Anonymous
10/02/2024 22:21
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As it unlikely that the Council is still reading this thread, if they ever did, at page 37, you can submit feedback to the County Council via this portal here. This way, it will be read by all members of the Council.
https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/
Not that folks shouldn't provide that feedback, either positive or negative, but they should do so with the grain of salt that this is likely performative. The response is already written, and had been some time back, along the lines of:
"After unprecedented community engagement and careful review of the commentary of Montgomery County residents, representing both full-throated support of the Attainable Housing Strategies presented by Montgomery Planning and neighborhood concerns, [insert sponsoring Councilmembers' names] are proposing legislation that will bring much of that vision to reality.
[Insert language almost identical to that used at the beginning of the listening sessions regarding the housing shortage and affordability, pointing to conformance with Thrive]
We are appreciative of the considerable response to our outreach, and we listened closely to the concerns expressed by our neighbors and fellow Montgomery County residents. Our decision to take action does not come lightly, and, as we move forward, we are heartened by the knowledge that many resident concerns can be addressed through well established County processes.
Montgomery County is growing and changing. To truly thrive, we must embrace that change by supporting growth for the many who would call our County home, and addressing that need for housing must remain our overwhelming concern.
We thank the Planning Board, particularly Chair Artie Harris, and those at Montgomery Planning, led by Jason Sartori, who worked long and hard to produce the recommendations on which this proposed legislation is based. We also thank those members of our Council staff who have reviewed the recommended actions, identifying alterations, now included in our proposal, that better comport with existing County processes and law. We encourage our fellow Montgomery County residents to lend their support to this important legislation."
The proposal, enshring many of the allowances as by-right and without significant limit, will probably drop sometime between the election and the holidays, likely close to one or the other to minimize notice/exposure in the news cycle. The required hearings, etc., will remain performative, and the following vote will be scheduled for a time towards the beginning of summer -- long enough to claim it was not at the first possible moment and, therefore, not "rushed." The only thing then will be to decide an effective date that would minimize notice of related activity leading into the following election cycle's primary, as all but Friedson would be safe in their seats with Democrat nomination, and Friedson will be aiming for an office that cycle where having passed this kind of legislation might help him. Somewhere in the middle of all of this, the less noticed but effectively paired effort to reduce development impact taxes will skate through.
Anyone looking to have something different happen without some rapid indication to the contrary, now that the listening sessions are over, might need to look into a recall effort.
We’ve seen enough resistance that I think a very healthy lawsuit is guaranteed. Probably a series of them.
There is no realistic way to justify what the county is proposing.
You've missed all the groudwork that went in to laying out their justification. Why do you think Planning was asked only to focus on the one avenue?
They also will have the benefit of knowing the outcome of Arlington's effort to craft the proposed legislation to help proof it against suit, and likely the result of an appeal before final ammendments and passage.
Oh, I know. I’m saying that while they tried to hide it as much as possible, just like they did with Thrive, the opposition is widely known this time around, and their complete lack of research and lack of justification in moving this forward is transparent. These people are not rocket scientists, I think that some attorneys will have a field day picking this apart.
Anonymous
10/02/2024 22:07
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As it unlikely that the Council is still reading this thread, if they ever did, at page 37, you can submit feedback to the County Council via this portal here. This way, it will be read by all members of the Council.
https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/
Not that folks shouldn't provide that feedback, either positive or negative, but they should do so with the grain of salt that this is likely performative. The response is already written, and had been some time back, along the lines of:
"After unprecedented community engagement and careful review of the commentary of Montgomery County residents, representing both full-throated support of the Attainable Housing Strategies presented by Montgomery Planning and neighborhood concerns, [insert sponsoring Councilmembers' names] are proposing legislation that will bring much of that vision to reality.
[Insert language almost identical to that used at the beginning of the listening sessions regarding the housing shortage and affordability, pointing to conformance with Thrive]
We are appreciative of the considerable response to our outreach, and we listened closely to the concerns expressed by our neighbors and fellow Montgomery County residents. Our decision to take action does not come lightly, and, as we move forward, we are heartened by the knowledge that many resident concerns can be addressed through well established County processes.
Montgomery County is growing and changing. To truly thrive, we must embrace that change by supporting growth for the many who would call our County home, and addressing that need for housing must remain our overwhelming concern.
