Answers to questions (and misconceptions) about Attainable Housing Strategies

Posted: by

By Artie Harris and Jason K. Sartori

This blog is also published in Greater Greater Washington as a guest opinion column.

A row of red brick houses with white trim on a sunny day. An American flag hangs from one porch. Green lawns and a tree with autumn leaves are visible in the foreground.

A duplex in Friendship Heights. Photo courtesy of Greater Greater Washington.

Over the past three years, Montgomery Planning and the Montgomery County Planning Board have heard a lot of passion from people in Montgomery County who are eager to find solutions to the county’s housing crisis. We also heard a lot of misconceptions regarding the Planning Board’s recommendations to relax single-family zoning, also known as Attainable Housing Strategies. That’s why we’re sharing these frequently asked questions about them.

Back in June, the Planning Board issued its Attainable Housing Strategies (AHS) recommendations, which would give property owners more choices in the types of structures they can build on their properties in traditional single-family neighborhoods. These structures would include duplexes, triplexes, townhouses, and other types of Missing Middle housing. Work on this project began in 2021 when Montgomery Planning received a request from the Montgomery County Council–who has the final say over zoning–to recommend “zoning reforms that would allow greater opportunities for Missing Middle housing in Montgomery County.”

When we started this project, we knew we couldn’t develop sensible recommendations without input from the community and other key stakeholders. Over the past three-plus years, we have been meeting and having meaningful conversations with community groups, elected officials, industry experts, and developers, and held public meetings and work sessions. Here’s a list of the community engagement that’s been done since 2021:

  • 40+ stakeholder meetings with civic associations and community groups
  • 6 countywide community listening sessions
  • 25+ newsletters with regular project updates
  • 2-page explainer in 8 languages
  • 1 “social media” day with historically high engagement rates
  • 4 external stakeholder group meetings
  • 6 virtual public office hours
  • 4 Planning Department-hosted community meetings
  • 4 expert panel discussions
  • 2 informational videos
  • 3 Planning Board listening sessions
  • 11 work sessions with the Planning Board

The housing attainability issue is one that requires bold action, and we recognize that not everyone will be on board with our recommendations. Most recently, as mentioned in the list above, we partnered with the County Council to hold a series of six listening sessions to hear residents’ thoughts on the draft recommendations.

We think the public would benefit from some clarity on this important project for the future of Montgomery County. You can click on the questions to jump down to the answers.

Are the Attainable Housing Strategies about income-restricted affordable housing in Montgomery County?

The AHS recommendations are a complement to – not a replacement of – the county’s ongoing affordable housing efforts. We need more housing at all price levels to ensure that all who want to live in Montgomery County can. AHS proposes one option of modifying land use regulations so more types of houses can be built that are attainable to more income levels. AHS is focused on giving more housing opportunities to middle-income earners who are leaving Montgomery County (26,000 between 2005 and 2022) because they can’t find a home that fits their family’s needs and financial feasibility. Middle-income earners include households making anywhere from $83k to $138k a year for a family of four in 2022. Read our Research and Strategic Projects Division’s research brief for a closer look at what middle income means in Montgomery County.

We recognize that Missing Middle housing would have different price ranges in different neighborhoods. But in all neighborhoods, these new types of units will be more affordable than a new single-family home, which is all that is allowed today when an existing home is replaced. Doing nothing to allow more options in our neighborhoods will continue to make homeownership difficult to achieve in the county and continue the trend toward exclusivity that we’ve seen for decades in single-family neighborhoods in the county. The housing types proposed through AHS could help to slow the growth in home prices and help ensure neighborhoods remain accessible to a broader range of incomes by increasing supply and introducing smaller housing types in our neighborhoods.

Isn’t there enough zoning capacity in approved master plans to meet our housing needs? Aren’t there 30,000+ units in the county’s development pipeline that have not been built but just need to get their building permit?

Existing zoning capacity is an important consideration in reaching our housing targets defined by theMetropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG). But even if zoning capacity exists, it doesn’t mean that the zoning capacity will be converted to homes built and in fact, it has not. Zoning capacity may be unused for a variety of reasons. We should continue to zone for housing we want, knowing that zoning is not a guarantee of future housing.

While the county’s development pipeline represents potential construction of residential projects within the next few years, a project’s development approval is not a guarantee that those units will ever be realized. A Montgomery Planning evaluation of projects that have been in the pipeline since 2018 found that only 50% had been constructed six years later in 2024. Furthermore, of the 30,000 unbuilt housing units currently in the pipeline, over 10,600 (or 36%) were approved more than 10 years ago. Many of these units will never be built but will remain in the pipeline count until their approvals expire. Approved projects don’t move forward for a variety of reasons, including financing issues, changing market conditions, and changes in property ownership.

It’s also important to note that 87% of the unbuilt units in the pipeline are in the form of large multifamily rental buildings. While this housing is important, it does not help us meet the current and future need for a diversity of housing options, including ownership opportunities, in the county.

Will AHS create incentives for outside real estate speculators to purchase single-family homes for redevelopment?

