote, which is why it would never have been put to a vote. We will be voting in 2026, though.

Which will be too late. You don't fully appreciate the orchestration and timing that have gone into this. The intention is to enact it quickly in the new year, with the only current concern being the impact to Alsobrook's Senate candidacy that might come from collateral damage if it were to move forward sooner.

I do appreciate that, and I’ve been saying the same. My point is that they have to hear from us when we have the opportunity. This might be passed, but nothing is irreversible. Also, if they are willing to do this, what else do they have planned? We can put a stop to some of it in the next election.

It is not necessarily reversible due to provisions in HB 538 and constitutionally vested property right that can occur from rezoning. Reversing it could potentially be a takings clause violation and therefore be illegal.

This. They should time limit it as a pilot, which would probably have the effect of pulling some development forward and help the initiative show some results more quickly than if it’s a perpetual grant of density. For that reason, the YIMBYs should support that approach.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the quote from Fani-Gonzalez that homeowners don’t own a community …. Except we sort of do. We are literally investors in it and the quality of our lives, our schools, our streets, our infrastructure - all of it - is paid for through our property taxes and income taxes and the hard work we put into maintaining our communities. We certainly “own” our communities more than developers.

She and other council members have total contempt for their constituents. “Attainable housing” nothing but a Trojan horse for developers.

Does Fani-Gonzalez represent Aspen Hill/Rockville because if so she should drive through some of those neighborhoods. They have multiple families living in one house with dozens of cars belonging to a single residence. You can’t drive through the streets because there are cars lined up on both side of the road. Those schools are overcrowded and it’s not sustainable and it’s not something that I want in my neighborhood.

Exactly. The idea that these dwellings would hold a single family is quite naive.

Yes the quadplex will actually end up with 7-10 families living there. This will not help with overcrowded schools and good luck social distancing when the next global pandemic happens. Entire neighborhoods will be wiped out from if something worse than COVID comes along.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just a horrible, stupid way to create “affordable” housing by ruining communities and lowering property values.

So disappointed in leader who came up with this stupid idea.

No it’s actually just basic math and economic theory. Supply/Demand

What do you think of the relationship between time and the value of supply and the effects that relationship might have on landowners’ decisions about whether to increase supply at any given time?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read the quote from Fani-Gonzalez that homeowners don’t own a community …. Except we sort of do. We are literally investors in it and the quality of our lives, our schools, our streets, our infrastructure - all of it - is paid for through our property taxes and income taxes and the hard work we put into maintaining our communities. We certainly “own” our communities more than developers.

She and other council members have total contempt for their constituents. “Attainable housing” nothing but a Trojan horse for developers.

Does Fani-Gonzalez represent Aspen Hill/Rockville because if so she should drive through some of those neighborhoods. They have multiple families living in one house with dozens of cars belonging to a single residence. You can’t drive through the streets because there are cars lined up on both side of the road. Those schools are overcrowded and it’s not sustainable and it’s not something that I want in my neighborhood.

Exactly. The idea that these dwellings would hold a single family is quite naive.

Anonymous wrote:I remember supporting earlier proposals years ago, thinking it would just make our neighborhoods more like Georgetown. What I failed to realize is Georgetown had market-rate duplexes and apartment buildings. What they started in downtown Bethesda has only brought crime and congestion to formerly quiet neighborhoods.

This is why it’s very important to educate neighbors about all the implications, so they really understand what this is about and what will happen.

I remember supporting earlier proposals years ago, thinking it would just make our neighborhoods more like Georgetown. What I failed to realize is Georgetown had market-rate duplexes and apartment buildings. What they started in downtown Bethesda has only brought crime and congestion to formerly quiet neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:I read the quote from Fani-Gonzalez that homeowners don’t own a community …. Except we sort of do. We are literally investors in it and the quality of our lives, our schools, our streets, our infrastructure - all of it - is paid for through our property taxes and income taxes and the hard work we put into maintaining our communities. We certainly “own” our communities more than developers.

She and other council members have total contempt for their constituents. “Attainable housing” nothing but a Trojan horse for developers.

Does Fani-Gonzalez represent Aspen Hill/Rockville because if so she should drive through some of those neighborhoods. They have multiple families living in one house with dozens of cars belonging to a single residence. You can’t drive through the streets because there are cars lined up on both side of the road. Those schools are overcrowded and it’s not sustainable and it’s not something that I want in my neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

I just hope the council listens. I’m in district 6 and Fani-Gonzalez seems completely uninterested in hearing from residents who have concerns about this issue.

She is pretty erratic except when it comes to planning. You have no hope of changing her mind. She’s definitely a yes along with Friedson and Glass.

I have no doubt that they will sell us out. This whole thing is Friedson’s baby.

I don’t know who “us” is in your sentence but Planning has done no assessment of whether the AHS could make the housing crisis even worse. That’s malpractice.

Us = homeowners

Homeowners who vote, which is why it would never have been put to a vote. We will be voting in 2026, though.

This is a one party county and no one will run against Friedson or the others.

[quote=Anonymous]I read the quote from Fani-Gonzalez that homeowners don’t own a community …. Except we sort of do. We are literally investors in it and the quality of our lives, our schools, our streets, our infrastructure - all of it - is paid for through our property taxes and income taxes and the hard work we put into maintaining our communities. We certainly “own” our communities more than developers.

