Density is only sustainable if it is not a net consumer of ecosystem services.
How would you intend to account for this outflux of serviced imposed by this
demand? Maybe policy makers should study ecology?
Paul
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 9, 2021, at 1:21 PM, George Leventhal <georgeleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
Allowing greater housing density near Metro is responsive to the threat of
climate change, and enables preservation of open space.
Keeping neighborhoods exclusive by requiring only single-family homes on
large lots encourages sprawl and more vehicle miles traveled. These
exacerbate climate change.
George Leventhal
From: north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Paul Chrostowski <paul.chrostowski@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 1:15 PM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: Thrive 2050: planning for our future
Well George I don’t appreciate the personal attack but my sole concern is
preserving the environment for future generations of people and other living
things. We are already suffering from climate change. Do we as a society want
to perpetuate this just because some big developers are getting rich enough.
We should be repurposing the huge amount of currently vacant commercial real
estate, upgrading residences that have fallen in disrepair and creating
large amounts of open space, sequestering carbon with tree planting and
increasing access to nature for all. The first thing might be a moratorium on
all development until we can figure things out scientifically rather than
financially
Paul C
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 9, 2021, at 12:57 PM, George Leventhal <georgeleventhal@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
I am sorry but not surprised to see my two neighbors espouse an "I've got
mine" philosophy in the comments below.
Those of us fortunate enough to have bought our valuable homes years ago
really don't understand the challenges that face aspiring homeowners today
as a result of rising prices and constrained supply. More housing sizes and
types will offer more opportunities for more people. But the "I've got mine"
folks explicitly don't want more people to have more opportunities to live
here. They want to keep this neighborhood exclusively available to the
propertied class (those who already own existing homes).
"Managed growth" means constrained housing supply. Constrained housing
supply with high demand leads to higher prices. That's a great benefit to
the property-owning class, but it makes the barrier to entry ever higher for
those who are not already so fortunate.
When we talk about "quality of life," it is important to ask, for whom?
If we are thinking only of what is good for ourselves, and we simply don't
care whether younger people, people who are not already homeowners, or
people of less means than ourselves, can live here, why did we choose the
allegedly progressive community of Takoma Park to be our home?
If we don't allow more people to live here in Takoma Park, adjacent to
Metro, the population will still grow but those who are excluded from living
here will find homes even further away from their jobs, requiring them to
travel long distances, generally in single-occupancy, gasoline-burning
vehicles.
Then there is the fallacious idea that large expanses of yard are desirable,
regardless of the amount of watering, herbicides, and energy-burning
lawnmowing they require.
To my eye, a handful of duplexes or triplexes or townhouses amidst
single-family homes is not scary or ugly. It suggests an inclusive community
that welcomes residents from many different backgrounds and income levels.
Warm regards,
George Leventhal
Piney Branch Road
Some recommended reading on these topics:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2019.1651216?scroll=top&needAccess=true&fbclid=IwAR2TQDv3jVIAqFk3QYTSvbXqIKQ2aWwXuN1xZ6rG01kziQ9JpuaH_qtss6E
It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning
(2020). It’s Time to End Single-Family Zoning. Journal of the American
Planning Association: Vol. 86, No. 1, pp. 106-112.
www.tandfonline.com
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/19/opinion/biden-zoning-social-justice.html
Opinion | The ‘New Redlining’ Is Deciding Who Lives in Your Neighborhood -
The New York Times
Housing segregation by race and class is a fountainhead of inequality in
America, yet for generations, politicians have been terrified to address the
issue.
www.nytimes.com
From: north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
on behalf of Elizabeth Joyce <lafleurjoyce@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 11:32 AM
To: north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <north-takoma@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [north-takoma] Re: Fwd: Thrive 2050: planning for our future
For some of the other perspective, look what happened in Seattle:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEJ8tfplZcs ;(False Promise of Residential
Infill Rezoning and Redevelopment). And given our Council's fondness for
zoning text amendments (zoning changes that circumvent the master planning
infrastructure requirements and are not subject to executive veto), the
scenario featured in this short video could definitely happen in our County.
Now is the time to pay attention because the Council would like to pass
this plan by September. And most County residents don't have a clue what is
being proposed.
I appreciate the future housing challenges our County faces, but I can't
help but wonder why--when the County hardly has a grip on the financial
impact of COVID--the Planning Board, with considerable support from some
Councilmembers, has spent the last six months focused on constantly
rebranded rezoning strategies aimed at upper-middle-class residents rather
than those who need affordable housing? Why can't this wait, and why
haven't citizens had greater input into these truly extensive proposals?
I do not want to abuse this listserv, so if anyone would like more
information, just email me directly.
Liz Joyce
On Fri, Jul 9, 2021 at 10:15 AM <paul.chrostowski@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
There is, of course, another side to this story. Thrive 2050 is basically a
gift package to big developers. Alternatives including managed growth,
maintenance of quality of life, social and economic equity and environmental
protection are all available and should be carefully evaluated.
Paul C
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: Seth Grimes
Sent: Friday, July 9, 2021 10:00 AM
To: Philadelphia-Eastern Neighborhood list; north-takoma;
hodgesheights@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [north-takoma] Fwd: Thrive 2050: planning for our future
For those interested in local land-use policy...
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Councilmember Hans Riemer <Hans.Riemer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Dear residents,
In the coming months, the Council is expected to finalize a vision document
to guide the future growth of our community.
