Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

That’s not even true. 0% of San Jose is zoned exclusively for single family houses because California banned single family zoning. Your lifestyle preferences are not facts and Density bros are trying force local communities to change their zoning against the will of voters. Zoning is not a one size fits all solution and local communities know what works best for the place they actually live in. You guys are just dishonest and want to eliminate the suburbs altogether so you can force everyone to live in densely populated cities.

Who will make the decisions about zoning? Elected officials.
Who elects the elected officials? Voters.

The California state legislature (i.e., elected officials) voted in 2021 to eliminate zoning that exclusively allows single-family housing as the only land use, and the California governor (i.e., an elected official) signed the bill. The bill took effect on January 1, 2022. That was a whole 18 months ago.

I agree that zoning is not a one-size-fits-all solution, which is exactly why I - like the California state legislature - support eliminating zoning that exclusively allows single-family housing as the only land use.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

That’s not even true. 0% of San Jose is zoned exclusively for single family houses because California banned single family zoning. Your lifestyle preferences are not facts and Density bros are trying force local communities to change their zoning against the will of voters. Zoning is not a one size fits all solution and local communities know what works best for the place they actually live in. You guys are just dishonest and want to eliminate the suburbs altogether so you can force everyone to live in densely populated cities.

Indeed. Nuking the suburbs is the compromise policy, my friend.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

That’s not even true. 0% of San Jose is zoned exclusively for single family houses because California banned single family zoning. Your lifestyle preferences are not facts and Density bros are trying force local communities to change their zoning against the will of voters. Zoning is not a one size fits all solution and local communities know what works best for the place they actually live in. You guys are just dishonest and want to eliminate the suburbs altogether so you can force everyone to live in densely populated cities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t mean we need to accept the blah design they have in store for this area. Bland full crap

Who is we and what authority do we have to accept or not accept designs?

Voters, and that’s also our authority. We don’t have to accept it just because we voted for the people making these decisions any more than I have to “accept” decisions made by Donald Trump in 2025, if elected.

You can vote for a candidate who wants to require every new building to obtain approval from an Aesthetic Design Review Commission, if you can find such a candidate. And then I will vote against this candidate. Property owners have every right to build a building that I, personally, find ugly.

I don’t have to accept decisions of people that are voted into office just because they have been voted into office. Elrich was elected and the YImBYs just cannot hold back their tears about his rent control efforts, so maybe they should take the first steps in STFU.

It’s my right and duty to work in what I think is the best interest of my community.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

That’s not even true. 0% of San Jose is zoned exclusively for single family houses because California banned single family zoning. Your lifestyle preferences are not facts and Density bros are trying force local communities to change their zoning against the will of voters. Zoning is not a one size fits all solution and local communities know what works best for the place they actually live in. You guys are just dishonest and want to eliminate the suburbs altogether so you can force everyone to live in densely populated cities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t mean we need to accept the blah design they have in store for this area. Bland full crap

Who is we and what authority do we have to accept or not accept designs?

Voters, and that’s also our authority. We don’t have to accept it just because we voted for the people making these decisions any more than I have to “accept” decisions made by Donald Trump in 2025, if elected.

You can vote for a candidate who wants to require every new building to obtain approval from an Aesthetic Design Review Commission, if you can find such a candidate. And then I will vote against this candidate. Property owners have every right to build a building that I, personally, find ugly.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t mean we need to accept the blah design they have in store for this area. Bland full crap

Who is we and what authority do we have to accept or not accept designs?

Voters, and that’s also our authority. We don’t have to accept it just because we voted for the people making these decisions any more than I have to “accept” decisions made by Donald Trump in 2025, if elected.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t mean we need to accept the blah design they have in store for this area. Bland full crap

Who is we and what authority do we have to accept or not accept designs?

Anonymous wrote:Doesn’t mean we need to accept the blah design they have in store for this area. Bland full crap

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.

“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”

I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.

I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.

Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.

It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.

Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!

The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.

DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.

There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing

PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.

Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:

1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples

Get it?

DP. Or, more analogously,

Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.

In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?

Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.

This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.

How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?

It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?

There’s only a shortage when developers are looking for subsidies. When builders are near the end of their projects, they suddenly are worried about whether they can find enough customers and frequently ask planning for permission to make their projects smaller and to make some of the units short-term rentals. Another approach is delivering units over a very long timeframe so that new supply trickles onto the market in order to keep prices high.