The current single-family redevelopment process is already speculative. An industry of builders—which are not individuals, but rather small companies sometimes backed by investors—routinely purchase older single-family homes and build much larger and more expensive homes in their place. These homes are nearly always built “on spec,” meaning that the builders initially do not have clients lined up and speculate that the home will be bought on the open market. An analysis by Montgomery Planning found that for a sampling of 683 replacement homes constructed after 2011, “original homes averaged 1,500 gross square feet, while the replacement home averaged 3,730 gross square feet” (p. 74 of the AHS final report). Replacement homes also sold for an average of over $1.6 million, or more than 2.5 times the value of the original home. It is difficult to anticipate if AHS will spur additional speculation but in general, AHS is intended to allow for smaller units as opposed to larger ones.

How does AHS address the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments’ (MWCOG) latest forecast, which reduced the number of anticipated households compared to 2030?

MWCOG’s latest region-wide household forecast shows very little change from the previous forecast (from 422,300 to 416,600 – a difference of 5,800 households). In fact, both forecasts project that the county will have about the same number of households by 2040.

Even with a reduced forecast, growth—and the need for housing—is still anticipated regardless of which forecast is consulted. 2040 is only 16 years from now; the county must start finding ways to encourage more housing now.

Does AHS address the environmental consequences of increased land coverage from the larger building footprints of higher density development, resulting in increased imperviousness, stormwater runoff, and loss of tree cover?

Increased land coverage is an existing issue as teardowns are being replaced with units that are at least twice their size. The multi-unit structures envisioned in AHS would occupy the same footprint as what is allowed for single-family homes.

AHS recommends updating the stormwater management provisions of the county code to incorporate attainable housing. Page 45 of the AHS final report specifically discusses updating stormwater management provisions for detached units, duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes. In this way, the replacement of existing single-family homes (whether with another single-family home or a multiplex) could provide an opportunity to enhance stormwater mitigation.

Jason K Sartori stands in front of a seated audience, listening to someone holding a microphone during a meeting. Papers and a pink water bottle are on a table in the background.

Montgomery Planning Director Jason K. Sartori (pictured), Planning Board Chair Artie Harris, and County Council President Andrew Friedson hosted six listening sessions across Montgomery County in fall 2024 to answer questions and receive feedback from community members about the Attainable Housing Strategies recommendations.

Won’t additional housing units cause more traffic congestion due to the increased number of vehicles?

Multi-unit housing types will most likely be built slowly and incrementally. It is anticipated to occur in our existing teardown and replacement home market areas. The county averages about 200 demolition permits for single-family detached units a year (out of more than 180,000 single-family lots). This incremental pace will allow monitoring of its impacts through regular check-ins with the Planning Board and the County Council to understand the impacts AHS may be having on our infrastructure and plan for mitigation, if needed. County Council legislation would determine how often the check-ins would occur.

Secondly, every four years, the county updates the Growth and Infrastructure Policy, which analyzes the capacity of public facilities to see if they are keeping pace with new development. These public facilities include our roads, transportation systems, and schools.

Finally, evidence from academic studies consistently shows that compact development reduces the need for driving, even when transit is not available. Based on this research, we believe that the infill housing that AHS will allow will make future bike, pedestrian, and transit infrastructure more feasible as more people have the chance to live closer to their jobs and to services to fulfill their daily needs. The AHS recommendations do, in fact, promote smart and sustainable patterns of growth.

AHS recommends reducing parking requirements. Won’t this overcrowd our streets and make parking less convenient in neighborhoods?

The AHS report recommends reducing parking minimums to increase the feasibility of fitting duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes on what are currently single-family zoned lots. However, it does not mandate this, and property owners would still be able to build more parking spaces if they deem it necessary. Furthermore, reduced parking minimums are appropriate for walkable communities with access to services, amenities, and multiple modes of transportation.

New technologies such as ridesharing as well as investment in pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure leave us better positioned for a future with fewer vehicle trips. Planning for communities where jobs, services, and amenities are closer to where people live can also reduce our dependence on vehicles.

Artie HarrisAbout the authors
Before his appointment as Planning Board Chair in 2023, Artie Harris was the vice president of real estate at Montgomery Housing Partnership, Inc. (MHP), a nonprofit real estate development organization based in Silver Spring, MD, that creates affordable communities in Montgomery County and surrounding jurisdictions. Previously, Harris was a vice president at Bozzuto Development Company, where he led teams developing market-rate and mixed-income housing projects across the Washington, DC region and beyond. He holds a master’s degree in business administration from Stanford University and a master’s degree in civil engineering from Purdue University.
Jason Sartori
Jason Sartori joined Montgomery Planning in January 2016 and served as the Chief of the Countywide Planning and Policy (CPP) Division from 2019 to 2023 before his appointment as Planning Director in 2023. Jason previously served as the Associate Director of the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland. While there, he led numerous projects related to affordable housing, transportation modeling, opportunity accessibility metrics, economic development, and growth visioning and scenario evaluation.

