Thanks to all the residents who have commented on the Thrive Montgomery 2050 plan and related matters, including zoning proposals that could affect Takoma Park. As I continue to review the plan and look more deeply at this entire landscape of issues, what’s written below is a summary of my current thinking. My statement is centered on housing, which has been the key topic driving the neighborhood discussions, though it’s just one part of the very complex Thrive plan. Thrive updates the County’s planing document from the mid-1960s by laying out a 30-year structure for County development, focused on economic health, community equity, and environmental resiliency.
I’d like to make clear at the outset that -- as noted already by some residents -- Thrive is a framework, a set of goals. While some elements of it could move forward right away if the overall plan is approved, zoning and land use changes could be implemented only through subsequent actions by the County Council, with an opportunity for input from Takoma Park residents and the City Council. This means that -- whatever version of the plan may ultimately be approved by the County Council -- there would only be zoning or land use changes that apply to Takoma Park if such changes were adopted separately after that approval. Here’s a link to information on the Thrive plan: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/master-plan-list/general-plans/thrive-montgomery-2050/
At this point, while the County Planning Board recently approved Thrive, the County Council is still in the process of reviewing the plan. Thrive is currently under consideration by the County Council’s Committee on Planning, Housing, and Economic Development (PHED). The PHED Committee’s next session on Thrive is scheduled for October 11 at 1:30 PM, with a focus on “Affordable and Attainable Housing” (detailed background materials haven’t yet been posted): https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/Resources/Files/agenda/cm/2021/20211011/20211011_PHED_AG.pdf
It’s certainly the case that if Thrive is approved by the County Council, it will heavily influence decisions on zoning that may follow. But, again, Thrive by itself won’t automatically implement zoning changes, and Takoma Park residents and the City Council would be able to weigh in on any proposed modifications. This could include proposals along the lines of the Attainable Housing recommendations, prepared by County staff as one approach for implementing some of Thrive’s housing goals. Those recommendations do include making it easier to put duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes in areas currently zoned for single family homes. You can see some details on the Attainable Housing concepts here: https://montgomeryplanning.org/planning/housing/attainable-housing-strategies-initiative/. With these and other proposals in circulation, once we have a clearer sense of the timing for County action, I look forward to the Council and the community having further discussions on this set of issues.
Takoma Park’s then-City Manager Suzanne Ludlow sent two letters expressing overall support for the plan on behalf of the City and the Council, one in December 2020 to the Planning Board and the other this past June to the County Council. Looking back over the letters, I might prefer an edit or two to clarify our interest in being part of the discussions especially on implementing the housing components of the plan. However, I do think it was helpful for Takoma Park to be on the record in this fashion. In any case, the letters don’t commit the City to any specific zoning proposals, and they do call for Thrive to be implemented equitably across the County. That’s a key point, given the concerns expressed by some residents about the plan potentially applying only or primarily to Takoma Park and other nearby parts of the County. I can’t attach a link here to the letters, but can forward copies to anyone upon request.
In terms of specific proposals that could emerge from this process, I’d like to see policies that encourage creation of affordable and “missing middle” housing here in the City. I’m worried we’re moving toward having generally affordable rental units and increasingly unaffordable single family homes, without much in the middle. Promoting more condominiums, smaller starter homes, and new affordable and market rate rental units is part of the City’s housing strategic plan: https://documents.takomaparkmd.gov/initiatives/project-directory/Housing-Econ-Dev-Strategic-Plan/HCD-20190827-HED-SP-combined_web.pdf. Expanding our stock of these housing types can be valuable for younger families and working people who want to move to the City and also for empty nesters who are ready to down-size but wish to remain here.
I hope we can create more affordable and missing middle housing through development of the former Adventist Hospital site, as part of a renovated New Hampshire Avenue Recreation Center, and perhaps elsewhere on New Hampshire. But I don’t think we should limit our efforts to those areas. I believe we ought to look at creating more flexibility in housing types in our single family neighborhoods as well. These areas already have some duplexes and a few condo buildings. And while I wouldn’t favor opening up all residential neighborhoods in the County to every housing type, I do think a thoughtfully designed approach aimed at promoting more diversity among residents and some higher density in single family areas is doable.
