Anonymous wrote:My question is, is now really the time for this? A good chunk of my neighbors in Bethesda have been RIFed or will be. Property values are already slated to crash as the federal workforce and contractors crash around it. Why add fuel to the fire right now?

Do we need more housing if all the jobs are leaving our communities?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I think the other poster is alluding to people like MoCo's NIMBY-in-chief who point to subsidies as the solution to affordable housing without pushing the corresponding tax increases necessary to fund them.

The only person who has pushed subsidies without funding them is Andrew Friedson. Friedson’s subsidies were for market rate housing, so maybe that’s why you didn’t include them. If Friedson’s most recent PILOT works, the county will be out a billion in tax revenue. Friedson didn’t fund his Metro subsidy either. That one hasn’t generated much housing but it did produce some apartments that rent for $10k a month.

Elrich points to low-income subsidies as the solution to affordable housing, with no serious attempt to push the tax increases necessary to fund them (which would be ridiculous to do at a county level anyway).

But maybe you're dismissing that because Elrich obviously just doesn't want the poors in the county. He has no true desire for such subsidies, but needs to say something on affordable housing.

Elrich has pushed tax increases the past two budgets. Friedson voted against both of them (while voting for all the spending, which calls into question his reputation as a budget guru) and the council rejected the last one. Elrich also approved a recordation tax increase, a portion of which goes to one of the affordable housing funds. This is weird revisionism on your part.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t we build on green space up i270? I’m sure land would be cheaper.

And then add more people who ahve to drive everywhere on roads that are already overcongested. hence focusing housing in transit corridors, you know, the way the rest of the world does it.

While I agree with that, it would be harder to make housing affordable to middle-class people in Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and parts of Rockville. While we should work toward that goal, it would be wise to have alternatives in the meantime. I don’t believe this new housing in the previously mentioned areas will be affordable for a two-person household with a $150,000 annual income.

Affordability will be relative to the other homes in the local area, and relative to what prices would ultimately do without the additional supply.

Realistically, yes, new construction close-in is going to be expensive. But unless we reduce the wide gap being the housing supply and the growing demand year-over-year, housing costs will continue to grow faster than incomes can accommodate.

There's no quick fix here. This change certainly isn't going to fix the affordable housing problem on its own, but it will at least help to limit how quickly things get worse.

This is a reasonable, fact-based case for this proposal. Why do you think the sponsors and the members who voted for it thought they had to lie about what the ZTA does by pretending the housing will be affordable for teachers? This ridiculous lie about it being “workforce” housing drove my skepticism of the bill, especially considering that the implied rent at 120 percent AMI is more than $3,000 a month and more than a third higher the current average rent in the county.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I think the other poster is alluding to people like MoCo's NIMBY-in-chief who point to subsidies as the solution to affordable housing without pushing the corresponding tax increases necessary to fund them.

The only person who has pushed subsidies without funding them is Andrew Friedson. Friedson’s subsidies were for market rate housing, so maybe that’s why you didn’t include them. If Friedson’s most recent PILOT works, the county will be out a billion in tax revenue. Friedson didn’t fund his Metro subsidy either. That one hasn’t generated much housing but it did produce some apartments that rent for $10k a month.

Elrich points to low-income subsidies as the solution to affordable housing, with no serious attempt to push the tax increases necessary to fund them (which would be ridiculous to do at a county level anyway).

But maybe you're dismissing that because Elrich obviously just doesn't want the poors in the county. He has no true desire for such subsidies, but needs to say something on affordable housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I think the other poster is alluding to people like MoCo's NIMBY-in-chief who point to subsidies as the solution to affordable housing without pushing the corresponding tax increases necessary to fund them.

The only person who has pushed subsidies without funding them is Andrew Friedson. Friedson’s subsidies were for market rate housing, so maybe that’s why you didn’t include them. If Friedson’s most recent PILOT works, the county will be out a billion in tax revenue. Friedson didn’t fund his Metro subsidy either. That one hasn’t generated much housing but it did produce some apartments that rent for $10k a month.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t we build on green space up i270? I’m sure land would be cheaper.

And then add more people who ahve to drive everywhere on roads that are already overcongested. hence focusing housing in transit corridors, you know, the way the rest of the world does it.

While I agree with that, it would be harder to make housing affordable to middle-class people in Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and parts of Rockville. While we should work toward that goal, it would be wise to have alternatives in the meantime. I don’t believe this new housing in the previously mentioned areas will be affordable for a two-person household with a $150,000 annual income.

Affordability will be relative to the other homes in the local area, and relative to what prices would ultimately do without the additional supply.

Realistically, yes, new construction close-in is going to be expensive. But unless we reduce the wide gap being the housing supply and the growing demand year-over-year, housing costs will continue to grow faster than incomes can accommodate.

There's no quick fix here. This change certainly isn't going to fix the affordable housing problem on its own, but it will at least help to limit how quickly things get worse.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t we build on green space up i270? I’m sure land would be cheaper.

And then add more people who ahve to drive everywhere on roads that are already overcongested. hence focusing housing in transit corridors, you know, the way the rest of the world does it.

While I agree with that, it would be harder to make housing affordable to middle-class people in Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and parts of Rockville. While we should work toward that goal, it would be wise to have alternatives in the meantime. I don’t believe this new housing in the previously mentioned areas will be affordable for a two-person household with a $150,000 annual income.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t we build on green space up i270? I’m sure land would be cheaper.

And then add more people who ahve to drive everywhere on roads that are already overcongested. hence focusing housing in transit corridors, you know, the way the rest of the world does it.

So you oppose SFH up 270. How does that make you different from people who oppose small apartment buildings in Chevy Chase? You both want to ban some housing because you don’t like it.

You don't get out much. Development up 270 continues. But it isn't good for anyone to have sprawl be the only path to additional housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I think the other poster is alluding to people like MoCo's NIMBY-in-chief who point to subsidies as the solution to affordable housing without pushing the corresponding tax increases necessary to fund them.

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

Anonymous wrote:Can someone remind me why people are entitled to live in expensive zip codes? Can't they just live 20 min away with plenty of affordable housing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t we build on green space up i270? I’m sure land would be cheaper.

And then add more people who ahve to drive everywhere on roads that are already overcongested. hence focusing housing in transit corridors, you know, the way the rest of the world does it.

So you oppose SFH up 270. How does that make you different from people who oppose small apartment buildings in Chevy Chase? You both want to ban some housing because you don’t like it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t we build on green space up i270? I’m sure land would be cheaper.

And then add more people who ahve to drive everywhere on roads that are already overcongested. hence focusing housing in transit corridors, you know, the way the rest of the world does it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone remind me why people are entitled to live in expensive zip codes? Can't they just live 20 min away with plenty of affordable housing?

We have no land left to build out. We have housing shortage. The only thing left is infill.