13 Responses to “Answers to questions (and misconceptions) about Attainable Housing Strategies”

  1. Alan Davis

    This initiative is the most ill conceived, illogical and radical housing policy a planning agency could possibly adopt. It is not based on fact, need or equity. Your analysis is self serving and totally ignores reams of data that documents how building smaller homes in single family neighborhoods will destroy our communities and do absolutely nothing to tackle housing affordability issues. The Planning Board and the Council are ignoring their constituents and plenty of other opportunities to build smaller homes on under utilized or vacant land proximate to mass transit in the business cores throughout the County. There is no logical reason or justification to allow for multi plex’s and small apartments in single family neighborhoods. The premise of building smaller homes that bypass affordability mandates will be market rate driven and will NOT address affordability for the “missing middle.”
    It will be incumbent upon the constituents of MoCo to replace the Council and the Planning board for wasting our resources and time to advance a plan that has no merit. We look forward to the 2026 elections and your early retirement.

  2. D Putnam

    1. Data: The Plan’s main aim is to fix an alleged affordable/subsidized housing shortage in MoCo – a “crisis” per the Plan. But is the premise of a shortage actually true? The Plan provides zero data as support for its premise. Further, MoCo’s own Office of Legislative Oversight in June of 2024 concluded that MoCo’s housing data has, for years, been so sloppily maintained and undercounted, that is basically worthless . Further, experts say there is plenty of housing stock in the “pipeline” and that there is actually a surplus of buildable inventory. If true, why should 164,000 families’ properties be used as guinea pigs for this radical social experiment?

    2. Notice: Did you get any written notice from MoCo that this 98 page Plan was in the offing and that your property would be unalterably changed? Doubtful. Your government did not provide any notice! The Plan was dreamt up as the housing solution “de jour” in the ivory towers of MoCo Planning over the course of 5 years with zero citizen consultation in its creation. Our elected representatives, having sworn to represent our interests, slipped out this diktat quietly in the Summer of 2024. Many residents are still unaware. When did democracy die in MoCo?

    3. Genesis: The genesis of the Plan came from a controversial MoCo Planning document called Thrive 2050 which called for more affordable/subsidized housing. But does the Plan provide it? Not at all. Rather, the officials, perhaps realizing there are no funds for affordable/subsidized housing, decided to morph the Plan, so they created a new term, also starting with the letter “a” – “attainable” – perhaps with the intent that “affordable” and “attainable” would be conflated – kind of a bait and switch. This has been successful. Many people trust the Plan provides for affordable/subsidized housing. It does not. MoCo Planning admits this, but not in the Plan but rather hidden in a minor ancillary document. Even though the alleged “crisis” need is for “affordable/ subsidized” housing, the Plan proposes solely “attainable” housing – which typically starts at $800K – $900K –hardly affordable.

    4. Violative of 2017 Master Plan: Does the Plan violate the agreements embodied in the 2017 Bethesda Sector Master Plan for Bethesda? Yes, absolutely. That Master Plan promises to: “Preserve and protect existing single-unit residential neighborhoods in and around the Sector Plan area” (see p. 8; similarly pps. 71, 119, 133, and elsewhere). The AHSI breaches every one of those promises. Are Master Plans created only to be breached? Are the written and official promises of our elected officials worthless?

    5. Congestion & Infrastructure: As mentioned, MoCo Planning admits they have done absolutely no impact studies. Traffic is already congested in our area. An aim in Master Plans is the reduction of “congestion”. But let’s say just three 19 unit apartment buildings get built in your neighborhood and assume just 2 vehicles per unit. That equals 114 additional vehicles, many parked on the street. How, pray tell, will that reduce congestion? Same question as to all infrastructure such as water, sewer, gas, utilities, parking, schools, etc. What’s the impact and who will pay – us taxpayers? But the Plan assures the impact will be “minimal”. Allegedly, MoCo Planning made no attempt to contact PepCo (electric) or WSS (water & sewer) about AHSI infrastructure ramifications until September 12, 2024 – months and years AFTER the AHSI had been formalized and published by MoCo Planning. Might infrastructure issues have been better addressed DURING the planning process?

    6. Toolbox: At every “Listening Session”, Council President Andrew Friedson intoned, in an attempt to assuage the attendees, that the Plan is only “one tool in the toolbox”. But he never mentioned any of the other “tools”. Is it that there are none? Not at all. There are plenty – especially if the desire is to actually create affordable/subsidized housing rather than the Plan’s “attainable” (aka expensive) housing. There are many large vacant lots in MoCo such as White Flint Mall, Lake Forest Mall, Burtonsville Shopping Center, Viva White Oak, the Verizon plot, etc that could host brand new, built from scratch, affordable housing communities. Additionally, there are many vacant office buildings. Where feasible, these could be converted to housing. Where not feasible, they could be demolished, and another de novo community created. Why are other “tools” not even being considered before proceeding with a ruthless upzoning of the entirety of MoCo?

    7. History of Upzoning: As mentioned, upzoning is the “flavor of the week” social remedy for city planners. It can be found being experimented with in different locales. Often developer funded, upzoning has been tried in various places with very mixed results: Minneapolis (enjoined by a court), Arlington, VA (enjoined by a court), etc. One thing is clear from these experiments, upzoning’s “flood the zone” “trickle down” implementation takes 20 – 30 years to be marginally visible. The Plan proclaims an urgent “crisis” but recommends a policy which history shows has a 20-30 year time horizon! Seems like MoCo Planning’s cognitive dissonance? The alternative “tools” (para 6 above) can be effected much more quickly.