I fully understand and appreciate reasoned debate over whether this policy will achieve the goal of more housing, and more attainable housing. But I really don't think there is room for debate over whether we need more housing in this region, state, or country.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/26/fact-sheet-vice-president-harris-announces-first-of-its-kind-funding-to-lower-housing-costs-by-reducing-barriers-to-building-more-homes/

https://mdplanningblog.com/2022/01/27/housing-needs-in-maryland-an-introduction-to-the-maryland-housing-needs-assessment-and-10-year-strategic-plan/

https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/housing-needs-assessment/

The developers disagree with you. They prefer to build in NoVa and DC. They’ve cut more units from Wisconsin Avenue projects nearing completion in recent years than could be gained by converting entire blocks of East Bethesda to quadplexes. Yet you think developers can make money by adding more apartments. As nice as it would be for apartment demand to be strong enough to support a construction boom, I trust the people with money on the line more than I trust my own hopes or anything coming out of the planning department. There’s a problem here that has nothing to do with zoning.

The MWCOG report reinforces how bad the MoCo market is. It allocated a disproportionate number of income-restricted units to MoCo because MWCOG knew that MoCo can’t absorb more market rate apartments than it is already delivering. In contrast, SFH demand in Frederick suggests that there’s a lot of unmet SFH demand in MoCo.

It isn't disagreement with me, but the research conducted by others.

And this seems a bit circular to me. One argument is that the entire policy is a corrupt means to create more profit for developers by making it easier for them to develop. But then you say that the policy won't work because developers aren't currently building in MoCo....because it is not easy to develop.

I never said this, and it’s not about housing being hard to develop. It’s about the high risk of it being unprofitable. Planning itself has said this proposal won’t generate much housing but it has consumed a lot of staff time anyway.

PP here. Can you please help me understand your underlying point? I know it is hard to believe, but I am genuinely trying to understand.

Are you saying that there is no need to build more housing of any type in MoCo? Are you saying that we should do that, but this policy is not the right way to do that? Are you suggesting that what we really need in MoCo is more SFH? If so, how would you recommend achieving that?

More specifically, do I understand that you believe that the determination of need should be based on what developers judge it profitable to build?

It’s not a matter of belief. If there’s not demand at the price needed to turn a competitive profit, builders won’t build. Developers have to be good at forecasting demand or they won’t be in business for long.

If you’re talking about subsidized housing, we could have more of it but the council has been dividing subsidies between income-restricted housing and top-of-market market rate housing. There’s only so much money to spend on housing subsidies and I don’t think we should be using it on market rate housing.

I'm still confused. This could mean two different things:
1. No Problem: There is no need for more housing if it is not profitable for builders to build. It means there is no demand.
2. Problem: There is a need but there are factors that make it unprofitable for builders to build, and we need to address those factors.

Which are you saying? Or something else?

One and two are bad ideas. One is wrong because there is demand for some housing types. It’s just that apartment demand is soft. Two is a bad idea because it eventually turns into subsidies for market rate housing. Instead:

3. Stop treating new SFH construction as a sin. At the very least, stop imposing prohibitive fees on it in the greenfield places where it’s allowed.

4. We need more income-restricted housing. Stop directing subsidies to market rate apartments and use them for more income-restricted housing.

5. Prioritize job creation. Developers’ reluctance to build would vanish if there were healthy job creation because growing job markets lower risk for developers, making them willing to settle for lower profits. Profit is really the only space to push housing prices down.

Nobody is treating it as a sin. Lots and lots of them have recently been built in Clarksburg and are still being built. All of the teardowns are SFHs. That development with the silly name on the WMAL property has them. They're even being built very close to Metro stations. And under the proposed zoning modifications, they would continue to be allowed everywhere where they are currently allowed.

If apartment demand is "soft", why is the rent so damn high? In 1990, I paid $450 for a large one-bedroom apartment near BART in the Bay Area. That would be $1,100 now. Where are the large one-bedroom apartments near Metro for $1,100?


1. Fact 1: elimi

Developers only closed on 48 houses during the entire first quarter of 2024 in the entire county. Of those, 14 were at the old WMAL site and 19 were teardowns inside the beltway. That’s not nearly enough, so prices of SFH have gone up, which has allowed the prices for less expensive housing types go up too. Compare how much developers pay the county to build a SFH upcounty with how much they pay to build an apartment unit downcounty and get back to me on what that implies about how much the county wants additional SFH.

SFH victimhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....