Anonymous wrote:
Well, some percentage of these poor people are here illegally. Rather than turn Americans' middle-class neighborhoods into crap, what if MoCo just deports them? Or, in the interest of "equality," how about making the ADU's legal just in Chevy Chase, Potomac, and Bethesda? That way, we can equalize the distribution of illegal aliens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that the ADU policy is going to end up concentrating more illegal rentals in Wheaton, Silver Spring, Germantown and Gaithersburg. I'm not sure about Rockville though as developers seem to be going after tear downs and the sellers seem to be getting more appreciation for lower end houses. Rockville might escape it.

For Wheaton, Silver Spring, Gaithersburg and Germantown though the choice is either have homelessness or have lots of illegal ADUs. When there is no low income housing, there is no where else for low income people to go. They are already getting pushed out of DC and into MD. Without the illegal ADUs they will end up living in their cars or on the streets in those areas.


Maybe Rockville might escape it. But, I think there will be an increase in ADUs in some parts of Rockville. Especially those neighborhoods with SFHs near the Twinbrook and Rockvilke Metro.

This will further impact the schools and push out some middle class families.

Personally, I don’t see these ADUs as a good option to curb homelessness. I don’t think it’s homeless people who are moving into these ADUs. It’s usually recent arrivals to this country. At least, in my neighborhood.

Passing this ADU regulation will not lead to a decrease in homelessness in MoCo.

The homeless guy that you see in the park who has been on the street for years and hasn't showered in just as long is not moving into an ADU. The homeless that you don't see who are living in motels or cars because they can't afford rent but are working will move into ADUs. The ADUs can prevent some people from falling into homelessness. The county sees and is forecasting more low income people coming into the area. There is a shortage of rentals for the very low income households. Either the county builds more very low income subsidized housing projects or it gambles on the ADUs absorbing more of the low income but working residents.

Like or not poor people are coming to MOCO. The county needs to find a way to manage it.

Anonymous wrote:
I agree that the ADU policy is going to end up concentrating more illegal rentals in Wheaton, Silver Spring, Germantown and Gaithersburg. I'm not sure about Rockville though as developers seem to be going after tear downs and the sellers seem to be getting more appreciation for lower end houses. Rockville might escape it.

For Wheaton, Silver Spring, Gaithersburg and Germantown though the choice is either have homelessness or have lots of illegal ADUs. When there is no low income housing, there is no where else for low income people to go. They are already getting pushed out of DC and into MD. Without the illegal ADUs they will end up living in their cars or on the streets in those areas.


Maybe Rockville might escape it. But, I think there will be an increase in ADUs in some parts of Rockville. Especially those neighborhoods with SFHs near the Twinbrook and Rockvilke Metro.

This will further impact the schools and push out some middle class families.

Personally, I don’t see these ADUs as a good option to curb homelessness. I don’t think it’s homeless people who are moving into these ADUs. It’s usually recent arrivals to this country. At least, in my neighborhood.

Passing this ADU regulation will not lead to a decrease in homelessness in MoCo.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the ADU policy is going to end up concentrating more illegal rentals in Wheaton, Silver Spring, Germantown and Gaithersburg. I'm not sure about Rockville though as developers seem to be going after tear downs and the sellers seem to be getting more appreciation for lower end houses. Rockville might escape it.

For Wheaton, Silver Spring, Gaithersburg and Germantown though the choice is either have homelessness or have lots of illegal ADUs. When there is no low income housing, there is no where else for low income people to go. They are already getting pushed out of DC and into MD. Without the illegal ADUs they will end up living in their cars or on the streets in those areas.

Maybe Rockville might escape it. But, I think there will be an increase in ADUs in some parts of Rockville. Especially those neighborhoods with SFHs near the Twinbrook and Rockvilke Metro.

This will further impact the schools and push out some middle class families.

Personally, I don’t see these ADUs as a good option to curb homelessness. I don’t think it’s homeless people who are moving into these ADUs. It’s usually recent arrivals to this country. At least, in my neighborhood.

