Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People rent out a bed in SF.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/05/success/podshare-co-living/index.html

Why the heck is this a good thing? The rich person who can afford the house gets richer renting ‘pods’ for $1200 each and the pod-people are living like animals crammed in shelter cages. But hey - they get noodles and toilet paper so it’s great!

It's not really accurate to say that they're renting out a bed. It's basically a hostel - you get a bed, a place to put your stuff, and use of the common areas.

And the reason it's a good thing is: having housing is a good thing. As you may have heard, housing is in very, very short supply in San Francisco, and people are having trouble even living in their cars.

Then they need to go elsewhere!

This is a good reason to think about reinvigorating other parts of the country. We have space. Work on bringing companies to other parts of he country so that the jobs are more spread out. Don’t overcrowd areas that are already overcrowded!

There are two ways to solve the supply-demand imbalance in housing in San Francisco.

1. Increase supply
2. Reduce demand

And, as it happens, people actually are using both ways! The hostel increases supply. Your idea of "just go elsewhere" reduces demand.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People rent out a bed in SF.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/05/success/podshare-co-living/index.html

Why the heck is this a good thing? The rich person who can afford the house gets richer renting ‘pods’ for $1200 each and the pod-people are living like animals crammed in shelter cages. But hey - they get noodles and toilet paper so it’s great!

It's not really accurate to say that they're renting out a bed. It's basically a hostel - you get a bed, a place to put your stuff, and use of the common areas.

And the reason it's a good thing is: having housing is a good thing. As you may have heard, housing is in very, very short supply in San Francisco, and people are having trouble even living in their cars.

Then they need to go elsewhere!

This is a good reason to think about reinvigorating other parts of the country. We have space. Work on bringing companies to other parts of he country so that the jobs are more spread out. Don’t overcrowd areas that are already overcrowded!

Anonymous wrote:Where are you people living that you have multiple illegal immigrant families living in the same house? I live in Rockville West End and no house in my neighborhood has that.

Give it time.

We have seen this phenomenon increasing in several areas. It’s a fantastic business model for the landlord and they rake in cash without the associated tax liability.

For now, we’ve seen this in Twinbrook, Aspen Hill, some areas of Silver Spring, Manor Woods, some of the areas in Rockville that are closer to Viers Mill, the areas off of Randolph Road.

Definitely anywhere the illegal investor can buy a home for less than $500K. I say illegal investor because these guys don’t follow any of the County’s rental regulations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
People rent out a bed in SF.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/05/success/podshare-co-living/index.html

Why the heck is this a good thing? The rich person who can afford the house gets richer renting ‘pods’ for $1200 each and the pod-people are living like animals crammed in shelter cages. But hey - they get noodles and toilet paper so it’s great!

It's not really accurate to say that they're renting out a bed. It's basically a hostel - you get a bed, a place to put your stuff, and use of the common areas.

And the reason it's a good thing is: having housing is a good thing. As you may have heard, housing is in very, very short supply in San Francisco, and people are having trouble even living in their cars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m saying the proposal allows for too much density. I bought in an R60 zone and it should stay that way. If Takoma
Park wants this, carve out an exception for them. Don’t pretend this won’t bring more vehicle traffic to already crowded neighborhoods. Riemer doesn’t like to do too much analysis on these proposals. Handling this by forcing it on the entire county is heavy handed.

It is staying that way. The lot size (6000 square feet) is staying the same, the setbacks are staying the same, the building heights are staying the same, the coverage is staying the same... The only difference is that you would be allowed to convert part of your house into an apartment (subject to conditions).

I will note that much of the area zoned for R60 is inside the Beltway in Bethesda and close-in Silver Spring, which is exactly where there should be more housing added.

No, most of the houses inside the Beltway of Bethesda and Silver Spring have very small lots so everybody is already living densely. Where do you live? Wherever you live, that's where I think more housing should be added.

Everybody is living densely in single-family detached houses? Compared to what, Olney? Or Montana?

Plenty of housing is being added where I live. Over 20,000 people have moved in since I've lived here. It's using MCPS capital funding that you'd surely prefer to have for your schools, it's using county capital and operating funds that you'd surely prefer to have for your area, and it's adding cars on the road on 270 so the governor is pushing for even more highways. (And where are all of those cars going to go once they get off the highway?)

Meanwhile you're complaining about the county allowing you to convert your walk-out basement into an apartment for rent.

DP

You are already allowed to convert your walk out basement to an apartment.

Only in some areas. This proposal will expand the number of areas where you're allowed to do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Obviously Reimer is talking changing setbacks since detached ADU's are included in the scheme. Think building a thing the size if a 2 car garage detached or attached . This isn't about converting a walk out basement. The word used is basement.


Also deleted would be the min 800 sq ft and max 1200. That means what? 3 studio apartments of 600 square feet on the same site as a SF?


Deleting minimum distance requirements between ADU's? Park 3 rv /modulars in the back yard and 1 in the front?


People rent garages as apts in LA.

People rent out a bed in SF.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/05/success/podshare-co-living/index.html

Why the heck is this a good thing? The rich person who can afford the house gets richer renting ‘pods’ for $1200 each and the pod-people are living like animals crammed in shelter cages. But hey - they get noodles and toilet paper so it’s great!

Where are you people living that you have multiple illegal immigrant families living in the same house? I live in Rockville West End and no house in my neighborhood has that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy is deciding that some property owners have more rights than other property owners. I should have a right to enjoy the single family house I purchased. Some of the illegal apartments in my neighborhood are okay, others are terrible. Behind me is an illegal apartment and the ceiling is very low. There’s no parking to start with but now they’ve added multiple vehicles.

