I won't get into a debate with George about the accuracy of information I
have shared on this and other platforms. I've thoroughly studied these
issues for many months, and as a professional writer, am quite careful
about reaching conclusions and choosing my words. I am happy to share with
any of you the articles I have used as sources, and you can be the judge.
For this fiscal impact statement issue, you might want to focus
specifically on the OMB report, (attached) which should not be viewed as
biased in any way. And most experts assume the report significantly
understates the likely costs of the plan.
ThriveFISFINAL92121.pdf
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cdsHg-Zafj_SSi9vFpzpj9kGEdU_8foa/view?usp=drive_web>
I leave it to all of you to decide whether certain areas of the county have
more political influence than others. When ZTA 20-07, the first
legislation to allow multi-family units on single family lots was
introduced in December 2020, the sponsor was asked in a community forum why
he didn't include the entire county in his proposal. He said (and this
exchange was recorded) "I didn't want people (in specific areas) to get mad
at me." So it is not paranoia to be concerned that great wealth COULD
disproportionately influence how zoning changes are made and implemented.
That is all I said. And if we look at the history of how resources are
apportioned in the west vs. the east sides of the County, there is reason
for concern, especially in unincorporated areas like Silver Spring. The
fact that the Planning Board has now proposed to allow densification
throughout most of the county is not necessarily a giant step for equity..
I oppose the ZTAs that will probably be passed soon after Thrive because
they are not likely to achieve the intended results and could ultimately
harm and displace some of the very homeowners and renters these proposals
would supposedly help. We have only a few months to insist on more answers
from the Council about why they are so intensely pursuing these proposals
and dodging citizens' requests for more answers from them. Although we will
have a second chance when the Council holds hearings on the ZTAs, vigilance
is in order at this point.
I don't want to misuse this listserv, but anyone with questions should feel
free to email me. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I sincerely
believe my questions (and those of all other constituents) deserve a
respectful response.
Liz Joyce
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 9:27 AM George Leventhal <georgeleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Yes, thanks very much to Martin Glusker for his very well-written and
well-stated message.
I have been tussling with Elizabeth Joyce over the misinformation she has
circulated regarding Thrive 2050 on NextDoor, Facebook, and elsewhere, and
I will do my best to avoid vitriol here.
However, her assertion that even though the proposed revisions to
Montgomery County's General Plan are applicable to the entire county,
Takoma Park residents are justified to exhibit paranoia over unequal
political influence really needs to be challenged.
I represented the entire county on the County Council from 2002 to 2018.
There was no neck of the woods with political influence and political
engagement anywhere comparable to Takoma Park. Takoma Park represents less
than 2% of the population of the county, and yet I'd estimate its residents
demanded at least 20% of my time and attention when I was an at-large
councilmember. Congressman Jamie Raskin, Comptroller Peter Franchot, County
Executive Marc Elrich, and Councilmember Hans Riemer all live in Takoma
Park, and you can bet those facts are not lost on the rest of the county,
which resents us greatly. In fact, as I've been dialoguing about Thrive
2050 on NextDoor, opponents who live outside Takoma Park insist that Takoma
Park won't be affected because we have such outsize political influence,
plus the Historic District rules are very restrictive here. They say it's
hypocritical for Thrive 2050 supporters like me to advocate for it because
it won't affect my neighborhood.
Like Martin Glusker, I hope that over time, we can see a greater diversity
of housing types and sizes near Takoma Metro, but I can surely foresee that
the NIMBYism I've seen from Takoma Park activists will continue, and will
be influential (regrettably, in my opinion).
Regards,
George Leventhal
------------------------------
*From:* north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <
north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of Catherine Bernard <
catherinebernard6363@xxxxxxxxx>
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 6, 2021 8:25 AM
*To:* north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
*Subject:* [north-takoma] Re: [PEN] TAKOMA AWAKE: PLANNING BOARD PROPOSES
MAJOR DENSITY INCREASES FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES
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
<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> 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 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>
<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>
<image001.jpg>
--
*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.