Passing this ADU regulation will not lead to a decrease in homelessness in MoCo.

Anonymous wrote:I agree that the ADU policy is going to end up concentrating more illegal rentals in Wheaton, Silver Spring, Germantown and Gaithersburg. I'm not sure about Rockville though as developers seem to be going after tear downs and the sellers seem to be getting more appreciation for lower end houses. Rockville might escape it.

For Wheaton, Silver Spring, Gaithersburg and Germantown though the choice is either have homelessness or have lots of illegal ADUs. When there is no low income housing, there is no where else for low income people to go. They are already getting pushed out of DC and into MD. Without the illegal ADUs they will end up living in their cars or on the streets in those areas.

Anonymous wrote:Additionally, the regulations are supposed to require that these apartments come with parking.

A large part of the problem is that the County chooses not to or is unable to enforce the laws that are in place.

These apartments are illegal. End of story.

PP’s grandma’s neighborhood is affected by it. If you disapprove of an old lady living in a 4 BR home, that’s fine. But the County should be enforcing the laws that are in place.

Anonymous wrote:

I disagree that the ‘meant for’ argument is irrelevant. It’s a SFH, suburban neighborhood. Residents in the County expressed that they did not support the zoning changes. People who live in the County now should have a say in what happens in the community.

But, even if you say the ‘meant for’ argument doesn’t matter, I still say that the area is not ZONED for this type of housing.

Even the new ADU law says that the units need to be owner occupied. These rentals are not owner occupied.

Being owner occupied means the owners have some reason to maintain the homes, ensure they are safe and up to code,

But there is little enforcement of this, and the owners are basically slum landlords who live elsewhere.

So, fine if you don’t approve of the ‘meant for’ argument. But it should matter that these homes are not zoned as apartment or boarding house rentals. And that they are often being illegally rented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No. The reason there are so many cars is because there are multiple families living in a house intended for a single family, and with a driveway designed to meet the needs of a single family.

I'm the "specific PP" who wrote about the driveway. Here's the problem: These houses were built in 1969, when many families had only new car. Hence, many of the houses have a single-car garage, with room on the driveway for a second car. The driveway problem Is because that house is occupied by two families, and between them they have five cars. Now multiply that by many houses, with many families, with too many cars, and sooner or later, someone is in your driveway.

In the night in question, I had to park up the block and walk back to my house, alone, at night. Does this seem fair when I have a driveway? Some of these people have a lot of gall.

And these two families have five cars because...? How many cars does your household have?

I understand that it's annoying that your driveway was blocked. But that's the problem - that your driveway was blocked. Not what the house was "intended for" by the developer in 1969.

For what it's worth, I have a friend who lives alone in a 1950s 900 square foot 3 bedroom 1 bathroom house. The original residents were a mother, a father, four children, and a grandmother - 7 people. No garage, no driveway, probably one car and it was parked on the street. That's what the house and street were "intended for." She doesn't live like that today, it's unlikely that you live like that today, and your neighbors don't live like that today either.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I know. It's unreal what has become of this county, when my parents bought out here, fifty years ago and with two young children, they selected this county largely for its excellent school system and healthy family environment. Now the neighborhood is looks like its something out of a 3rd world country. Cars all over place, overgrown front lawns with weeds, and overflowing trash cans on trash day.

There is so little parking that I came home one night to find the next door neighbor's car blocking my driveway.

50 years ago was 1969 (when the population of Montgomery County was 523,000). A lot has changed since then. It would be unrealistic to expect your parents' neighborhood to remain unchanged.

Why doesn't your next door neighbor park in in their driveway?

DP

Because the neighbor already has 3 other cars parked in their own driveway.

That is why this is a problem.

These neighborhoods were meant for single families. Not four families in one house with 7 vehicles. There is simply not enough room to park all the cars when you have multiple families, with multiple cars living in one home.