However, as I noted when County Councilmember Will Jawando put forward his zoning reform concept earlier this year, I’d like more assurances that affordable units would be created if there’s going to be encouragement of more density in single family areas, though I understand missing middle homes don’t necessarily need to meet more typical affordability standards. For my comments on his proposal, scroll down to “Update on Key Issues” in this link: http://www.councilmemberkovar.com/blog/2021/1/26/january-27-2021-city-council-meeting-agenda-amp-more?rq=Jawando
By way of illustration, if a single family home in the City close to the Metro station is replaced by a duplex, we’d likely end up with two units costing as much as $700,000 each. I don’t think that would do much to move the needle on affordability. In cases where the City has gotten involved in promoting affordable housing by stepping in to prevent single family homes from being flipped (as in our current project with Habitat for Humanity, which will create several affordable home ownership opportunities), the amount of time and staff effort required to advance the project makes it very challenging to replicate on a wider scale.
The reality is that affordable units (whether for sale or rent) are rarely created without a government subsidy (whether rental assistance, tax relief, direct grants, etc.). So I’d like to see an increase in County financial support for affordable housing linked with any zoning changes aimed at increasing density. And, as called for in the City’s strategic plan, I’d like to see us develop a relationship with one or more outside partners (like a bank, foundation, or non-profit) to help us work toward a broader increase in our affordable housing stock, as opposed to trying to achieve that goal one project at a time. Because much of the price increase pressure we see here locally is the result of much larger regional forces, without some bigger outside help (from the County or other partners), a City of our size can be swamped when it comes to home prices.
As I also noted with regard to Councilmember Jawando’s proposal, we need to have a better understanding of the potential impact of ideas for increasing density on stormwater and the tree canopy, not to mention what would happen in historic areas. My understanding of the concepts in the Thrive plan are that they wouldn’t change the need for individual approval of major changes to homes in the historic district, and that our stormwater requirements and tree ordinance would still apply. If necessary, we can seek clarifications on those points as the process unfolds, and we can also press for clearer guidance on whether and how existing limits on height, setbacks, building footprint, etc. apply, including in the Attainable Housing proposals.
While offering feedback of this sort is part of the process, in reading through the comments on the neighborhood email lists and talking separately to residents, it’s my sense we’re far from a consensus on these issues. That’s one reason I think it would be helpful for the Council to explore these topics when appropriate, taking into account the County’s schedule. There’s a vast terrain between allowing construction of high rise apartments next door to single family homes and keeping everything exactly how it is today. I hope we can work together to find the best path forward.
I recognize that for many residents their homes constitute their largest investment, and are central to their daily lives, as are their neighborhoods. Plus, here in Takoma Park we really love our community. So we should proceed carefully as we contemplate any changes. And our thinking should take into account historical context. That includes the important work done over the years by undaunted residents who -- among other actions -- stopped the freeway from obliterating our neighborhood and fought to preserve some of our wonderful historic homes.
I also think we need to tread cautiously when we consider the impact of single family housing, given the economic divisions that exist in Takoma Park, and the history of single family zoning in this country. In that connection, I’d second the recommendation made on one of the neighborhood lists for The Color of Law by Richard Rothstein. Whatever each of us thinks and does personally and career-wise, we all need to reckon with our country’s racist past. That applies across the board. But specifically with regard to housing and development policy, Rothstein makes the impact of racism abundantly clear. I believe the history he presents should be brought into our discussions on these issues when relevant, as we also work to make sure the environmental, affordability, equity and other concepts Thrive embodies are implemented in a way that works for Takoma Park.
I’m glad to talk by phone or meet individually with residents who would like to discuss any of these matters, and if there’s interest I could set up a Ward One meeting to help foster a larger conversation. Perhaps we could meet in-person outdoors rather than convening another remote access gathering. Please let me know what you think.
Here are two additional links which may be of interest:
Myths and Facts on the Thrive plan: https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/thrive-facts-vs-myths.pdf
More Information on Attainable Housing Recommendations: https://montgomeryplanningboard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/item7_Attainable-Housing-Strategies-06.17.21_Final.pdf