We thank the Planning Board, particularly Chair Artie Harris, and those at Montgomery Planning, led by Jason Sartori, who worked long and hard to produce the recommendations on which this proposed legislation is based. We also thank those members of our Council staff who have reviewed the recommended actions, identifying alterations, now included in our proposal, that better comport with existing County processes and law. We encourage our fellow Montgomery County residents to lend their support to this important legislation."
The proposal, enshring many of the allowances as by-right and without significant limit, will probably drop sometime between the election and the holidays, likely close to one or the other to minimize notice/exposure in the news cycle. The required hearings, etc., will remain performative, and the following vote will be scheduled for a time towards the beginning of summer -- long enough to claim it was not at the first possible moment and, therefore, not "rushed." The only thing then will be to decide an effective date that would minimize notice of related activity leading into the following election cycle's primary, as all but Friedson would be safe in their seats with Democrat nomination, and Friedson will be aiming for an office that cycle where having passed this kind of legislation might help him. Somewhere in the middle of all of this, the less noticed but effectively paired effort to reduce development impact taxes will skate through.
Anyone looking to have something different happen without some rapid indication to the contrary, now that the listening sessions are over, might need to look into a recall effort.
We’ve seen enough resistance that I think a very healthy lawsuit is guaranteed. Probably a series of them.
There is no realistic way to justify what the county is proposing.
You've missed all the groudwork that went in to laying out their justification. Why do you think Planning was asked only to focus on the one avenue?
They also will have the benefit of knowing the outcome of Arlington's effort to craft the proposed legislation to help proof it against suit, and likely the result of an appeal before final ammendments and passage.
Anonymous
10/02/2024 21:46
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:As it unlikely that the Council is still reading this thread, if they ever did, at page 37, you can submit feedback to the County Council via this portal here. This way, it will be read by all members of the Council.
https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/
Not that folks shouldn't provide that feedback, either positive or negative, but they should do so with the grain of salt that this is likely performative. The response is already written, and had been some time back, along the lines of:
"After unprecedented community engagement and careful review of the commentary of Montgomery County residents, representing both full-throated support of the Attainable Housing Strategies presented by Montgomery Planning and neighborhood concerns, [insert sponsoring Councilmembers' names] are proposing legislation that will bring much of that vision to reality.
[Insert language almost identical to that used at the beginning of the listening sessions regarding the housing shortage and affordability, pointing to conformance with Thrive]
We are appreciative of the considerable response to our outreach, and we listened closely to the concerns expressed by our neighbors and fellow Montgomery County residents. Our decision to take action does not come lightly, and, as we move forward, we are heartened by the knowledge that many resident concerns can be addressed through well established County processes.
Montgomery County is growing and changing. To truly thrive, we must embrace that change by supporting growth for the many who would call our County home, and addressing that need for housing must remain our overwhelming concern.
We thank the Planning Board, particularly Chair Artie Harris, and those at Montgomery Planning, led by Jason Sartori, who worked long and hard to produce the recommendations on which this proposed legislation is based. We also thank those members of our Council staff who have reviewed the recommended actions, identifying alterations, now included in our proposal, that better comport with existing County processes and law. We encourage our fellow Montgomery County residents to lend their support to this important legislation."
The proposal, enshring many of the allowances as by-right and without significant limit, will probably drop sometime between the election and the holidays, likely close to one or the other to minimize notice/exposure in the news cycle. The required hearings, etc., will remain performative, and the following vote will be scheduled for a time towards the beginning of summer -- long enough to claim it was not at the first possible moment and, therefore, not "rushed." The only thing then will be to decide an effective date that would minimize notice of related activity leading into the following election cycle's primary, as all but Friedson would be safe in their seats with Democrat nomination, and Friedson will be aiming for an office that cycle where having passed this kind of legislation might help him. Somewhere in the middle of all of this, the less noticed but effectively paired effort to reduce development impact taxes will skate through.
Anyone looking to have something different happen without some rapid indication to the contrary, now that the listening sessions are over, might need to look into a recall effort.
We’ve seen enough resistance that I think a very healthy lawsuit is guaranteed. Probably a series of them.
There is no realistic way to justify what the county is proposing.