No, I was asking the specific PP about the specific PP's specific neighbor.

As for whom or what the neighborhoods were "meant for" - it's not like they were "meant for" an elderly woman to live by herself in a four-bedroom house, either. I really don't care whom or what the neighborhoods were "meant for", when they were built in the 1950s and 1960s. It's 2019.

It sounds like you live in a neighborhood where everybody needs a car to get around. That's why there are so many cars. It's also probably one reason why the neighborhoods aren't in demand by the kind of people you'd like to have as your neighbors.

Why not?

Basically your answer is that this elderly lady needs to move because you disapprove of her living in her own home.

She (and maybe her husband) purchased a home decades ago. Why does she have to move because you think her home is too large for her? Maybe she has grandkids who come to visit and stay over. Maybe she's not ready to move into assisted living. Maybe she feels comfortable in the house and simply wants to stay.

Whatever the reason, her house is 'meant for' her. And, she should get to stay in it and be comfortable.

Because they weren't. They were built for white mother-father-multiple-children-at-home families with one car, during the Baby Boom.

Now do you understand why the "meant for" argument is irrelevant?

Anonymous wrote:
No. The reason there are so many cars is because there are multiple families living in a house intended for a single family, and with a driveway designed to meet the needs of a single family.

I'm the "specific PP" who wrote about the driveway. Here's the problem: These houses were built in 1969, when many families had only new car. Hence, many of the houses have a single-car garage, with room on the driveway for a second car. The driveway problem Is because that house is occupied by two families, and between them they have five cars. Now multiply that by many houses, with many families, with too many cars, and sooner or later, someone is in your driveway.

In the night in question, I had to park up the block and walk back to my house, alone, at night. Does this seem fair when I have a driveway? Some of these people have a lot of gall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I know. It's unreal what has become of this county, when my parents bought out here, fifty years ago and with two young children, they selected this county largely for its excellent school system and healthy family environment. Now the neighborhood is looks like its something out of a 3rd world country. Cars all over place, overgrown front lawns with weeds, and overflowing trash cans on trash day.

There is so little parking that I came home one night to find the next door neighbor's car blocking my driveway.

50 years ago was 1969 (when the population of Montgomery County was 523,000). A lot has changed since then. It would be unrealistic to expect your parents' neighborhood to remain unchanged.

Why doesn't your next door neighbor park in in their driveway?

DP

Because the neighbor already has 3 other cars parked in their own driveway.

That is why this is a problem.

These neighborhoods were meant for single families. Not four families in one house with 7 vehicles. There is simply not enough room to park all the cars when you have multiple families, with multiple cars living in one home.

No, I was asking the specific PP about the specific PP's specific neighbor.

As for whom or what the neighborhoods were "meant for" - it's not like they were "meant for" an elderly woman to live by herself in a four-bedroom house, either. I really don't care whom or what the neighborhoods were "meant for", when they were built in the 1950s and 1960s. It's 2019.

It sounds like you live in a neighborhood where everybody needs a car to get around. That's why there are so many cars. It's also probably one reason why the neighborhoods aren't in demand by the kind of people you'd like to have as your neighbors.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So to the people living in Wheaton, Rockville, and other areas where this is going to destroy neighborhoods, what would you suggest my mother do? She's elderly, and really does not want to sell the house. But she and and I see firsthand what has become of this formerly (upper) middle class neighborhood, and the property values. Should I encourage her to sell? It's a very nice house - 4 bedrooms, 3 bathrooms, finished basement, hardwood floors throughout, updated bathrooms and kitchen, but they're barely getting $450,000. One house sold for $325,000 (not a typo), but it had been rented out to single men for years, and it was probably completely trashed.

Does she still feel safe there? If so, and she does not want to sell, it would be tough to force her to move.

We hope to move within the next two years (saving up) but we have kids in school and want them in a better environment.

As long as your mom feels safe and can get around the house, maybe let her stay? Until she can’t manage it anymore. Then move her to Leisure World.