I report such houses because it is a fire & safety hazard, unethical & probably not up to code and brings down property values.

I agree.

PP again

But please do at least try and report them! Thank you for at least attempting.

And for other people, you can go to the Montgomery County website and report Housing Code violations online.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy is deciding that some property owners have more rights than other property owners. I should have a right to enjoy the single family house I purchased. Some of the illegal apartments in my neighborhood are okay, others are terrible. Behind me is an illegal apartment and the ceiling is very low. There’s no parking to start with but now they’ve added multiple vehicles.

I report such houses because it is a fire & safety hazard, unethical & probably not up to code and brings down property values.

Pretty much a guarantee that the work is not up to code. Absolutely unsafe. Definitely lowers your property value because when the house finally sells, it will sell life less than a home that was renovated up to code.

Unfortunately, reporting doesn’t make much difference. We have a neighbor that has tried to report several of these homes. It’s easy enough to look up online who has a rental license and who is renting out illegally.

But the people who live there can say whatever they want. And the County seems to not usually fine for these violations anyway. They may ask the owner to get a rental license, which would help get things up to code. But other than that, there is little enforcement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m saying the proposal allows for too much density. I bought in an R60 zone and it should stay that way. If Takoma
Park wants this, carve out an exception for them. Don’t pretend this won’t bring more vehicle traffic to already crowded neighborhoods. Riemer doesn’t like to do too much analysis on these proposals. Handling this by forcing it on the entire county is heavy handed.

It is staying that way. The lot size (6000 square feet) is staying the same, the setbacks are staying the same, the building heights are staying the same, the coverage is staying the same... The only difference is that you would be allowed to convert part of your house into an apartment (subject to conditions).

I will note that much of the area zoned for R60 is inside the Beltway in Bethesda and close-in Silver Spring, which is exactly where there should be more housing added.

No, most of the houses inside the Beltway of Bethesda and Silver Spring have very small lots so everybody is already living densely. Where do you live? Wherever you live, that's where I think more housing should be added.

Everybody is living densely in single-family detached houses? Compared to what, Olney? Or Montana?

Plenty of housing is being added where I live. Over 20,000 people have moved in since I've lived here. It's using MCPS capital funding that you'd surely prefer to have for your schools, it's using county capital and operating funds that you'd surely prefer to have for your area, and it's adding cars on the road on 270 so the governor is pushing for even more highways. (And where are all of those cars going to go once they get off the highway?)

Meanwhile you're complaining about the county allowing you to convert your walk-out basement into an apartment for rent.

DP

You are already allowed to convert your walk out basement to an apartment.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m saying the proposal allows for too much density. I bought in an R60 zone and it should stay that way. If Takoma
Park wants this, carve out an exception for them. Don’t pretend this won’t bring more vehicle traffic to already crowded neighborhoods. Riemer doesn’t like to do too much analysis on these proposals. Handling this by forcing it on the entire county is heavy handed.

It is staying that way. The lot size (6000 square feet) is staying the same, the setbacks are staying the same, the building heights are staying the same, the coverage is staying the same... The only difference is that you would be allowed to convert part of your house into an apartment (subject to conditions).

I will note that much of the area zoned for R60 is inside the Beltway in Bethesda and close-in Silver Spring, which is exactly where there should be more housing added.

No, most of the houses inside the Beltway of Bethesda and Silver Spring have very small lots so everybody is already living densely. Where do you live? Wherever you live, that's where I think more housing should be added.

Everybody is living densely in single-family detached houses? Compared to what, Olney? Or Montana?

Plenty of housing is being added where I live. Over 20,000 people have moved in since I've lived here. It's using MCPS capital funding that you'd surely prefer to have for your schools, it's using county capital and operating funds that you'd surely prefer to have for your area, and it's adding cars on the road on 270 so the governor is pushing for even more highways. (And where are all of those cars going to go once they get off the highway?)

Meanwhile you're complaining about the county allowing you to convert your walk-out basement into an apartment for rent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy is deciding that some property owners have more rights than other property owners. I should have a right to enjoy the single family house I purchased. Some of the illegal apartments in my neighborhood are okay, others are terrible. Behind me is an illegal apartment and the ceiling is very low. There’s no parking to start with but now they’ve added multiple vehicles.

I report such houses because it is a fire & safety hazard, unethical & probably not up to code and brings down property values.

I agree.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m saying the proposal allows for too much density. I bought in an R60 zone and it should stay that way. If Takoma
Park wants this, carve out an exception for them. Don’t pretend this won’t bring more vehicle traffic to already crowded neighborhoods. Riemer doesn’t like to do too much analysis on these proposals. Handling this by forcing it on the entire county is heavy handed.

It is staying that way. The lot size (6000 square feet) is staying the same, the setbacks are staying the same, the building heights are staying the same, the coverage is staying the same... The only difference is that you would be allowed to convert part of your house into an apartment (subject to conditions).

I will note that much of the area zoned for R60 is inside the Beltway in Bethesda and close-in Silver Spring, which is exactly where there should be more housing added.

No, most of the houses inside the Beltway of Bethesda and Silver Spring have very small lots so everybody is already living densely. Where do you live? Wherever you live, that's where I think more housing should be added.

Anonymous wrote:What’s crazy is deciding that some property owners have more rights than other property owners. I should have a right to enjoy the single family house I purchased. Some of the illegal apartments in my neighborhood are okay, others are terrible. Behind me is an illegal apartment and the ceiling is very low. There’s no parking to start with but now they’ve added multiple vehicles.

I report such houses because it is a fire & safety hazard, unethical & probably not up to code and brings down property values.