Hi Edward, I read your email with a bit of disbelief. You are comparing people
who disagree with you to Tucker Carlson?? I am concerned with heat island
effects, loss of trees, open space and permeable surfaces that help with storm
water. I do think Frances Phipps’ analysis was quite good and very important.
By the way, Tucker Carlson I am not. I don’t know you, but this was over the
top. We can agree to disagree, but I won’t insult you by inference.
Lorraine
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 6, 2021, at 5:26 PM, Edward Drozd <edwardmdrozd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
California, recently and notoriously, had legislation passed and signed into
law by Governor Newsom to stop single family-only zoning.
Tucker Carlson, I believe a fellow Montgomery County resident, seems to have
had a recent segment decrying that change. To be transparent, my family and I
no longer have cable (just do streaming and such). Here's a link to some
subset from that segment:
https://twitter.com/i/status/1445778937498324999
But, those on this list who have cable may want to check out Fox News
coverage of this. Carlson makes some remarks in this clip that seem similar
to some arguments made here. Those who don't want any changes in our
neighborhood should certainly check out what Tucker Carlson is saying.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 4:39 PM Arlene Koby <kobyarlene@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cathy,
Did you read the starting email, authored by Frances Phipps? I thought that
was more illuminating.
~Arlene
301-509-8181
On Oct 6, 2021, at 8:25 AM, Catherine Bernard
<catherinebernard6363@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thank you, Martin, for illuminating such important issues!
Cathy
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 11:37 PM Martin Glusker <martin.glusker@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi all,
I'm Martin Glusker, the son of Anne Glusker and Scott Busby (on Baltimore),
and I grew up in Takoma Park. I have a very different perspective on this
issue--I support the attainable housing strategy and the construction of
new housing.
I support allowing a gentle increase in density by letting our neighbors
choose to turn their homes into multifamily housing. I support it because
more housing in our neighborhood would help combat climate change, make
progress on racial justice, and increase housing affordability. These are
all issues much larger than our neighborhood, but we nonetheless exacerbate
them by not allowing new housing to be built here.
I'm sure many of you are aware that suburbs are the most carbon emitting
places to live, while living in dense city centers emits the least
greenhouse gas emissions per person. Density allows people to walk, bike,
or take public transportation to work or run errands, instead of using a
car, which reduces your carbon footprint. We are lucky enough to live near
a metro stop, we should let more people live here so they can use it too!
It's important to note that residential single family zoning was created to
enforce racial segregation (in Berkeley, CA), and while that may not be the
policy's intent any longer, it still functions as a barrier to integrating
neighborhoods. It does this by mandating a minimum lot size, which drives
the price of houses up, and keeps folks who can't afford a house out of the
neighborhood. This piece from Greater Greater Washington, "We must confront
the status quo in Montgomery County housing decisions" is a particularly
good explainer. Here's a quote:
"The average price of a detached single-family home in Montgomery County is
almost $800,000, compared to $370,000 for attached structures. So when
someone says they welcome anyone who wants to live next door while
simultaneously defending single-family zoning, they are effectively saying
that you are welcome to live here so long as you are rich enough to afford
that kind of price premium."
If we want to fight climate change by letting people live near a metro
stop, let families afford homes, and help fight the continuing legacy of
racial segregation we should support more housing.
I look forward to having more neighbors!
Best,
Martin
On Tue, 5 Oct 2021 at 19:44, Edward Drozd <edwardmdrozd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Regarding the OMB estimate of the cost of implementing Thrive 2050, it is
my understanding that they literally only estimated the costs, not
benefits (e.g., increases in tax revenue) that would offset or possibly
even exceed the gross costs. It would be as if, when my wife and purchased
a house here that we only considered the purchase price and not the value
of housing benefits we receive (because not renting) or even how lovely it
is to have such wonderful neighbors. Actually, Montgomery Planning
addressed this very issue
(https://montgomeryplanning.org/montgomery-planning-responds-to-countys-draft-fiscal-impact-statement-on-thrive-montgomery-2050/).
Regarding "gentrification" of our neighborhood, it feels like the horse
left that barn a decade ago. And have you seen recent selling prices for
houses around here? Limiting supply really has done wonders for people who
have owned a house here for 2-3+ decades.
Regarding home affordability, I would be shocked if half the house sharing
the same lot would be not that much less expensive than existing houses
here. And about "McMansions", looking around, it seems like a number of
houses here are getting bigger (additions). That's not going to help
affordability, either. Nor is doing nothing.
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 6:53 PM Elizabeth Joyce <lafleurjoyce@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Hi, everyone. Under the latest recommendations of the "Attainable
Housing Strategies Initiative" from the Planning Board
(https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/),
the Council is proposing duplexes, triplexes, and sometimes quadplexes
not just within a mile of Metro and other public transit, but in almost
all single family neighborhoods throughout the County. George is
right--these measures could affect the entire County, not just east of
the park. But given the historical political influence of uber-wealthy
neighborhoods, it is not paranoid to wonder about the impact on our
semi-secure area. (And for those who fear that renting out attached
units within their own homes puts them in the pariah category, fear not.
The ADU law passed two years ago made that quite kosher).
The big issue here, though, is what these initiatives are about and how
they will affect everyone. The supposed justification for proposed
zoning text amendments to succeed the passage of Thrive Montgomery 2050
(referenced above) is that such measures will help economically
disadvantaged populations have a chance to live in our county. I think
most of us would support that and be willing to absorb some of the $$
impact of these proposals. But in communities throughout the nation
where these measures have been tried, the results have been higher home
prices, higher taxes, greater gentrification and displacement. Even the
Planning Board admits that the densified units would cost more than
$700,000 each. And the impact on neighborhoods of adding three units or
more where one now exists is not a small issue. In a nutshell, this means
that the announced goals of these changes are unlikely to be achieved. So
why are these proposals viable? The lame response is--well, these units
will be more affordable than McMansions and will allow more people to
live here. But in terms of genuine equity, how does that compute?
Stepping aside the impact on specific neighborhoods, last week the County
Office of Management and Budget submitted a fiscal impact statement on
the likely impact of Thrive Montgomery 2050 (see article attached) . The
cost was more than $8 billion, with millions of added implementation
costs each year (see attached letter from EPIC of MoCo). The Chair of
the committee overseeing these issues asked why a fiscal impact statement
was necessary for a "vision" and a "philosophy." The OMB staff member
replied, "because the law requires it." So regardless of where anyone
comes down on these proposals, this is a huge deal.
Last week, the Council held a "virtual town hall" on these issues. Of
the many, many questions submitted by attendees, the Council answered
about three. This is a 30-year plan that will affect all of us for
decades. We elected these people and pay their salaries. They owe us
answers about this massive change they are contemplating. Why is this a
radical idea?
And in addition to these concerns is the potential tax implications of
these measures. Under the state code, properties can be assessed
according to the land highest and best use. .So, until the state
department of assessment and taxation rules otherwise, property owners
throughout the county could assume that their homes on a single-family
lot could be assessed and taxed as if there were three units on that one
lot. Translation:: we could all be subsidizing the impact of these
measures, even if they do not directly affect our neighborhoods.
This is a big deal, everyone, and it has nothing to do with equity. It
has to do with who controls zoning and development for the next 30 years.
We have a few months to weigh in. Regardless of where you come down, we
all have a right to insist on answers to our questions about these
sweeping and irrevocable measures.
Liz Joyce
On Tue, Oct 5, 2021 at 4:28 PM George Leventhal
<georgeleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Dear Henry,
The Thrive 2050 plan and the Attainable Housing Strategies initiative do
not only propose changes for Takoma Park, or only for east of Rock Creek
Park. They are proposed to be adopted countywide, with greater densities
proposed close to all Metro, Purple Line, and MARC stations, including
those on the west leg of the Red Line.
Regards,
George Leventhal
From: north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Henry Allen
<hsallen4@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:08 PM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: [PEN] TAKOMA AWAKE: PLANNING BOARD PROPOSES
MAJOR DENSITY INCREASES FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Why is it that when the county wants to increase density and
diversity it looks east of Rock Creek Park?
Could it be that the county sees east-of-the park Montgomery as
unfashionably middle-class, lacking in political power and poor by
comparison?
That’s why Takoma Park was once plagued by illegal apartments — we
were nobodies and the county didn’t think it had to enforce its own
zoning here. That’s why the federal government wanted to put the
proposed Northeast Expressway through my back yard. That’s why the
county wanted to tear down the big school on Piney Branch Road until we
fought them off.
Is the county looking to increase density and diversity in Chevy
Chase or Potomac? Is there any thought of condemning one of the many
exclusive private golf courses that attract the rich to west-of-the-park
Montgomery?
Of course not. Those people are rich. They spend their money
precisely to escape diversity and density. And we dare not infringe on
them.
You say we’re a “transit-rich” environment. But wait —
west-of-the-park Montgomery is even more transit rich! Count up the
Metrorail stations.
As it happens, I agree with Frances Phipps’s recommendation that we
build on the old Adventist hospital campus, and on the properties near
New Hampshire Ave. that our tax dollars have purchased.
I’ve lived here for 44 years. I thought I was safe by now from
these depredations. Only one problem: we live east of the park. So we
may have to fight yet again.
Henry Allen
New York Ave.
On Oct 5, 2021, at 3:08 PM, Dvidutis ("dvidutis")
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Thanks to Frances on Holly for this very thoughtful analysis.
Many of us remember when most of the larger homes in Takoma Park were
divided into rental units and owners were not required to live in them.
It was the era of slum lords, property neglect, and exploitation by
unscrupulous landlords and their get-rich-quick-and-lazily via Section
8 housing opportunities.
TP code enforcement was done by previous appointment. Many was the
time my scumbag neighbor moved the stove out of his basement in time
for inspection and then back again into an illegal apartment.
I don't believe we want to return to that.
I believe it's a mistake to think that people without means today don't
aspire to a single family home. They do. Many don't want apartments.
So why are we bent on eliminating that housing stock?
There is lots of dense housing one stop away at the Silver Spring metro
stop. Lots and lots. Plenty. And still building.
We have high rise apartments on Maple Avenue within walking distance of
the Takoma metro. That allows for density with a bit of breathing
room. And greenery.
We are not Fort Totten. Close-in residential development definitely
improved that station, and now it looks neighborly and welcoming.
We don't need that. We already have it.
Do not force cookie-cutter solutions on Takoma Park. It's lazy and
irresponsible. There are solutions, but this focus is wrong. Frances
on Holly is right.
Diana Vidutis
Piney Branch Road
-----Original Message-----
From: Lorraine Pearsall <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, Oct 5, 2021 2:37 pm
Subject: [north-takoma] Fwd: [PEN] TAKOMA AWAKE: PLANNING BOARD
PROPOSES MAJOR DENSITY INCREASES FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES
Dear Neighbors,
I am forwarding a very detailed analysis of this issue by Frances
Phipps. I thought some of you may be interested.
Lorraine
Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:
Dear Neighbors: The following discussion is long, for which I<image001.jpg>
apologize, but it directly affects you, your neighborhood, and your
property. Montgomery County is presenting the issue of “Attainable
Housing” as a simple issue. It is not. It has many components and
ramifications which I have tried to identify and explain below.
OVERVIEW:
The Montgomery County Council and its Planning Board are in agreement
that major density increases are needed for residential zones –
including the single family zone. There are three zoning initiatives
underway currently which share this goal of increasing density and
housing types. They are: Thrive Montgomery 2050; Downtown Silver
Spring and Adjacent Communities Plan; and, The Attainable Housing
Strategy Initiative. While proposals are still in draft and may
change this autumn, their essence is clear:
“to spur development of more diverse types of housing in Montgomery”
by encouraging greater density “by right”. Specifically that includes
allowing duplexes and triplexes by right in R-40, R-60, and R-200
zones and quadplexes in Priority Housing Districts. The owner is not
required to reside on the property. Much of Takoma Park is zoned R-60,
single family zoning.
Additionally, for those areas near transit, i.e. Priority Housing
Districts, there will be a new “optional method of development” to
facilitate the changes above as well as larger multifamily such as
cottage courts and apartment buildings through lot consolidation and
the reduction or elimination of current parking requirements. Takoma
Park is designated as a Priority Housing District.
Since 1928 when zoning was adopted in Montgomery County and revised
in 1958, the goal of single family zoning has been the careful
creation of individual dwelling units subject to regulations designed
to ensure compatibility and character of the neighborhood, with public
input and review. The Attainable Housing Strategy’s goal is to induce
construction of differing housing types with greater density by
decreasing development standards, reducing constraints, eliminating
the requirement for compatibility and character, and eliminating
public review and comment.
THE COMPONENTS OF THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY:
The major components of this strategy are:
- Owners of lots zoned for single family homes will be
allowed to build duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes “by right.” This
means that there is no Planning Board review or opportunity for
community comment. You are not even required to inform your neighbors.
- There is a desire, but no commitment, that new buildings
will be “house scale” or compatible to the existing neighborhood.
- A “Pattern Book” is being developed for the design of
certain multi-family units. This would replace the current system
that requires Planning staff review and approval of proposed new
housing. It is not yet clear if the Planning Board will approve the
use of the proposed Pattern Book. The Pattern Book, if adopted, deals
only with the volume and mass of the proposed development within an
increased footprint. It does not deal with issues of style or
compatibility but rather how to accomplish as much density in the
differing housing types.
- There will be a new approval process for the development of
“middle density housing” that is more than four units, including small
apartment buildings of 3-4 stories, and assemblage of multiple lots in
Priority Housing Districts. It has not been decided if Planning Board
approval will be required or if community input is going to be allowed.
- There is encouragement of large-scale developments on major
corridors as part of an area’s Master Plan process.
- Properties within 300 feet of any parcel zoned CR
(Commercial Residential) may be rezoned to allow dense development
such as apartments and stacked units of 4 stories.
- On-site parking requirement for newly constructed
multi-family homes is reduced.
Finally, “by right” means there is no need to inform your neighbor of
your intent to rebuild. Just as there is no need for a developer to
tell you he intends to buy and tear down your house. He may even be
in the process of assembling several properties for construction of an
apartment building.
WHY THIS EFFORT?
The justification may vary, but most agree that more housing will be
needed in the future and that much of the current housing stock is far
too expensive for large segments of the community. This is a fact and
the situation we find ourselves in today. The goal is to diversify
housing types in the hopes of increasing diversity in the
neighborhoods.
However, unfortunately many proponents of The Attainable Housing
Strategy point to single family zoning as solely responsible for this
situation and castigate these communities as “exclusionary” and
racist. While that may clearly apply to some communities, the reality
is far more complex. The role of real estate industry standards and
procedures, including appraisals, financing decisions, cost of
materials and the impact of cyclical effects play a significant role.
The 2008 Recession has been and continues to be a major force in the
reduction of new housing construction. And finally, there is to date,
a century of strong public policy establishing, endorsing and
regulating single family zoning in Montgomery County which has
encouraged the construction and maintenance of single family
neighborhoods
WHAT IS ATTAINABLE HOUSING?
After struggling for months with the concept, initially including
“affordable” as a standard, the Planning Board’s current working
definition is “unsubsidized market rate housing that is appropriate
and suitable for the households that live there.” What this generic
definition means is any housing type at any price point for which
there is a market demand is “attainable.” Increased density and
variety of housing types is the goal. The hope is to create more
ownership opportunities for more households and diversifying
communities by diversifying its housing stock. The goal is to create
“equity” for many who have not been able to participate in the housing
market. While this is laudable, it ignores the fact that there is a
parallel issue of “equity” for existing home owners for whom their
house is their major financial asset, bought under existing public
policy, and whose equity might be seriously impacted by this
initiative. Moreover, this Attainable Housing Strategy is not based on
the lack of housing availability, but rather on the lack of diversity
in the “type” of housing available. For example, in the Silver Spring
study area, single family housing makes up just 4% of all available
units. And the most recent residential vacancy rate (2019) in
downtown Silver Spring, calculated before many of the recently
constructed apartment buildings came on line, was 6% - a number which
is considered desirable in terms of matching turn-over with new
renters.
There is the market reality. The Market Study on attainable housing
which was commissioned by the Montgomery County Planning Board this
spring concluded that land prices, particularly those in “transit
rich” and “urban in-fill areas” [Priority Housing Districts] are just
too expensive to make this initiative financially feasible in almost
all cases. That fact, combined with the cost of construction of
multiple small units, makes the proposal of generating multifamily
units on a single family lot financially unattractive. Moreover, the
Study found that prices for the finished product would be in the range
of $750,000 to $850,000. This price range is already unattainable for
those who have been unable to enter the market. This Market Study was
loudly criticized by the Planning Chairman, unhappy with these
findings, for “just looking at the economics.” A remarkable comment
for a study whose sole function is to “just look at the economics.”
Lest we think the Planning Department’s market study findings are
unique, we need only to look at the recent analysis by the Terner
Center for Housing at UC Berkeley regarding the just approved
California legislation which allows construction of more than one
housing unit on single family lots. The Terner Center concluded that
the extra construction wouldn’t make financial sense in most place –
with only about 5.4% of all possible projects in the entire State
penciling out. And, in Austin, Texas, for example, Attainable or
Missing Middle housing accounts for only 2% of all home construction
in the last decade. The few other examples of the jurisdictions which
have endorsed this approach in the past several years have had a
similar experience.
Finally, while attainable housing strives to create “equity” for a
new cohort of home owners, the reality is that most of what is being
proposed, such as triplexes, quadraplexes, small and large apartment
buildings, will be rental.
OTHER MARKET REALITIES:
There are other market realities which play an almost larger role in
housing development than zoning.
TThe Role of Appraisals:
a. The basic foundation of establishing value by the appraisal
process is based on “comparables”. That is – how does your house
compare with others in terms of square footage, number of beds/baths,
quality of kitchen and other amenities? It is a carefully calibrated
system to locate the value of your property and is the basis on which
most lending institutions make a loan. Introducing a distinctly
different housing type built with distinctly different development
regulations into an existing single family neighborhood will affect
the valuation not only of the new unit, but of the existing ones.
Appraisers are never criticized if the appraisal is “conservative.”
If a new multifamily is judged to be disruptive of the neighborhood,
your valuation may decline.
b. Uncertainty stymies investment. Current Montgomery Real
Estate contracts require disclosure of known potential changes in a
neighborhood and of any known planning changes. If a potential buyer
is concerned that the neighborhood he likes may soon be characterized
by new duplexes and triplexes when he wants a single family
neighborhood, he may be reluctant to buy. Your home insurance may also
be affected if a triplex or small apartment building is developed next
door.
2) The Role of Lenders:
a) Banks/lenders are, by nature, risk adverse and conservative. They
are usually reluctant to lend unless all signals are green, and even
then sometimes require additional information or impose additional
conditions.
b) Residential lenders are happiest when a housing unit is comparable
if not identical to those around it. That has been a major impetus
for cookie cutter suburban development since the 1950s.
c) Commercial lenders are most comfortable with large developers with
a track record. They often regard small developers with extreme
caution. Small developers are the ones most likely to try to develop
the in-fill multifamily units being proposed.
d) Attainable Housing is a new, untested commodity. It is unlikely to
attract large developers because there is little or no profit margin,
and construction of in-fill is far more labor and cost intensive than
new construction on undeveloped land.
It is for these reasons that the Planning Board has adopted a posture
of eliminating, as far as possible, the regulatory and participatory
constraints of new development within established neighborhoods, such
as reducing set-backs, eliminating design review for compatibility and
character, allowing lot consolidation, and no longer requiring the
owner to live on the property. The issues regarding appraisal
processes and lending reluctance have not been addressed. Both these
industries will need to dramatically change their cultures if they are
to participate in the development of Attainable Housing. One of the
few inducements that hasn’t been mentioned is for jurisdictions to
offer subsidies for construction of such housing types. However, the
crucial decision has been made that the public sector’s role will be
to “induce” and then stand back and let the private market drive the
process with little control. This is truly a revolutionary approach.
We’ll have to see if that works. There was one sentence in an earlier
planning staff report that caught my eye which stated: “If we get only
one multi-unit built, it will be worth the effort.”
WHAT ARE PRIORITY HOUSING DISTRICTS?
Priority Housing Districts are defined as those areas with proximity
to transit stations and to the Thrive Growth 2050 Corridors: “a
straight line buffer of 1 mile from the Red Line, Purple Line, and
MARC Stations, plus 500 ft. from a BRT Corridor plus River Road and
Connecticut Ave.” These areas are the top focus of the Attainable
Housing Strategy and would in addition to duplexes and triplexes allow
quadplexes and reduce parking requirements. Takoma Park is a Priority
Housing District. In general, these districts are concentrated along
Maryland’s border with the District of Columbia and Eastern Montgomery
County following the Red Line north, as well as including Clarksburg
and Germantown, as well as Bethesda and Chevy Chase. A map of these
districts is found in the draft of Thrive Montgomery 2050.
In the past, concentrating housing in transit-rich areas was planning
gospel. However, Covid may have permanently changed this equation. Is
this connection between housing and transportation as relevant when
commuting to work is no longer standard, office buildings have been
emptied out, and working from home has become the new normal? It is
surprising to find that this question has not been seriously
considered. Given the focus on transit, inducing multifamily
construction in the northern and western areas – where housing lots
are generally much larger and could more easily accommodate
multi-family housing – is given no priority.
WHAT ARE THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING STRATEGY?
They are many and sometimes in conflict. It is not a zero sum game.
On the plus side, the focus on Priority Housing Districts adjacent to
mass transportation corridors could, with more density, make more
efficient use of existing public transit and help reduce congestion
and greenhouse gases, carbon production and combat climate change.
This is of major benefit. To this end, Priority Districts are largely
concentrated on the eastern portion of the County and is absent in
northern and western segment which is less densely populated.
On the other hand, in terms of environmental impacts, larger lot
coverage will mean a reduction in green/open space on individual lots,
will probably require the clearing of the site, the cutting of trees,
and will increase the issues of water retention and storm water
run-off. Some have characterized this result as creating a successive
series of heat sinks. Since on-site parking requirements are reduced,
there will be more on-street parking and congestion on some of the
older, narrower streets in the districts. Some comments mention
potential issues such as the need for additional utilities to service
these areas including new electrical and water and sewer service, and
the potential overcrowding of schools.
Finally, if demolition is required to construct new Attainable
housing, there is the environmental impact of demolition and of
sending the debris to a landfill. This could be partially mitigated if
“deconstruction” not demolition were required. There is a growing
market for recycled wood, older lighting fixtures, tiles and hardware.