    8. Who benefits from upzoning? The limited history of upzoning shows it is developers/financiers who benefit. The Minneapolis experiment with upzoning was a “developer’s giveaway”. Builders used lesser quality materials to create cheaper buildings. New units turned out to be “tiny little” boxes, mainly built for rental, not for sale – therefore useless for advancing home ownership. Corporate owners were out-of-state, sometimes foreign absentee slumlords, interested primarily in rental cash flow, not neighborhoods. Rent checks went out of state or out of the county (in a Silver Spring case, to a private equity firm in Dubai). A single-family home would be torn down and replaced with a multiplex, each unit of which was smaller but would rent for the same amount as the demolished small home (ie the reverse of any kind of affordability or attainability). This is what we can expect with the Plan. Nor should it surprise us that developers under the Plan are offered generous, up to 75%, tax breaks.

    9. Who loses? The limited history of upzoning has proven that the most likely to be hurt are the less-advantaged, often families of color. The developers’ cash has power in their neighborhoods. Developers can buy and combine multiple lots and build as large as they can, often rentals, not homes for sale. Families are displaced, neighboring lots increase in value (in Minneapolis, by 80%) thereby increasing taxes (in Minneapolis, by 20%), forcing neighbors to sell out. As the various minority representatives stated at Listening Sessions, in effect: This Plan will ruin all that I and my neighbors have worked so hard for.

    There are many more problems with the Plan. Suffice to say it is an ill-conceived sop to real estate special interests, inadequately vetted, and un-democratically presented. It fails to promote affordability for less-advantaged home buyers. It alters the property rights of 164,000 single lots (or about 328,000 homeowners/voters). It puts at risk the very people it could help – the less-advantaged and those of color. Marc Elric, MoCo County Executive calls the Plan misleading and a “fraud” . The Los Angeles Tenants’ Union calls upzoning “a dangerous ideology that is funded by the powerful to serve the powerful.”

  3. Alan Davis

    … and another thing, your proposal for multiplex homes is nothing more than an euphemism for a CONDOMINIUM!!! This is, as Mark Elrich put it, “ a complete fraud!!” How many more obfuscated words can the Planning Board and County Council use on its constituents to justify AHSI??? “attainable” “housing crisis” “missing middle” “key stakeholders “ “exclusionary “ ….

  4. Leanne Tobias

    Having attended or viewed online the County’s 2021-2022 AHSI comment sessions and 4 the 6 2024 AHSI listening sessions, I must dissent from the narrative that the Planning Department, the Planning Board and the County Council have conducted effective public engagement. The County’s so-called outreach has consisted largely of presenting to a small subset of the public the rationale for AHSI, rather than openly exploring a robust solution set.

    AHSI was originally proposed in connection with the Thrive 2050 plan. Consideration of AHSI was ultimately delayed until after Thrive’s adoption because it proved tremendously controversial. As the County’s 2024 listening sessions demonstrated, public opinion on AHSI remains sharply divided, with 50% or more of the participants at each meeting — and an overwhelming majority at the Bethesda-Chevy Chase listening session — opposed to the plan.

    The County’s AHSI outreach strategy has also been insufficiently thorough. As a neighborhood association officer and delegate to two coalitions of neighborhood groups, I can attest that most County residents were unaware of AHSI through mid-2024. Outreach by neighborhood organizations and the County’s listening sessions have helped, but engagement is far from what it should be and many or most of AHSI’s supporters — as shown from the comments at listening sessions — continue to incorrectly believe that AHSI would produce affordable housing instead of market rate units.

    AHSI would automatically re-zone approximately 82% of the County’s single-family housing as duplexes, triplexes and quadplexes, with even denser uses — apartments and townhomes — permitted in many single-family neighborhoods pursuant to master planning approvals. Residents have raised cogent concerns about the proposal, including the need for additional data on the County’s housing shortage and existing pipelines of zoned and approved units; independent evaluation of whether the County’s market-based strategy would ease affordability problems; and formal consideration of the environmental, fiscal and racial equity/social justice impacts of the plan. Residents and the County Executive have also suggested alternative approaches to making housing more affordable in Montgomery County —including but not limited to preserving naturally-occurring affordable housing (as recently required throughout California), expanding the County’s existing MPDU (moderately-priced dwelling unit) program, targeting multiplex development to existing redevelopment sites like White Oak, and reducing permissible floor-to-area ratios for single family redevelopment (as recently enacted in Middleburg, VA). These proposals and others suggested by residents and the County Executive deserve serious consideration as alternatives to AHSI.

    In summary, the shortfalls in public engagement, the widespread opposition to AHSI (public opposition equals or exceeds support), the lack of data-based analysis about what AHSI can be expected to reasonably accomplish, and the County’s failure to evaluate alternative policy options mandate tabling AHSI and starting afresh. Sweeping residents’ legitimate concerns aside will only exacerbate distrust in the Council, the Planning Board and the Council.