It is called "Thrive Montgomery 2050" and you may have heard something about
it.
It is not a rezoning nor does it allow anyone to do anything with their
property that they cannot do already. Instead, it is a broad vision with
objectives and strategies that can be implemented with future
community-driven plans.
Some opponents, including the County Executive, are calling on the Council
to stop working on this initiative, despite the fact that it has been
underway for nearly two years and we have received public testimony and
input from hundreds of residents.
While I don’t support delay, I certainly think we can improve on the draft
that we received and I am reading through the feedback I am receiving.
The policies at the core of Thrive 2050 are urgent and include:
Promoting economic competitiveness
Reducing climate impact
Increasing housing supply and improving housing affordability
Advancing racial equity and social justice
So I would like to provide some context for this discussion.
What is Thrive?
Thrive Montgomery 2050 is a retooling of the "General Plan.” It is a policy
framework for guiding future land use and growth for the next 30 years.
Thrive Montgomery 2050 will help guide countywide policies and initiatives,
infrastructure and community benefits.
The original version of the General Plan, On Wedges and Corridors, was
finalized in 1964, fifty-seven years ago. It spelled out policy goals for
how our community could change and grow in the coming decades.
For example, it called for preserving farmland by concentrating growth
within the boundaries of new communities like Germantown and Clarksburg.
That general plan has been implemented with local plans over the years.
Those local plans take broad concepts and establish development rights or
limitations through actual zoning. In other words, while the General Plan
didn't create Germantown or Clarksburg, it provided a framework for
subsequent plans to do that.
While the world has changed a lot since 1964, the general plan really has
not. More importantly, a lot more will change in the next 50 years. We need
to plan for that now.
That's why our Planning Department has spent several years gathering
community feedback and putting new ideas on paper. Their new draft plan is
called "Thrive Montgomery 2050," and it is now at the County Council for
final changes.
What does Thrive do?
Thrive will help guide the County to have a stronger economic base and
prompts the County to address some of our weaknesses that you may observe.
For example, the lack of commercial dynamism in the East County, which these
days feels farther and farther from job centers and urban amenities; the
current plan intended that and needs to change!
Thrive also addresses the critical issue of climate change. We know that our
climate cannot withstand 50 more years of gas-powered, auto-centric growth.
While our suburbs are indelible to our character and are here to stay, we
must also shift the paradigm so that we are more walkable and transit
centered particularly in growth corridors.
Have you noticed that our major roads or highways are bordered by single
family homes? That is because our General Plan does not support changing
them. Roads like Veirs Mill, for example, were two lane country roads when
the 1964 Plan was finalized. Today they are bustling highways carrying tens
of thousands of commuters daily. But the housing hasn't changed.
Thrive confronts these realities with a new policy vision that can be
implemented through future plans.
What about housing?
Thrive does not change any zoning or allow people to do anything with land
that they cannot already do.
Thrive does grapple with the need for more creative thinking, including
ideas about the types of housing we could build and where we can locate
enough housing to meet the needs of a growing population.
It calls broadly for changes "especially along major corridors." Think Route
29, Georgia Avenue, New Hampshire Avenue, Rockville Pike, Veirs Mill Road.
Thrive is about establishing a new vision for our County's future and
identifying the general paths we should follow to achieve it. But any
decisions about exactly how to realize and implement that vision will be
left to future plans, programs and policies.
Why we should act
Change isn't easy but we did not become the great county that we are by
turning our backs to the future.
As we all know, virtual meetings became a new norm during the pandemic. As a
result, public participation in the Thrive process has been very high,
because many people who might have been unable to testify in person have
joined virtually.
In testimony to the Council, the League of Women Voters, to name one
supporting group, says we should
"encourage consolidation and development of duplexes, cottage courts,
townhouses and small multiplexes and apartments that are near transit, along
our growth corridors and close to the county's centers of activity.
Corridors are a great location for some of this much-needed housing."
One of the core objectives of the Plan is transforming our highway corridors
into more appealing places with higher quality housing, better designed for
the location, with code improvements that will promote health and safety.
This is one example of how public input has shaped the plan.
As a result, I see Thrive as a pragmatic, forward-thinking vision. That is
why I am eager to work on the draft at the Council, get this plan done and
refresh our roadmap for the future.
While I know the Executive has asked us to pause, I believe that issues like
climate change and economic vitality are too urgent to postpone indefinitely.
We must continue preparing for the future we want for this County. We can do
this!
Sincerely,
Hans
<68FF9261F65E4D81A89D14615DCD0A87.png>
If you are not signed up for email from my office, you may sign up here
<68FF9261F65E4D81A89D14615DCD0A87.png>
Please do NOT reply to this email as the account is unable to receive email.
Instead, please email Councilmember.Riemer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
Hans Riemer was elected to the Montgomery County Council in 2010, 2014, and
2018 and represents over one million residents as an At-Large Member. Hans
serves as the chair of the Planning, Housing, and Economic Development
Committee and as a member of the Transportation & Environment Committee.
Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer
100 Maryland Avenue, 5th Floor
Rockville, MD 20850
240- 777-7964 (voice), 240-777-7989 (Fax), (MD Relay) Dial 711 or
800-201-7165
www.montgomerycountymd.gov/riemer
councilmember.riemer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