She and other council members have total contempt for their constituents. “Attainable housing” nothing but a Trojan horse for developers. [/quote]

Yup. She’s the worst. I remember when she was on the Planning Board and said she did not want air conditioner units in MPDUs, just central air. Walk around Chevy Chase and Bethesda - there are plenty of old a/c units in houses owned by senior citizens and even younger families. Government workers cannot afford to live in the style to which our MPDU-dwelling residents have become accustomed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m at BCC right now at this “listening session”. It’s packed. Probably 500+ people. They just did a show of hands. ~90% of the audience here is against it.

That 10% I’m sure has been to every event.

I just hope the council listens. I’m in district 6 and Fani-Gonzalez seems completely uninterested in hearing from residents who have concerns about this issue.

She is pretty erratic except when it comes to planning. You have no hope of changing her mind. She’s definitely a yes along with Friedson and Glass.

I have no doubt that they will sell us out. This whole thing is Friedson’s baby.

I don’t know who “us” is in your sentence but Planning has done no assessment of whether the AHS could make the housing crisis even worse. That’s malpractice.

Us = homeowners

Homeowners who vote, which is why it would never have been put to a vote. We will be voting in 2026, though.

Which will be too late. You don't fully appreciate the orchestration and timing that have gone into this. The intention is to enact it quickly in the new year, with the only current concern being the impact to Alsobrook's Senate candidacy that might come from collateral damage if it were to move forward sooner.

I do appreciate that, and I’ve been saying the same. My point is that they have to hear from us when we have the opportunity. This might be passed, but nothing is irreversible. Also, if they are willing to do this, what else do they have planned? We can put a stop to some of it in the next election.

It is not necessarily reversible due to provisions in HB 538 and constitutionally vested property right that can occur from rezoning. Reversing it could potentially be a takings clause violation and therefore be illegal.

Isn’t it true that developers are hesitant to get involved in Arlington while the lawsuit proceeds? Maybe it’s just so that they don’t get caught with their pants down during the build, but I know that the lack of clarity and the possibility of reversal is keeping investment low in MM.

Somewhat different issue than the high difficulty in clawing back by-right or the effects of HB538 suddenly coming into effect and remaining, even if a reversal was possible, where they might not have if the R zones stayed limited to detached SFHs.

The Arlington comparison is a red herring at best and completely disingenuous othewise without MoCo adopting a similar permit cap and other conditions that are not in the AHS. Once permitted, it's nearly impossible to claw back from the property owner unless fraud in application or execution can be shown, even if the lawsuit against Arlington, itself, succeeds. The risk to a developer, if any judgment came down for the plaintiffs, might be to any sunk permitting expense (plans, etc.) prior to approval, not a stop-work on construction in progress.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: I am also great dismayed by how the Council and Planning Board seem to be ramming this through, with smug dismissals of their constituents concerns. The responses to concerns voiced in the listening sessions, on the website are so condescending, it is maddening. They just don't care about the communities.

So, what's next-- assuming this is passed, are we going to have to band together and sue?

Curious, I wasn’t able to join last night’s session. What was the tone of council members in attendance? Smug? The MoCo 360 article simply said they corrected mischaracterizations of the proposal but gave little additional info.

As for suing, I’d contribute. I think it’s despicable that they’re ramming this thing through and also doing so under a fog of limited outreach to communities, especially communities with higher rates of homeowners who are POC. It’s sneaky and exploitative of the developers.

As with other sessions, Friedson and Sartori answered a few select questions posed, but often sidestepped the direct question raised and the staff did not really permit follow-up for clarification that clearly was desired by those posing them and many of those in attendance.

As with other sessions, Friedson and Sartori readily utilized pat responses to a few issues raised, like "no legislation currently proposed" when people expressed concern about timing, but again refrained from providing meaningful information related to those concerns, like spelling out what the earliest timing they are considering might be, and remained mute on most of the concerns raised.

As with other sessions, no other councilmembers were there as active respondents, though some might have been in attendance.

As with other sessions, Harris was there, but didn't really participate in any of the responses that were offered, with Sartori there.

I think "smug" is imputed from that or assumed by those attending. I wouldn't qualify their demeanor as smug, except perhaps Harris, though that would be a really uncertain read into body language.

The MoCo360 article painted it pretty much the absolute rosiest it reasonably could. While it noted the 580 sign ups and the nearly full auditorium, it didn't mention capacity, there, and I'd guess that something close to double that number were in attendance. The parking lot certainly was overflowing. (What one might expect from the B/CC area.) They chose to quote the least compelling portions from folks who eloquently voiced their concerns, like Winic. Those there opposed to the AHS were not just a majority, as reported, but an absolutely overwhelming one, while the article gave effectively equal time to proponents. On top of that, it gave more coverage to Friedson's talking points than anything else. As if anything was needed to underline the, um, jaundiced light shown, the tagline used of "Fears of ‘destruction to all single-family neighborhoods’ common among speakers" does it -- there were far more prevalent, articulate and reasonable concerns expressed (schools/infrastructure, etc.).