  6. REB

    Residents care deeply about affordability yet AHS is extremely unpopular with residents. AHS would be ruinous to our neighborhoods and ruinous to the real estate market in MoCo. The Planning Board is not being honest with the public. For one thing, it’s dishonest for Planning to suggest the DC duplexes pictured above are multifamily housing—they are not—they are semi-detached single-family housing, one house per lot. In its AHS, Planning seeks to convert what is currently zoned in MoCo as one house per lot to 2, 3, or 4 housing units per lot, or up to 19 units on multiple lots combined. What Planning doesn’t mention once in its 98-page plan is how this will radically transform the real estate market in MoCo. Most individuals cannot own entire lots with multiplex housing on it, only corporations can. Thus AHS will distort the real estate market and turn our neighborhoods over to corporations. We don’t want absentee landlord REITs to buy up and turn the little affordable housing we have into multiplex rentals that cost more than the housing that was torn down. It will exacerbate the housing affordability problem we already have and destroy our beloved communities.

  7. Vincent Brannigan

    Congratulations for thinking of a new way to line developer’s pockets. Chaotically unplanned development with no reference to schools, parks or other infrastructure. My family bought a house in East Bethesda in 1957. I bought it from them in 1977. My children when through the BCC cluster. This is not a nimby argument but a protest Against idiocy. We have high density housing in Bethesda, lots of it. Small houses get renovated to bigger ones. lots of families . I had 250 trick or treaters at Halloween.

    My lot is 8400 square feet. I’m over 70. I just don’t think its a right thing to do to my neighbors to put an apartment building in their face. Zoning is about the “mutual reciprocity of advantage” You proposal rewards pure selfishness, those who will take the money and run

  9. dep

    The Staff Report to the Council dated 11/14/2024 states that 630 people attended the BCC listening session and that they counted 31 individuals (5%) who testified AGAINST AHSI.

    However, when all BCC attendees were asked for a show of hands, separate photos taken of the “pro” hands and the “con” hands reveal that at least 85% to 90% of the 630 attendees were OPPOSED to AHSI. That means 536 of the 630 attendees were OPPOSED to AHSI – NOT the 31 reported by the Staff to the Council.

    Similarly, votes taken of residents in various MoCo municipalities are reporting upwards of 98% of their residents are OPPOSED to AHSI.

    Similarly tallies taken of municipalities asking if they would be willing to serve as pilot locations for AHSI yielded 0 votes in favor, 100% AGAINST.

    Using a 95% ratio x 1,000,000 est population of MoCo, makes 950,000 property owners/voters OPPOSE AHSI.

    So:
    A) Is the Staff Report accurately stating the numbers to the Council?
    B) Where are Staff and the Council finding support for AHSI if the vast majority is opposed?

  10. David Johnson

    The MoCo Planning Board, at the direction of the County Council, has put forth a proposal to provide “attainable housing” instead of the more pressing “affordable housing.” Their solution, however, is likely to provide neither, and in fact, goes out of its way to scrub any possible inclusion for the much more needed affordable housing. I have attended two of the resulting “listening sessions” put on by Councilmember Friedson and Mr Sartori, and the response from the citizens present at each was overwhelmingly in the negative, with the few in favor seemingly conflating ‘attainable” with ‘affordable.” But why so negative?
    1. The biggest draw for many families moving into MoCo is its tree-lined neighborhoods of single family housing, for which the protective zoning for these neighborhoods in the Plan is to be abandoned for an unprecedented 82% of the County, by means of an autocratic ZTA rather than by the thoughtful Master Plan that protected these neighborhoods.
    2. The Planning Board rushed forward with their recommendations before any research into the cost of such increased density on infrastructure such as schools, water and sewage requirements, roads, tree cover, traffic, and quality of life to be affected, and who to pay for it (citizens) and who will not (developers).
    3. There are already about 35,000 housing units in the pipeline without an additional need for more. Even so, many abandoned plots of land in the county (eg., White Flint) that are available and near rapid transit would more appropriately serve for the Planning Board’s purposes than destroying already long-established neighborhoods.
    4. There already is an ongoing loss of population in the county—not due to a dearth of housing, but due to the dearth of jobs, lessening the urgency for such a draconian housing solution. The county planners have employed land use as the basis of MoCo’s economy, rather than bringing in industry, technology and business (see Fairfax County for comparison), and consequently the biggest employer in the County—is the County! One exception is Bill Marriott, who made Bethesda home for his international business, providing employment for 7500 office workers in Bethesda alone. Montgomery County will need many Bill Marriotts to bring their businesses here, but just like Bill, who lived in a single family neighborhood, none will want to buy or come here if they can’t be assured that an apartment building, as allowed in the Plan, won’t be built on either side of their house.
    5. The Plan will be counterproductive for families buying any housing in MoCo, as there are no protections for buyers successfully competing against the deep pockets and profit inducements of developers and private equity, many of such from outside the state and even the country. This will lead to a flight of cash out of the area, as already seen in other municipalities which have adopted plans similar to what the Planning Board is proposing, and no interest for preserving the nature and quality of the communities involved.
    6. This Plan is an unconscionable giveaway for developers. They can buy property and build whatever they can fit on it “by right”, with no input from the previous owner or surrounding community (and no obligation to contribute to the effects on density, infrastructure, tree cover, schools, sewage, roads etc.), and can charge “market rates”, eliminating teachers, police, nurses, firefighters from affording it (wasn’t this the original goal?). And limiting apartments to just 19 units, absolving the developer from providing any affordable units that would cut their profit, is the biggest “tell” of all. And another ‘Tell”—In an effort to preserve this possible “gravy train”, developers have just spent over $50,000 in a successful campaign to get rid of the County Executive, whose common sense voice about this awful Plan reflected that of the majority of citizen voters. These developers also deliver substantial money to the political accounts of the councilmembers in the hopes that they will “bring home the bacon.”—but these donors can’t deliver votes, only the overwhelming majority of citizens unhappy with this Plan can—and will! So take notice—the Council’s political futures are on the line.

