The Montgomery County Council voted unanimously to pass the controversial Thrive 2050 growth master plan this morning. A carbon copy of a plan being pushed nationwide by developers, Thrive 2050 will allow multifamily housing to be built in neighborhoods that are currently zoned for single-family homes over most of the county. The Council voted to approve the plan despite just having announced it had no confidence in, and demanding the resignations of, the five Planning Board commissioners who formulated and edited the plan.
 |
| Zillow home values for Minneapolis 2013-2022; "Minneapolis 2040" (sound familiar?) was passed by the Minneapolis City Council in 2018, and you can see that prices have only surged further upward |
Many residents expressed opposition to the plan, which will change the character of existing neighborhoods drastically. Among the concerns raised by residents were increased noise, loss of green space and tree canopy, insufficent street parking, school overcrowding, and gentrification that will force retired and lower-income homeowners out of their neighborhoods. The new housing allowed by Thrive 2050 will be luxury housing, not affordable housing. Rents and home values have only continued to rise in the few jurisdictions that have adopted the radical Thrive model, such as Minneapolis.
The Council was criticized for not only failing to reach out to people of color, but for ignoring their own diversity consulting firm, who had urged the Council not to rush to approve Thrive 2050 at the cost of equity for all residents. It was equally criticized in recent days for ramming the plan through before having an independent investigation of the many scandals surfacing in the planning apparatus that birthed it. On that front, the Council has so far received a free pass from local media, with The Washington Post editorial board going so far as to endorse the rushed passage of Thrive 2050. Surely, the money the Post receives from developers for real estate advertising played no role in that endorsement.
Some on the Council are term-limited. For those seeking office in the future, their vote for Thrive 2050 may come back to haunt them, once the impacts of the plan begin to be felt. A majority of residents are unaware of the plan, and have no idea what is happening. Thrive 2050 was largely rushed through during an international pandemic emergency that has tried the patience and mental health of people around the world. Virtually no one besides the Planning Board, the County Planning Department, the County Council, and their sugar daddies in the development community, was paying attention to land use and zoning issues at a time like this.
Today's vote will likely be looked back upon with regret. But it will also be remembered as the greatest victory of the Montgomery County cartel to date. The machine recognized that once they could beat the Columbia Country Club on the Purple Line, they could beat anybody, and they've certainly taken that realization to heart. They now control every elected office in the County, with the exception of County Executive. They control the local media. All opposition was utterly steamrolled by the Planning Board and County Council. That steamroller is now going to roll into neighborhoods across Montgomery County, demolishing homes, along with the suburban lifestyle our radical elected officials despise so much.
29 comments:
Why would any existing homeowner be "forced" to move out of their home? Your sensationalism is way out of control again. If anything, existing homeowners would likely benefit from increased property values. Of course renters wishing to buy a home might also be more able to do so if more smaller and more affordable units created by Thrive are actually constructed.
You might argue that Accessory Dwelling Units or even small duplexes, triplexes or even fourplexs might overload the available on street parking, schools and county services, but these new typologies likely still need to comply with all existing single family setbacks, and height regulation.
Placing more dense development close to transit is a sensible way to grow without creating suburban sprawl.
9:24: The problem is that Thrive does not mandate affordable housing, so we're just going to get more "luxury" housing. A homeowner of low or fixed income could be forced out if the property tax exceeds their ability to pay.
Dense development near transit was a wise idea, but that's not Thrive 2050. It includes areas way beyond the quarter-to-half mile distance from Metro required for smart growth.
Countdown starts now to MoCo's transformation into Cleveland or Detroit. Edgemoor, Kenwood, Chevy Chase, Sumner can watch their property values nosedive as neighbors cut down trees, pave over yards, and turn once enviable neighborhoods into future Viers Mill Villages, filled with shanties.
Robert, I am 100% with you on this being a singular, profound moment in the history of the county, but I part company on its foretelling a future with more luxury housing. One simply can not put two or three additional houses on a single plot of land and have them match the attraction of the original, either for size/"grandeur" or for the simple fact that a primary part of the appeal of the ultra-expensive neighborhoods is the fact those places have yards and trees and space. Pave over everything, double, triple, or quadruple the people in the neighborhood and you have lost that. Homeowners in those original houses will move out, those properties will be bought by developers, bulldozed for multi-family housing, and the entire place is transformed to Langley Park.