Anonymous
10/02/2024 20:34
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:As it unlikely that the Council is still reading this thread, if they ever did, at page 37, you can submit feedback to the County Council via this portal here. This way, it will be read by all members of the Council.
https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/
Not that folks shouldn't provide that feedback, either positive or negative, but they should do so with the grain of salt that this is likely performative. The response is already written, and had been some time back, along the lines of:
"After unprecedented community engagement and careful review of the commentary of Montgomery County residents, representing both full-throated support of the Attainable Housing Strategies presented by Montgomery Planning and neighborhood concerns, [insert sponsoring Councilmembers' names] are proposing legislation that will bring much of that vision to reality.
[Insert language almost identical to that used at the beginning of the listening sessions regarding the housing shortage and affordability, pointing to conformance with Thrive]
We are appreciative of the considerable response to our outreach, and we listened closely to the concerns expressed by our neighbors and fellow Montgomery County residents. Our decision to take action does not come lightly, and, as we move forward, we are heartened by the knowledge that many resident concerns can be addressed through well established County processes.
Montgomery County is growing and changing. To truly thrive, we must embrace that change by supporting growth for the many who would call our County home, and addressing that need for housing must remain our overwhelming concern.
We thank the Planning Board, particularly Chair Artie Harris, and those at Montgomery Planning, led by Jason Sartori, who worked long and hard to produce the recommendations on which this proposed legislation is based. We also thank those members of our Council staff who have reviewed the recommended actions, identifying alterations, now included in our proposal, that better comport with existing County processes and law. We encourage our fellow Montgomery County residents to lend their support to this important legislation."
The proposal, enshring many of the allowances as by-right and without significant limit, will probably drop sometime between the election and the holidays, likely close to one or the other to minimize notice/exposure in the news cycle. The required hearings, etc., will remain performative, and the following vote will be scheduled for a time towards the beginning of summer -- long enough to claim it was not at the first possible moment and, therefore, not "rushed." The only thing then will be to decide an effective date that would minimize notice of related activity leading into the following election cycle's primary, as all but Friedson would be safe in their seats with Democrat nomination, and Friedson will be aiming for an office that cycle where having passed this kind of legislation might help him. Somewhere in the middle of all of this, the less noticed but effectively paired effort to reduce development impact taxes will skate through.
Anyone looking to have something different happen without some rapid indication to the contrary, now that the listening sessions are over, might need to look into a recall effort.
Anonymous
10/02/2024 14:40
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
As it unlikely that the Council is still reading this thread, if they ever did, at page 37, you can submit feedback to the County Council via this portal here. This way, it will be read by all members of the Council.
https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/
https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z823ui90z2ksvq/
Anonymous
10/02/2024 07:21
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You tax things you want to discourage. Do you think we should be discouraging the creation of housing?
Governments levy taxes to pay for the cost of government. You don’t seem to have a very good understanding of tax policy. Did the county council raise property taxes because they want to discourage people from living here? Did the state raise sales taxes because they want to discourage people from buying things? Does the federal government have Social Security and Medicare tax to discourage people from working? Stop torturing economics and be a grown up.
Distract all you want, but anyone paying attention knows the tax cuts are a transfer of wealth from the government (the people) to developers. You even know it deep down, which is why you are so defensive about it.
It's not a tax on developers. It's a tax on people purchasing new homes.
But how does someone moving into a new townhome have a greater burden on infrastructure than someone moving into an elderly couple's former home next door?
The answer is obvious. New construction puts additional pressure on infrastructure that has not been accounted for yet. Seriously how can you not understand this simple concept?
Anonymous
10/01/2024 21:59
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Reminder, the virtual listening session is tomorrow. It says that the registration cap has been reached, not sure if the live links will still work.
Great information here, please share:
https://static1.squarespa...02rDNcHgpQ
“Attend a Public Listening Session
Wednesday, Oct. 2, Virtual Session (Zoom) 12 to 2 p.m.
Meeting details will be sent to registrants prior to the event.
Registration is closed at more than 950 participants.
The session will be streamed on the Council's Facebook and YouTube pages and the recording will be posted following the meeting.”
The Council is also inviting residents to provide additional feedback on the Attainable Housing Strategies initiative.
https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/f...i90z2ksvq/
Sign the petition here:
https://www.change.org/p/...ery-county
Great information here, please share:
https://static1.squarespa...02rDNcHgpQ
“Attend a Public Listening Session
Wednesday, Oct. 2, Virtual Session (Zoom) 12 to 2 p.m.