  11. Patricia Depuy Johnson

    The Planning Board, Planning Staff and County Council are trying to rezone over 80 % of the county because they think they can, not because it will solve the problem of the lack of affordable housing in Montgomery County. Attainable Housing is not affordable. The PB and Planning Staff, actually agree on that point. These departments have spent millions of taxpayer hard-earned money promoting this flawed plan.

    I attended two listening sessions in person. At the Silver Spring session 50% of the neighbors there were against the plan. The 50% of those who were for the plan consisted of paid lobbyists and realtors in their midst that stood and presented in favor with personal gain to be had. It wasn’t a representation of actual residents that will be affected. It was not a well attended gathering. Clearly the word had not gotten out. At the Bethesda meeting, residents were able to get the word out. It was the best attendance of all the listening sessions. Over 640 people were there and 90% of those people attending were opposed to AHSI. The report said that 31 who spoke were against the plan..that is not a true representation of the emotion and anger of the public directed at those public servants standing there, that have forgotten how to behave as public servants. These public servants didn’t answer the hard questions that were asked. They are checking the boxes so that they can say there has been “public outreach”. Why can’t the Planning Board and Planning Staff send out a letter to each and every household in Montgomery County explaining this extreme change in zoning?

    Middle income earners are leaving the county, not because of housing, but because of jobs. The jobs in this county are based on land use and that is a job market that is inclusive to developers and investment firms (hedge funds). When a house is demolished and rebuilt, the labor to execute the building is brought in from out of state. It does nothing to employ the people that live here. We need to bring in jobs that employ residents and we need education to help those that live here achieve higher paying jobs. To project a median annual income at $50,000 to $75,000 is a death knell to the development of MoCo. Property taxes will not support what the county needs. Our County Executive has been trying to attract businesses (Bio-Science) that will provide good salaries and create education (University of Md) to help residents get those jobs. The county planning staff has created a developers dream with market rate housing, which is what AHSI is. The developers will stand to gain, no one else will. What we need are jobs, not housing at market rates. The biggest employer in the county is the county, that’s why we have a problem.

    There is also a flight from the county of those residents who pay the highest property taxes. That is a problem when the county relies more and more on property taxes to fund everything the county has to do to serve its residents. We need a strong business foundation to create growth. The county is stagnant because of a lack of opportunity for the younger generations. They are going where the jobs are, not the houses.

    The 30,000+ housing units in the pipeline are not being built, even when permitted, because, developers are facing “financial issues” (can’t make enough money on the project), “changing market conditions” (no jobs, no one can buy homes- people are leaving).
    AHS will spur speculation. The Planning Staff doesn’t deny that and has no answers. We are already seeing investment fund developers from out of state getting involved in our real estate markets. Up-zoning 80+% of the county will make it that much easier to have foreign investment in multi-plexes next door.

    The smaller units that the Planning Department is pushing for, will drive market prices up. The newest town homes built now are priced over 1 million dollars on average, especially near transit hubs. Also the stipulation that apartment buildings will only be 19 units is because if a builder builds more than 19, that builder, by law, has to include Moderately Priced Dwelling Units in their plans. The policy, touted by the Planning Board/Staff will gentrify those smaller lower cost homes that exist in these neighborhoods near transit. It will force people of color and minorities out. The policy is not about equality or equity. It ignores the toll on NOAH which will be severe. The AHSI policy is racist.

    Also the plan is unfair and biased: why doesn’t the other 20% of the county “qualify” for up-zoning? Why is Potomac essentially left out of the targeted area which is so large? The Planning Staff answer is that Potomac doesn’t have a proximal transit hub. That doesn’t hold up when you look at River Road which has been named a “growth corridor”. There is no significant transit on River Road except for an intermittent bus route. Also the RR Corridor ends at the Beltway. Potomac has lots of acreage to build multiplex units, why is the plan biased and certain residential neighborhoods are left exempt?
    AHSI doesn’t address environmental consequences and the response to that challenge is negligible at best. There is no answer to the loss of tree canopy, infrastructure needs, storm water run off which will only be worse as climate change continues. Also impervious surfaces of more multiplex hardscape will be greater than just one single home. Developers are going to be given dispensations from the impacts of these environmental changes. They are given incentives monetarily and are absolved of the responsibilities of the impacts on infrastructure and incurred costs (like education). The explanation on the part of Planning is weak and needs much more study.

    The Planning Staff answer to increased traffic congestion just ignores the question. To claim that multi-unit housing types will be built slowly and that it actually reduces the need for cars is not a viable answer. There is no data to support any of these conjectures. If the Planning Board and Staff think that the building of these multi-units will be incremental and slow, why are they spending so much time and money on something that won’t be realized or effectively seen? Why not work within the Master Plans that exist and spend that valuable taxpayer money and time on thinking through specific areas that can support more housing at affordable, subsidized prices. Why spend money on this exercise; spend money on a plan that will utilize existing areas like empty shopping centers and office buildings and execute the affordable, subsidized housing that the County needs. In the meantime, the County Council should be focussed on bringing good jobs at good incomes into the county with the education these jobs demand. Before the Council makes any decision on AHSI, the Council should make sure that every resident in Montgomery County gets a letter delivered that explains the Attainable Housing Strategy and what impact it will have on county homeowners.