Never mind the assault on the area's infrastructure, which will be monumental. This will standardize the entire county as one giant, undifferentiated dump.
"Rents and home values have only continued to rise in the few jurisdictions that have adopted the radical Thrive model, such as Minneapolis."
The free market has spoken. The "radical Thrive model" is expected to increase demand and home values even while giving people more housing options to choose from. Government getting out of the business of micromanaging what people can build on their own property sounds like a win all around.
Kenwood Country Club should be seized next via eminent domain. Perhaps make it a 9 hole course as a compromise. Imagine all of the townhomes and apartments that could be built.
I am a lifelong Democrat and lived in Montgomery County since my childhood. I have never seen a bill as steamrolled as this one. A corrupt planning department paid for by developers. A County council that limits and then ignores the people they're supposed to represent. The election is in 2 WEEKS: VOTE EVERYONE OF THESE CORRUPT IMBECILES OUT OF OFFICE, even if it means voting for republicans.
11:50 sounds like a shill for the building industry.
It's a win all around if you want more over-burdened schools and services; more congested roads; less privacy; more noise and pollution; more crime; fewer trees; more flooding because there's less earth open to absorb runoff, (check with Howard County and Ellicott City if this concept is alien to you).
WOW! It really does sound like Shangri-La!
I am a lifelong Democrat and lived in Montgomery County since my childhood. I have never seen a bill as steamrolled as this one. A corrupt planning department paid for by developers. A County council that limits and then ignores the people they're supposed to represent. The election is in 2 WEEKS: VOTE EVERYONE OF THESE CORRUPT IMBECILES OUT OF OFFICE, even if it means voting for republicans.
To 9:24: I'm not sure if you're aware of the term "eminent domain," but the county and state have used it to force out home and business owners (and leasers and renters in turn, too) for projects including the Purple Line, Intercounty Connector, widening of 270, etc.
There might be some positive uses of eminent domain in our area, but in the reports I've seen, the same home and business owners were *not* provided equitable or reasonable compensation for their properties. And yes, there have been multiple lawsuits over the years, but the home and business owners on a whole lost and were thus forced to move.
One of the more famous (or infamous) and failed uses of eminent domain was in Connecticut and was chronicled in the news, a book by one of the displaced homeowners, and a movie about "The Little Pink House" The homeowners fought the seizure and lost, and the proposed plans for the land were never realized even years later, leaving the land to sit empty. https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2017/03/19/little-pink-house-movie-exposes-the-tyranny-of-eminent-domain/?sh=50272c4842b8
I hope this is informative. Thanks.
It will be interesting when all the Bethesda liberals homes are worth 1/10 price like Detroit and homes being invaded every night
Rockaway NY was a beautful middle class neighborhood until housing moved in
Likewise in Ct wher estates were surrounded by ghettos and lost 3/4 value overnight
Elrich is focused on abortion and that is it
Cleveland and Detroit have extremely oppressive zoning and parking minimum requirements. They're literally the exact opposite of MoCo's policy. Congratulations, you played yourself 10:40am.
@12:28 PM: Good answer! :-) @2:10 PM
@5:23, Connecticut cities fell to blight not because of planning regulations but because manufacturing vanished from those areas, leaving behind a high concentration of unemployed. No businesses to bring in tax dollars and a high percentage of unemployed people who can't pay tax dollars increases the burden on those left in the area, who will themselves soon flee to escape having to foot the bill for so many others. All of which amplifies the problem. CT didn't decide to install ghettos around their cities. Those blighted areas grew as the cities lost industry & manufacturing and those residents who could afford to move to follow the jobs. What was left behind were the unemployed, who soon found their once perfectly nice communities turning into slums and sewers, since the tax receipts were not available to maintain the cities as they should be.