Meeting details will be sent to registrants prior to the event.
Registration is closed at more than 950 participants.
The session will be streamed on the Council's Facebook and YouTube pages and the recording will be posted following the meeting.”
The Council is also inviting residents to provide additional feedback on the Attainable Housing Strategies initiative.
https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/f...i90z2ksvq/
Sign the petition here:
https://www.change.org/p/...ery-county
Anonymous
10/01/2024 14:50
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You tax things you want to discourage. Do you think we should be discouraging the creation of housing?
This is an absurd comment, it has to be paid for somehow. The county needs to build schools and expand infrastructure to accommodate additional residents. Without impact fees everyone else in the county has to pay for this through increased property taxes and sales taxes. The cost of expanding infrastructure should be directly realized by the private property owners that are causing the county to incur this expense. For someone that talks about market oriented solutions you seem like a big fan of socialism when negative externalities don't support your YIMBY dogma.
Basically, the YIMBY logic is let the markets decide except for when it is inconvenient to their political agenda. In this situation, everyone else should pay for it and be grateful for higher taxes.
Everyone who lives in Montgomery County should read this: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf. It’s a great summary of how Planning and Friedson have this wrong and points out how Friedson is trying to pull a fast one. It’s always this way with Planning, almost as if they know their ideas can’t stand on their own so there’s always some trickery.
If Glenn Orlin wanted to still be telling the County Council how to do things, then he shouldn't have retired, twice. It's not the 1970s in Montgomery County anymore. Or anywhere else, either.
You never want to discuss the substance. You just want to attack the messenger, question others’ right to speak, distract from the issue at hand, or drown out alternative views. It speaks volumes about YIMBYism that you don’t engage the substance once it goes past your seven-word canned answers, which are misleading, by the way.
For anyone looking for the Orlin testimony it’s on the council website:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf
If you have a stake in MCPS, you should read what Orlin writes very carefully. If the planning proposal passes, important capital projects will be cut or pushed further down the road.
Anonymous
10/01/2024 14:50
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It is true. Not only that, but Friedson is having the council consider the growth and infrastructure policy and the impact fee bill separately, making it harder to piece together all of the loopholes, discounts, and exemptions. Here’s what a former council staffer (who used to cover planning for the professional staff) had to say about Friedson’s effort:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf
A number of the new developer tax breaks in the bill weren’t even discussed in the GIP, so there’s no qualitative basis for many of them.
I read the testimony at this link. It's good and not understandable for the average person. The summary in the dcum post above (considering policies separately so hard to piece together all the scams) is way more user-friendly. How can that message get out?
I don’t know, but last listening session is tomorrow. For anything sharing information because it takes place they should include that link along with the previously posted explainer and the link to the petition.
Here is the direct link without the period:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf
Anonymous
10/01/2024 14:46
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
It is true. Not only that, but Friedson is having the council consider the growth and infrastructure policy and the impact fee bill separately, making it harder to piece together all of the loopholes, discounts, and exemptions. Here’s what a former council staffer (who used to cover planning for the professional staff) had to say about Friedson’s effort:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf
A number of the new developer tax breaks in the bill weren’t even discussed in the GIP, so there’s no qualitative basis for many of them.
I read the testimony at this link. It's good and not understandable for the average person. The summary in the dcum post above (considering policies separately so hard to piece together all the scams) is way more user-friendly. How can that message get out?
I don’t know, but last listening session is tomorrow. For anything sharing information because it takes place they should include that link along with the previously posted explainer and the link to the petition.
Anonymous
10/01/2024 14:44
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You tax things you want to discourage. Do you think we should be discouraging the creation of housing?
This is an absurd comment, it has to be paid for somehow. The county needs to build schools and expand infrastructure to accommodate additional residents. Without impact fees everyone else in the county has to pay for this through increased property taxes and sales taxes. The cost of expanding infrastructure should be directly realized by the private property owners that are causing the county to incur this expense. For someone that talks about market oriented solutions you seem like a big fan of socialism when negative externalities don't support your YIMBY dogma.
Basically, the YIMBY logic is let the markets decide except for when it is inconvenient to their political agenda. In this situation, everyone else should pay for it and be grateful for higher taxes.
