Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

Without job growth, the county is solely reliant on in-migration of affluent households who work elsewhere. What’s the value proposition that this county offers instead of living closer to your job? High taxes and a horrible commute.

What’s worse is that while Planning is targeting housing growth towards “affordable” or “attainable” housing to low-AMI households which induced more in-migration of low income households, they put up huge obstacles to build housing that would be attractive to wealthy households moving here. The outcome is that the poor population is growing and the rich population is aging out to retirement.

Anyone that thinks a tax base for a county that is growing increasingly poor can be sustained by a static number of about 100k people who either work outside of the county or are retired are fooling themselves.

If Planning was smart, they would get rid of MPDUs and require a 1-to-1 offset of housing new production targeting the top of the market for every regulated affordable or attainable unit approved.

Thrive allows for new housing types, including housing that is not street facing. It’s past time that lot splitting gets approved so that there can be a big rush of new housing production on those massive lots in Bethesda and Potomac.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

There's a demand for housing in this county. It does make sense to work to meet that demand, and to now have the tax revenue from those people in the county. There's a lot of office vacancies in this county. Not sure what you want planners to do with those vacancies.

That DP again. From a strictly financial standpoint, it does not make a lot of sense to have the tax revenue if the associated public expense associated with those households would be greater than the tax revenue. From a demand standpoint, again, neither the already-developed older detached SFH neighborhoods most affected, here, nor MoCo, itself, exist in a vacuum.

There is a lot of under-utilized existing residential-inclusive zoning with greater concentration around/access to Metro. It may not be the type that smaller developers pushing for "missing middle" might be able to build, but it would be far more efficient. Continued greenfield development farther out might efficiently support demand associated with employment in the 270 corridor, which, itself, might produce many of the higher-end jobs that would make a more net positive impact on the county's bottom line if better encouraged.

MoCo does not need to absorb all of this demand, either -- there are neighboring jusrisdictions where that demand might be met at lower cost.

I was not the recent poster suggesting office conversion, and I don't know the relative cost (and cost-benefit), there. Do planners need to do something directly with those properties (from a regulatory perspective)? I don't know. However, if we have a lot of vacant office space (and it seems that we do), we might want to address that before seeking to add population without associated higher-end jobs that might fill those empty offices.

What drives me crazy is that instead of promoting policies that work and encourage private sector job growth, like promoting development along the 270 corridor. The country instead seems intent to continue with policies that discourage greenfield investment while simultaneously promoting job creation through commercial rent subsidies. It’s the most unfashionably dumb and unsustainable thing you can imagine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

There's a demand for housing in this county. It does make sense to work to meet that demand, and to now have the tax revenue from those people in the county. There's a lot of office vacancies in this county. Not sure what you want planners to do with those vacancies.

That DP again. From a strictly financial standpoint, it does not make a lot of sense to have the tax revenue if the associated public expense associated with those households would be greater than the tax revenue. From a demand standpoint, again, neither the already-developed older detached SFH neighborhoods most affected, here, nor MoCo, itself, exist in a vacuum.

There is a lot of under-utilized existing residential-inclusive zoning with greater concentration around/access to Metro. It may not be the type that smaller developers pushing for "missing middle" might be able to build, but it would be far more efficient. Continued greenfield development farther out might efficiently support demand associated with employment in the 270 corridor, which, itself, might produce many of the higher-end jobs that would make a more net positive impact on the county's bottom line if better encouraged.

MoCo does not need to absorb all of this demand, either -- there are neighboring jusrisdictions where that demand might be met at lower cost.

I was not the recent poster suggesting office conversion, and I don't know the relative cost (and cost-benefit), there. Do planners need to do something directly with those properties (from a regulatory perspective)? I don't know. However, if we have a lot of vacant office space (and it seems that we do), we might want to address that before seeking to add population without associated higher-end jobs that might fill those empty offices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

DP. You're not having a substantive discussion. You're having a discussion that is "Planning isn't doing the things I think Planning should do!" And the things you think Planning should do are encourage rich households and discourage poor households. Which is an opinion you get to have, but not everybody agrees on that as the primary planning goal for the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

There's a demand for housing in this county. It does make sense to work to meet that demand, and to now have the tax revenue from those people in the county. There's a lot of office vacancies in this county. Not sure what you want planners to do with those vacancies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the people in the houses in the area highlighted (in plan seen at virtual meeting) and the church know (mentioned the church’s 12 acres) about the corridor plan directly affecting their lots?

I’m sure that they weren’t alerted in any meaningful way, the less engagement the better for proponents of the plan.

I do know that the Woodmoor neighborhood is going to discuss with their association 5/29.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Do the people in the houses in the area highlighted (in plan seen at virtual meeting) and the church know (mentioned the church’s 12 acres) about the corridor plan directly affecting their lots?

I’m sure that they weren’t alerted in any meaningful way, the less engagement the better for proponents of the plan.

I do know that the Woodmoor neighborhood is going to discuss with their association 5/29.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

There's a demand for housing in this county. It does make sense to work to meet that demand, and to now have the tax revenue from those people in the county. There's a lot of office vacancies in this county. Not sure what you want planners to do with those vacancies.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

There's a demand for housing in this county. It does make sense to work to meet that demand, and to now have the tax revenue from those people in the county. There's a lot of office vacancies in this county. Not sure what you want planners to do with those vacancies.

Converting commercial to mixed use makes sense, the upzoning does not.

I also support initiatives that would allow churches to build residential on their land, but the devil is in the details. Number of units and type are important, and we can’t allow religious organizations to acquire land just for that purpose, so some minimum time limit of ownership should be discussed. We don’t need religious organizations buying land to generate tax free revenue or build religious compounds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.

There's a demand for housing in this county. It does make sense to work to meet that demand, and to now have the tax revenue from those people in the county. There's a lot of office vacancies in this county. Not sure what you want planners to do with those vacancies.

Anonymous wrote:Do the people in the houses in the area highlighted (in plan seen at virtual meeting) and the church know (mentioned the church’s 12 acres) about the corridor plan directly affecting their lots?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

MoCo's unemployment rate is like 2.7%. Makes sense to focus on housing, specially on putting housing in places that don't add traffic.

The county cannot sustain itself without creating high wage private sector jobs. There has been a net loss of these jobs over the past decade. Planning is leading a race to the bottom for this county. Fast casual restaurant jobs are not going to sustain the tax base nor provide the economic growth needed for the pay for all of the things that people want to pay for.

And the people who work those jobs will either live in the county or commute to it. Thus housing and transit. If they live in the county, then even better for the tax base.

DP. You are deliberately being obtuse. The PP's point is that these Thrive-type housing development efforts do little or nothing to address the County's need to attract the higher-paying jobs that would tend to enable the county to "thrive," and, presumably, that a relative lessening of the value of existing detached SFH housing stock in the affected areas would tend to result in a a relatively lower population of public-funds-net-positive households.

What thriving unemployment rate are you looking to have in MOCO?

That DP. Again, you appear to be intentionally obtuse. A low unemployment rate with a lower percentage of associated jobs being high-wage does not create the public-funds-net-positive that helps communities thrive nearly as well as a low unemployment rate with a high percentage of such jobs. The county's planning is not particularly conducive to the latter, but aims to create a balance of housing that increasingly edges towards public-funds-net-negative households, likely displacing more of the a-bit-above-middle-for-the-area-but-public-funds-net-positive households in the process, given the locations on which they are concentrating their change efforts.

And, as before, short, doubt-raising questioning rather than substantive discussion is a ploy of political rhetoric, not a good argument.