@5:24, I'm pretty sure Detroit's blight is more accurately laid at the foot of the auto makers moving so much of their production to other areas in the 1950s, in an attempt to save money, leading to a situation as described above. There is a government reluctance to corral into more densely concentrated areas those Detroit residents currently living in isolation --e.g. one occupied house sharing a block with five vacant structures-- since it has legitimate questions of government overreach, the state using eminent domain to remove you from your house and tell you where you will live, so they can seize your land. Admittedly, there is a noble idea behind the proposal to gather Detroiters from the occupied real estate archipelago and concentrate them all in smaller, more lively communities: those smaller, populated areas can be better served by the city's infrastructure --police, transportation, etc-- AND the large areas of now totally vacant housing can be bulldozed and re-purposed. But, as I say, to do that you need to "rake together" all those people living across the wider city, many of whom don't want to leave the houses in which they have lived for decades.
To summarize, Detroit is a municipal slum not because neighborhoods were zoned for single-family housing, but because it was a company town. In 1950, auto manufacturing accounted for ca. 56 percent of all employment in "Motor City" before rapacious manufacturers moved those jobs to other locations in a bid to save money and squeeze more profits. Those who could afford to, (frequently Caucasian, because their seniority at work had given them more money,) moved to follow the work. Those who were already too financially strapped to relocate, (frequently Blacks, who had only relatively recently been allowed entry to the plants after years of discrimination,) found themselves stuck in a city that had lost its primary driver of tax revenue.
.
Bethesda is going down the tubes because of woke liberals
8:04 -- Correction: Bethesda is going down the tubes because of the insatiable greed of developers and the corruption of our County Council and Planning Board.
So 6:48 is a liberal-socialist speech writer who will go on ad-nauseum blaming capitalism for policies directly attributable to democrats in charge or if it happens to be a red state, (ruled by liberals in the that city), that's also good enough to take zero responsibility.
Ask yourself if the 15+ TRILLION spent since Johnson's "war on poverty" in the 60's has done anything except fuel the drug of entitlements for generations? Give Clinton credit for signing the welfare reform bill but other than that, liberals rather sign checks and couldn't care less about the results when THAT'S ALL THAT MATTERS!
Policy based on equal outcomes will always fail as will liberal promises made to inner-city minorities every voting cycle.
@6:15, Your reply includes nothing that refutes the truth of my 6:48 post. Nice attempt at distraction and goal post-moving, though. I assume some of the slower students may have fallen for your ploy.
To clarify, @6:48:
Swing and a big miss on identifying my political affiliation.
An interesting perspective, blaming government for private industry's greed. I take from your clumsily worded entry that the solitary responsibility of "Capitalism" is to make as much money as possible, full stop. Communities left in smoldering ruin when said businesses seek new horizons to exploit are the exclusive domain of government, again full stop. If gov't injects itself in any way in the process of commerce and "Capitalism," in an attempt to underwrite and support its mission of caring for the community, it is --let's use a favorite, if thread-bare term, since you seem gleeful at its mention-- liberal-socialist. In your narrative, business owes nothing to anyone other than to itself. It is the loud, boorish, drunk at the party hosted by government. It breaks the china, drinks all the wine, assaults other guests before setting fire to the garage and driving across the yard, having wrenched from the fete all it could to amuse itself. That is business's inviolate right. For government to expect compensation for damages done, for injuries incurred, demonstrates the "liberal-socialist" agenda in action. Who dares question the absolute right of business to act with utter impunity?
Which brings to mind the famous Oscar Wilde quote: "Some cause happiness wherever they go; others whenever they go." As with the monomaniacal capitalist party guest, you would most surely fall in the latter category.
Typical response from an over educated bureaucrat who has never worked, (or succeeded), in the private sector. In plain words: So much education, so little knowledge.
Anything contrary to the liberal theory of capitalism becomes the evil that men do. Once again, if the liberal-socialist construct is so good, why hasn't it worked anywhere it's been tried? Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is insanity sold as hope to people democrats want to control every election cycle.
@4:06, your response is typical of an ovine reactionary.
"Over-educated bureaucrat." Good heavens, such language! She speaks poniards, and every word stabs. As far as I know, I have never worked for the government. [checks notes] Nope, private sector since I was a teenager. [cue sad trombones] Wrong yet again.
You brandish "liberal-socialist," thinking it a weapon. Perhaps a definition of terms would be in order. What is it you envision when you use the phrase? To be clear, it is not synonymous with "liberal." When you toss socialism into the mix, you are talking about a system that advocates the abolition of private property rights. I'm pretty sure that is not a philosophy being carried out in American cities, much less being done so repeatedly, as you fallaciously suggest. It is true that plain-Jane "liberals" do advocate for an enhanced social safety net, since there is a strong correlation between states with better such systems and lower poverty rates, higher wages, and better health and educational outcomes for their citizens; in essence, a you-get-what-you-pay-for result.