Everyone who lives in Montgomery County should read this: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf. It’s a great summary of how Planning and Friedson have this wrong and points out how Friedson is trying to pull a fast one. It’s always this way with Planning, almost as if they know their ideas can’t stand on their own so there’s always some trickery.
At this point I can’t help but feel that the planning board and council members are going to find themselves the subjects of a Netflix docuseries at some point.
Anonymous
10/01/2024 13:37
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You tax things you want to discourage. Do you think we should be discouraging the creation of housing?
This is an absurd comment, it has to be paid for somehow. The county needs to build schools and expand infrastructure to accommodate additional residents. Without impact fees everyone else in the county has to pay for this through increased property taxes and sales taxes. The cost of expanding infrastructure should be directly realized by the private property owners that are causing the county to incur this expense. For someone that talks about market oriented solutions you seem like a big fan of socialism when negative externalities don't support your YIMBY dogma.
Basically, the YIMBY logic is let the markets decide except for when it is inconvenient to their political agenda. In this situation, everyone else should pay for it and be grateful for higher taxes.
Everyone who lives in Montgomery County should read this: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf. It’s a great summary of how Planning and Friedson have this wrong and points out how Friedson is trying to pull a fast one. It’s always this way with Planning, almost as if they know their ideas can’t stand on their own so there’s always some trickery.
If Glenn Orlin wanted to still be telling the County Council how to do things, then he shouldn't have retired, twice. It's not the 1970s in Montgomery County anymore. Or anywhere else, either.
Just another Trumpist attack.
The facts he pointed out speak for themselves.
Anonymous
10/01/2024 13:07
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You tax things you want to discourage. Do you think we should be discouraging the creation of housing?
This is an absurd comment, it has to be paid for somehow. The county needs to build schools and expand infrastructure to accommodate additional residents. Without impact fees everyone else in the county has to pay for this through increased property taxes and sales taxes. The cost of expanding infrastructure should be directly realized by the private property owners that are causing the county to incur this expense. For someone that talks about market oriented solutions you seem like a big fan of socialism when negative externalities don't support your YIMBY dogma.
Basically, the YIMBY logic is let the markets decide except for when it is inconvenient to their political agenda. In this situation, everyone else should pay for it and be grateful for higher taxes.
Everyone who lives in Montgomery County should read this: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf. It’s a great summary of how Planning and Friedson have this wrong and points out how Friedson is trying to pull a fast one. It’s always this way with Planning, almost as if they know their ideas can’t stand on their own so there’s always some trickery.
If Glenn Orlin wanted to still be telling the County Council how to do things, then he shouldn't have retired, twice. It's not the 1970s in Montgomery County anymore. Or anywhere else, either.
Anonymous
10/01/2024 10:21
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:
It is true. Not only that, but Friedson is having the council consider the growth and infrastructure policy and the impact fee bill separately, making it harder to piece together all of the loopholes, discounts, and exemptions. Here’s what a former council staffer (who used to cover planning for the professional staff) had to say about Friedson’s effort:
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2024/20240910/testimony/item5-GlennOrlin.pdf
A number of the new developer tax breaks in the bill weren’t even discussed in the GIP, so there’s no qualitative basis for many of them.
I read the testimony at this link. It's good and not understandable for the average person. The summary in the dcum post above (considering policies separately so hard to piece together all the scams) is way more user-friendly. How can that message get out?
Anonymous
09/30/2024 20:23
Subject: MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
You tax things you want to discourage. Do you think we should be discouraging the creation of housing?
This is an absurd comment, it has to be paid for somehow. The county needs to build schools and expand infrastructure to accommodate additional residents. Without impact fees everyone else in the county has to pay for this through increased property taxes and sales taxes. The cost of expanding infrastructure should be directly realized by the private property owners that are causing the county to incur this expense. For someone that talks about market oriented solutions you seem like a big fan of socialism when negative externalities don't support your YIMBY dogma.
Those close-in SFH homeowners are causing the county and state to incur a lot infrastructure expenses by keeping other people further away from their jobs.
Close-in housing is more effective than further out housing or maybe now it isn’t? What’s being built further out is mostly SFH. No one is choosing to live in a further out SFH because they can’t afford an apartment closer in. They’re buying the housing type not the location.