  12. David C. Johnson, MD, FAAOS

    Marc Elrich stated that there were 10000 homes/projects already permitted. Developers are not building because the job market is not growing in this county—and the population is decreasing. They aren’t building high rises (where the county makes money) because “the rents aren’t high enough”. This is a deeper problem than a housing market where the houses end in a bidding war. To rezone 82% of the county and destroy single family zoning is a misguided and destructive—aside from being a profoundly unpopular— solution (and the voting public will take note). We have to look at master plans and think about affordable housing, not market priced housing. Lisa Govoni said, when asked about infrastructure impact, that “impact would be minimal” because “many of these types of housing will not be built”. Then why is this strategy a plan that makes sense? The first and easiest thing developers will do is knock down the affordable housing to build what is market price. They are doing this in Bethesda right now. Battery Lane is a good example of this.

    I agree with many of the concerns raised be attendees of the “listening sessions” about infrastructure, parking, one-size-fits-all zoning, deficient notification and public input, environment, etc. I believe the Planning Department and the Planning Board have lost credibility with their failure to provide the public adequate data to support AHSI—and that the evidence available from their own studies, in fact, undermines the proposal, however their good intentions might be. I ask you to consider the following points:

    Contradictory or misleading underlying data raises questions about whether AHSI is even needed.
    – The Planning Department’s own pipeline records state that as of September 2024 there are 35,240 unbuilt approved units (https://montgomeryplanning.org/tools/research/development-pipeline/). 
    – The Residential Capacity Analysis in 2020 (https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/) found that the county had zoned capacity for 65,000 units. 
    – The recent finding that the county did not accurately report the number of housing units in issued permits (https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OLO/Resources/Files/2024_reports/OLOReport2024-10.pdf) strongly suggests that underlying data used by Planning led to inaccurate, low conclusions about the numbers of existing housing stock and future capacity.
    – Income data presented to support the claimed need for attainable housing appears to be for individuals, not dual-income families. Without data on two-income families the income analysis is misleading.
    – Planning’s analysis showing a rise in lower income residents, and COG’s finding that 75% of new residents will need housing assistance, does not make sense with AHSI’s focus on “attainable” as opposed to “affordable” housing (https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Income-Shifts-Research-Brief-Final.pdf).
    – AHSI fails to consider the lack of jobs for young professionals, both starting positions and opportunities to advance. https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/12_17Advancing-the-Pike-District-Briefing_Staff-Report_121720.pdf notes that White Flint has not attracted housing development because there are not enough jobs in the area. This is probably a more important factor in middle-income people  leaving the county than housing issues, yet AHSI contains no recognition of this dynamic.
    – COG has changed the population projections downward several times but Planning continues to use the original, higher projections.
     
    Transportation assumptions are unrealistic.
    – We do not have a robust, reliable, frequent and affordable mass transit system.
    – Expectations that people will give up cars are not supported in local research. COG’s population projections when considered in light of Planning’s 2023 Travel Monitoring Report (https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023TravelMonitoringReport.pdf) suggest that  a predicted 20% population increase could more than offset the decline in car travel as a result of the pandemic. 
    – This report also shows a decline in bicycle travel.
    – It also shows that in every instance it takes longer to travel by public transit than by automobile.
    – The report relies on data from 2022 at the latest, when commuting was still reduced due to Covid. An update is needed: the pandemic threat is diminished and there are increasing calls for people to return to the office.
     
    AHSI is unfair to current residents.
    – The Residential Capacity Analysis in 2020 (https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/residential-development-capacity-analysis/#_ftn1) suggests that because various market factors are holding back market rate developers, our planners and the Planning Board have decided it is acceptable to burden older established communities and their residents with additional housing that the market is not providing.
    – The proposed developer incentives and waivers will increase the tax burden on existing residents to pay for the infrastructure necessary to increase capacity for new residents.
    – The burden on unincorporated communities, which often have smaller lots and narrower streets, will be exacerbated if municipalities and homeowners’ associations are exempted from meeting any additional housing requirements or protected against specific zoning changes. 
    – It is unclear what AHSI will do to existing master plans. Current residents invested in their neighborhoods because of expectations created by master plans.
    – It is unclear how, and even whether, the master planning process will be used in the future, and whether there is a meaningful role for public input.
     