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/weak-safety-net-policies-exacerbate-regional-racial-inequality/
But, those same, not-socialist liberals also support private property rights and capitalism. We, [regular, not-socialist liberals] have an ideal in mind for what capitalism is that is different from yours, though. This is perhaps most easily illustrated by invoking Halloween. My regular-liberal, capitalism-supporting view envisions the kid who trick-or-treats and takes a candy bar or two from the big bowl of goodies left on a porch, leaving plenty for others and moving to the next house to repeat. He is welcome to take a share, to keep them as his own, and to enjoy them without thought of sharing with others, who will have opportunity to get their own treats from those bowls. From what you've said, it sounds like your version of capitalism endorses emptying the bowl's entire contents to your sack, then racing down the street cleaning out the entire neighborhood's supply of candy, then heading home, the rest of the community denied opportunity to partake because of your gluttony. Sure, it's a plan, but it quickly identifies you as something, the name for which I'm sure Robert would not allow printed on his pages.
Bloviated filler of a liberal living in a fantasy world who can't stand being called out for supporting the very policies that have us on the current road to ruin. You don't use the word "socialist" because the word has been stigmatized but putting a happy face on an equal-outcome philosophy is just lipstick on a pig. In the real world your clearly represent the Keynesian side of economics which has never worked yet you and your blind followers keep your foot on the gas, (or should that be coal/NG powered EV), hoping that "the next time" it will work.
The link to the leftist site is laughable. They wrote a piece that the border is a fake crisis "designed to stoke fear and play on racist anxiety". Anyone above a room temperature IQ, (can't include the border czar Kamala), can see record numbers of illegals and drugs namely fentanyl.
The candy analogy is a good representation of liberal-socialist construct failing to live in reality. If you raised you children with no consequences for bad behavior, much like your prosecutors/DA's in democrat controlled cities, then you get no candy after your kids pass by. But that's the rub, most people, (even some liberals), don't raise their kids without rules yet those same liberals seek to rule society in an idealistic manner and say to those kids who took all the candy, "please don't do that again".
It would be laughable if it wasn't so sad how liberals are seeking to blame others for the current crime wave we have here and in every democrat controlled city.
Oh, well done, 3:29! You managed to toss in everything save Chappaquiddick. Did you have a post-jeremiad cigarette?
Sadly, invoking those fallacies does not make them manifest here on Earth --something that might seep through were you not a seventh-level Q'er. It is fascinating to watch your kind, time and again demonstrating an infinite capacity for projection, accusing others of the precise misdeeds you are demonstrably guilty of. The difference between your accusations and mine are, you have nothing to back your claims. On the subject of failed policies, talk to me about unfunded tax cuts, abandoning labor and environmental laws, outlawing access to abortion. How's that worked out historically?
If you raise children with no rules or consequences for bad behavior, they grow to be the selfish, venal, rapacious, insatiable, amoral villains who characterize MAGA/Q-world, demanding their outrages be embraced, their hysterias be legitimized, their violence be condoned and rewarded. Superannuated three years olds.
Add Fentanyl to the *infinitely* long list of things about which you are wrong. It isn't illegals --yes! I use that term because breaking U.S. immigration laws to enter America is illegal-- who are ferrying the drug to America, it's U.S. citizens.
"Just 0.02 percent of the people arrested by Border Patrol for crossing illegally possessed any fentanyl whatsoever. . . In 2021, U.S. citizens accounted for 86.3 percent of fentanyl trafficking convictions compared to just 8.9 percent for illegal immigrants. . every Customs and Border Protection press release mentioning fentanyl over a 6‑month period [and] found just 3 percent involved illegal immigrants. This means that the agency itself believes the most important smugglers are U.S. citizens. . . The DEA reports that criminal organizations “exploit major highway routes for transportation, and the most common method employed involves smuggling illicit drugs through U.S. [ports of entry] in passenger vehicles with concealed compartments or commingled with legitimate goods on tractor‐trailers.” Several agencies including CBP, ICE, and DHS intelligence told Congress in May 2022 the same thing: hard drugs come through ports of entry.
https://www.cato.org/blog/fentanyl-smuggled-us-citizens-us-citizens-not-asylum-seekers
It is wearisome to guide you by the hand at each turn of the page, to do your homework for you at every chapter, directing your attention back to reality and facts and away from the fantastical, wild-eyed frothings of the lunatic Q. I appreciate that is a cult with a vice-like hold on those witless enough to fall prey to its lure. Know that back here on Earth, we still make our judgements based on facts --something altogether absent in your Weltanschauung.
Let's try to steer the conversation back to Thrive 2050!
No problem as 12:08 is eternally triggered with chronic TDS.
Yeah, you two need to get a room!! I live in Kensington where there is a large vacant lot on my street that could be bought by a developer and made into a building, despite being zoned R-60 - residential single family housing. They are already developing Kensington with high buildings and slowly wrecking our once quiet town. I am sure if MoCo became aware of that lot they would shove that building down our throats - and make it 'affordable' housing as well - euphemism for welfare housing. No thanks.
Very well:
Thrive 2050 will be the death knell for this area. I foresee taxes rocketing for those homeowners who try to maintain their property as solitary, single-family residences. If what Robert predicts comes true, that the initiative will lead to more structures built and sold as luxury housing, then does it not follow that taxes on those properties will be commensurate? Anyone who does not sub-divide, who maintains their land parcel with a solitary structure, will soon bear an excruciating tax burden, and only the very richest will survive, while the rest submit to the construction of these additional units. In short order, there will be a handful of mansions left around the area --the Chevy Chase Village palace that fronts an entire block of Connecticut Avenue; the 1.7-acre estate in Edgemoor-- and the rest of the county will soon see the lawns and gardens of its formerly "aspirational" neighborhoods, (I think that's the term marketers bandy,) subsumed by maximal density structures, with narrow passages to adjacent properties, akin to what's SOP in Santa Monica and Los Angeles.
As with the formerly grand neighborhoods in New England manufacturing cities, those who can will flee the area as the neighborhood loses its luster. Who with the financial means to get out would volunteer to stay, to see their bucolic community paved over and built upon, 100+-year-old trees destroyed for more bedrooms? As well-funded residents leave, their properties will be bought by consortia of corporate investors who build the maximum amount zoning laws permit on each residential footprint, then rent those properties to transients --by which I mean not vagrants and drunks, but temporary members of a community, with less investment (either financially or emotionally,) within the community in which they are staying. When residents care less about their community, they're less likely to treat it with the respect homeowners do, and that's the dinner gong ringing for these places to start the devolution to future dumps.
Yes, that's dystopian, and it may be well wide the mark. But I suggest it is not at all beyond the realm of possible outcomes from the unforgivably sanctimonious grotesquery perpetrated by the Council with their approval of Thrive.
I have a lot of concerns with the process around Thrive and some concerns with substance (maybe I’d have more if I did try to understand it better) but it is interesting to me that half the criticism seems to be that it will encourage gentrification and more expensive housing and half the criticism seems to be it will drive property values down by encouraging lots of new housing to be built. Surely those both can’t be true?
8:29: My personal view is that property values will not go down. People were still willing to pay top dollar for homes in Spring Valley, even after the munitions scandal and uncertainty there. There are also clearly people who will pay $1+ million to live in a dangerous, relatively high-crime area in places like D.C.
What I think you will see is a change in the type of homebuyer - a swap of parents looking for safety, quiet and large backyards for the Capitol Hill gentrifier type. Not more diverse, not lower income, just a different attitude that doesn't prioritize the traditional concerns of the suburban home buyer.
Kind of like our elected officials and old Planning Board, come to think of it!
Here is one setup question on the Thrive link that is absolute hogwash - this is being shoved down your throat, citizens be damned.
Q - "How was the Montgomery County community engaged in this process?"
A - "Equity is at the core of what we do. The Planning Department’s Equity Agenda has informed Thrive at every step, ... "
Bull. No one knows what these people are up to - you can see they've been at it for years.
Here is the link to Thrive - if you can stomach it - https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/master-plan-list/general-plans/thrive-montgomery-2050/
Post a Comment