Demolished concrete can be recycled as well. If this initiative goes
through, this type of approach should be considered. This approach
has not been considered.
THE PATTERN BOOK:
Staff of the Planning Department is developing a “Pattern Book” for
the design of certain multi-family units. This would replace the
current system that requires Planning staff review and approval of
proposed new housing. It is not yet clear if the Planning Board will
approve the use of the proposed Pattern Book. The Pattern Book, if
adopted, deals only with the volume and mass of the proposed
development within an increased footprint. It does not deal with
issues of style or compatibility but rather how to accomplish as much
density in the differing housing types. On the plus side, the use of
such a Pattern Book may constrain some of the potential excesses to
which developers are prone.
WHAT HAPPENS IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT?
The following is based on a conversation reported to me which occurred
with the Planning Staff Director, Gwen Wright on how Attainable
Housing zoning might affect the Historic District. (I have seen
nothing in writing on this issue) It was said that while the
Attainable Housing zoning will apply to the Historic District, all
additions and new development within the Historic District will
continue to be reviewed according to the established criteria of the
Historic Preservation Commission. Director Wright does not anticipate
construction of large, independent houses on the same lot within the
HD. She does see encouraging compatible ADUs on the scale of adjacent
garages.
From this, I am assuming that style, compatibility, scale and
character will continue to be applied in the Historic District as well
as the process requirements of notification and ability by neighbors
to comment. This, of course, raises the issue of those properties just
outside the HD and the rights of notification, compatibility and
public participation for these owners.
MY PERSONAL ASSESSMENT:
There is a need to create a wider diversity of housing types – one
that will meet the financial and physical needs of young/single first
time buyers and older people who are looking to stay in the
neighborhood in smaller units. In earlier times, especially in the
1930s and 40s when “complete neighborhoods” were being constructed in
new urban/suburban areas, there was often a compatible combination of
small multifamily buildings with single family structures. In fact,
Takoma Park, from its inception, has had several scattered examples of
this, especially in the Historic District, along Maple Ave., Carroll
Ave., and elsewhere. However, it is important to emphasize that the
developers of that time considered style, scale, compatibility and
character as extremely important criteria in this development.
I believe that unfortunately this Attainable Housing approach is an
abdication of public responsibility. As a goal, it is aspirational.
As a policy, it is neither effective nor practical. As proposed, it
could be highly disruptive of established neighborhoods and will not
truly generate the sufficiency of housing or the diversity that is its
goal. As a policy and a process, it washes its hands of public
responsibility for outcomes and abruptly revolutionizes a century of
housing practice. It turns all implementation over to the private
market and hopes for the best. Zoning reform alone is simply not
enough. When the public sector wishes to accomplish a major goal, it
has always needed to put money behind it. If the Planning Board and
the County Council are truly serious about this initiative, the would
attach either property tax incentives or direct subsidies to
accomplish their goal.
What should be done? Well, I suggest that the County Council and the
Planning Board stop drinking the cool aid and go back to the
traditional hard work of identifying specific areas where new housing
types are both doable and desirable and put money and tax incentives
behind it. In Takoma Park we have two significant areas come to mind
where such housing would be welcome: the Adventist Hospital site and
along New Hampshire Ave.
WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?
Well, I hope you think carefully about these issues and make up your
own mind. You should read the planning staff reports that are on-line
as well as the draft Thrive Montgomery 2050. I believe we all have a
role in creating how our community looks, functions and moves into the
future. I’ve said before, there are no accidentally beautiful and
functioning neighborhoods. You should communicate with your County
and Takoma Park elected representatives and let them know what you
think. The County’s final reports are due out in October.
Frances on Holly
<image001.jpg>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
--
Catherine Bernard
Notice: This communication, including attachments, may contain information
that is confidential. If the reader or recipient of this communication is
not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return
e-mail and promptly delete this e-mail, including attachments without
reading or saving them in any manner.
