I am puzzled by the calls for more density and diversity in Takoma Park.
A massive proportion of our citizens already lives in apartments. Maple
Avenue, for instance, features block after block of big apartment buildings
within walking distance of the Metro station. The county already put
affordable housing on Carroll Ave., by building the sizable Victory Towers for
low-income old people. (My mother lived there.)
As for ethnic diversity, almost a third of our population is black, though
only an eighth of the American population is black. To achieve progressive
goals, how much higher does our proportion of minorities have to be?
I fear that the debate over zoning has become corrupted by moral posturing.
Henry Allen
New York Ave.
On Oct 6, 2021, at 7:58 PM, Edward Drozd <edwardmdrozd@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'm afraid I don't know what I'm not getting.
When I look at the city's web page on its Diversity Initiative
(https://takomaparkmd.gov/initiatives/project-directory/racial-equity/ ;
<https://takomaparkmd.gov/initiatives/project-directory/racial-equity/>),
scroll down to the choropleth map, then click on it, we can see that our area
scores not that great on the percent POC and the percent households below the
federal poverty line. My takeaway is that the status quo is not moving us
toward achieving our (city-wide) diversity goals. Of course, maybe it's good
enough that, if you consider Takoma Park as a whole, maybe we together are
sufficiently diverse. But, then, what is the point of the map?
Regarding 2- and 3-family houses, it starts to feel more personal. Why?
Although my immediate family (my parents) had the combination of intellectual
ability, hard work, and good fortune to be able to own a home (even if
literally next to an on-ramp to a state highway), many of my extended family
have lived in 2- and 3-family houses. My great-grandfather actually owned a
3-family house, living in one unit and renting out the other two. That helped
him gain financial independence as an immigrant from Poland after World War
I. My grandmother and mother lived in a two-family house, renting out one
unit to another family, after my grandfather divorced and left my mother and
her sister and mother. And my grandmother (paternal, after my grandfather
died at the age of 49), and some number of cousins (separately) lived in 2-
and 3-family houses owned by someone who did not live in those buildings.
The idea that they, because they did not own their homes, should not live
among people who do, I strongly dislike. That a number of my extended family
are somehow in slums because they lived in a building that they did not own
really bothers me.
So, no, I do not get why we should exclude people from our neighborhood
because they cannot afford the now roughly 7-figure purchase price. I really
would like to understand why people like my family (nowadays may look
different, but fundamentally like them) are not welcoms here.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 7:38 PM Lorraine Pearsall <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
You just don’t get it, do you?
Lorraine
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 6, 2021, at 7:08 PM, Edward Drozd <edwardmdrozd@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:edwardmdrozd@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Lorraine,
Did you listen to the video? I listened to a lot more Tucker Carlson than I
want to (basically, I listened to a nonzero number of seconds of him), but
here is a transcript of the video linked in the Tweet. Obviously there is
more, but I spent 10 minutes creating this transcript, which is 10 minutes
more than I otherwise care to:
"
Governor Newson just signed a series of bills, most notably SB9 and SB10,
that will abolish the suburbs in the state of California, the state that
invented the suburbs.
Those bills were endorsed by the California Building Industry Association,
which represents, quote, interests of builders and developers of housing and
commercial projects.
There are about to be quite a few new commercial projects in California's
suburbs. As the New York Times put it, quote, SB9 essentially ends single
family zoning.
Property owners now have the state's approval to convert any single family
home in the state of California to a four-unit apartment complex.
How is this improving anyone's life?
It won't.
It means demolishing homes to put up rental units.
At the behest of his donors, Gavin Newsom is turning the state of California
into a slum.
And, it's not just happening in California. Recently, Oregon passed a
statewide ban on single-family zoning.
This is insane. Cities like Minneapolis and Sacramento have begun to allow
multi-family dwellings on single-family lots.
Crowding a problem, anyone think?
Only the government of China, by the way, appears to be doing anything to
rein in real estate developers, quote housing should be for...
"
And then it stopped, at least what I linked to on Twitter.
Honestly, I do not judge anyone by their bedfellows. I just want to point
out some folks, including Tucker Carlson, who seem to agree with maintaining
our neighborhood, among many others, as exclusively single-family zoned.
Ed
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 6:46 PM Lorraine Pearsall
<dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
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
<mailto: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 ;
<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
<mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto: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
<https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores/>
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
<https://www.kqed.org/news/11840548/the-racist-history-of-single-family-home-zoning>
(in Berkeley, CA), and while that may not be the policy's intent any
longer, it still functions as a barrier to integrating neighborhoods.
<https://www.vox.com/22252625/america-racist-housing-rules-how-to-fix>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"
<https://ggwash.org/view/82276/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
<mailto: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/
<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
<mailto: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/
<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 <mailto: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
<mailto:north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> on behalf of Henry Allen
<hsallen4@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:hsallen4@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4:08 PM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
<north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 <mailto: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
<mailto:dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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 apologize,<image001.jpg>
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>
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=icon>
Virus-free. www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient&utm_term=link>
--
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.