    Officials and planners are sending contradictory messages regarding the need for AHSI.
    – We have been told by council members, planning commissioners and staff that the proposed changes need to be made now, on a large scale, countywide, to meet potential housing needs.
    – We have also been told change will be incremental.
    – These contradictions highlight the imperative to make any zoning changes through master plans. Without master and sector planning, implementation of the changes will be haphazard and unfair, as reflected, for example, in data showing that theBethesda/Chevy Chase area already has 28 ongoing projects slated to deliver 6,978 units (including 942 MPDUs) in the next several years, which exceeds the target of 3,425 units. (https://www.townofchevychase.org/DocumentCenter/View/4547/TOCC-Testimony-AHSI-3-21-2024)
     
    The effort to “sell” AHSI has included questionable claims and assumptions and omits RE/SJ issues.
    – Planners claim that height, lot coverage, and setbacks will remain the same as for single-family houses. This has not been the case with other housing changes, notably ADUs.
    – Planning’s Missing Middle Housing Market Study (https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Missing-Middle-Market-Study_03-04-2021_Staff-Report.pdf) pages 2-5 lists among obstacles to missing middle that “The existing R60 zoning/development standards do not physically accommodate Missing Middle housing, even a duplex. Lot coverage, height limits, and setbacks were the most common items mentioned in relation to challenges with development standards.” 
    – AHSI assumes that developers will choose to build so-called attainable housing but the Missing Middle Market Study raises questions about how attainable multiplexes would be. (https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Missing-Middle-Market-Study_03-04-2021_Staff-Report.pdf, see page 12.) 
    – Despite the OLO report (https://www.scribd.com/document/558161463/OLO-RESJ-Review-of-Thrive-2-9-22-Revised) and the outside consultant’s findings on racial equity and social justice in Thrive Montgomery 2050, there is nothing in AHSI regarding displacement and gentrification, which are far more likely to affect lower income and Brown and Black communities. 
    – Population and behavior projections become less reliable as they reach further into the future. AHSI also seems to include an implicit assumption that demand for single-family housing will diminish. A one-size-fits-all plan such as AHSI must include defined metrics and time periods for review and adjustment. 
    – The developer of three $3,650,00 townhouses at 4500 Walsh Street in downtown Bethesda chose not to  take advantage of a change in zoning from R-60 to CRT 0.5 C 0.25 R 0.5 H 70. The CRT zoning would have allowed him to build a 70′ tall apartment/condo building, and if he provided at least 17.6% MPDUs he could have had another floor or two including more market rate apartments. 
    – Despite approved development applications already in Bethesda since adoption of the 2017 Bethesda Downtown Plan approaching the soft cap of 30.4 million square feet, amenities and infrastructure in the plan have not kept pace. With AHSI, Planning’s claim that development provides funding for needed infrastructure and amenities in the County is ludicrous, especially as the Planning Board proposes  more incentives including reductions and waivers in taxes and fees.
     
    The Council must look at related planning efforts. For example:
    – Planning is proposing to remove the density cap on development in Bethesda via a minor master plan amendment – despite the fact that, as noted above, none of the parks or amenities (for example, a recreation center) the plan calls for have been delivered. (Planning’s recommendation to remove the cap will be published on Thursday, October 17, 2024.)
    – A new master plan is in the works for Friendship Heights.
    – The cumulative effect of AHSI, removal of the density cap in the Bethesda Downtown Plan, and adding density to Friendship Heights will make Wisconsin Avenue/355 unnavigable and living conditions around it difficult for every resident, visitor, and employee in the area.
     
    AHSI would continue Planning’s effort to reduce public input.
    – The first draft of Thrive included specific language to drastically reduce public input, the first clear effort to do so. AHSI’s proposal to allow more by-right development and administrative approvals as Thrive is implemented reduces public input.
    – AHSI does not adequately address when, where, or how neighbors can raise concerns about development that is problematic. For example: drainage issues that affect neighboring properties, onsite parking for multiple cars within side and rear setbacks that reduce tree canopy and create air and noise pollution for neighbors.
     
    There is a lack of clarity about the process going forward. 
    – The Planning, Housing, and Parks Committee has not made public its schedule or process for moving forward with AHSI.
    – The Council needs to consider the accuracy of the underlying data and projections made by Planning, and determine what additional studies Council staff  or Planning or outside experts must do. Reassurances from Planning without data are meaningless (https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/attainable-housing-strategies-what-were-hearing/).
    The necessary studies must be integrated into any housing proposal.

    There is a perceived conflict of interest.
    -The list of political donors to the campaign chests of members of the Council include developers, who would be the primary beneficiaries from passage of the AHSI.
    -The County desperately needs affordable housing—few if any teachers, firefighters or service workers would be able to afford “market rate housing” which the AHSI is to produce. The AHSI seems to primarily benefit developers—for example, the “small apartment buildings” are to provide only 19 units. Is this so developers are saved from building 20 or more units, which would trigger less profitable (for the developer) affordable units to be required? That is a major “tell.”
    – Why is only 82% of the County targeted for further increased density (in areas that have mature, well established communities, some with limited public transportation, narrow streets and many without sidewalks), and others (for instance beyond the Beltway in the River Road Growth Corridor), where density is less and with more room for the proposed multiplexes are being left alone? Who is being protected? Is this where the Council’s political donors live, or the Council’s families or friends? Doesn’t pass the smell test.
     
    AHSI is the wrong program for our County. MoCo needs a realistic, transparent housing plan, supported by data and impact analysis. AHSI is not that. 

  13. Beth

    This proposal is a slap in the face to all citizens who have worked to protect our homes and this county. It is offensive to the middle class which is in constant dischord and danger under the current political situation. Those of us who work and save are being undermined by your lack of attention and care. This proposal is un-American and un- democratic. How dare you, politicians!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *