Category: Transit-Oriented Development

RELEASE: Housing and transit advocates support legislation to build more homes at Metro sites

Posted on by Emily Maurer
2020.07.06-Press-Release-WMATA-Tax-Abatement-Bill-29-20Download

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Monday, July 6, 2020 

CONTACT:

Jane Lyons, Coalition for Smarter Growth

jane@smartergrowth.net | (410) 474-0741 

Housing and transit advocates support legislation to build more homes at Metro sites 

Montgomery County, Md – This afternoon, the Coalition for Smarter Growth stood alongside Montgomery County Councilmember Hans Riemer as he publicly introduced legislation to support high-rise construction on Metro stations. 

Transit-oriented development is necessary to build sustainable communities. The legislation would offer a 15- year property tax abatement for high-rise construction located on land leased from the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). 

“This is a promising approach. Housing on top of Metro stations is key to meeting housing demand without putting new cars on the road,” said Jane Lyons, CSG’s Maryland Advocacy Manager. “This strategy will help the county meet its climate, economic development, and housing goals.” 

Multiple housing construction projects on Montgomery County’s Metro stations have either been delayed or cancelled due to the financial difficulty. Rents are not often enough to cover high construction costs, especially outside of downtown Bethesda. Development on WMATA property can face additional costs due to parking replacement practices and engineering challenges. 

“High-rise construction on Metro stations gives us the most bang for the buck,” Lyons said. “More homes means more Metro riders, more transit revenue, and more permanently affordable housing.” 

The tax abatement is estimated to incentivize up to 8,600 units, including 1,300 affordable units. The affordable units will be created through the county’s affordable set-aside of 12.5 to 15 percent of units for households at 70 percent of the area median income. Montgomery County has resolved to meet its regional housing target of 41,000 new housing units by 2030. This proposal is part of a comprehensive housing package from Councilmember Hans Riemer, which is complemented by legislation from other councilmembers. 

“We look forward to supporting the legislative process to ensure the tax abatement approach is a cost- effective way to catalyze far more housing opportunities at Metro stations, including more permanently affordable homes,” said Lyons. 

### 

The Coalition for Smarter Growth is the leading organization in the Washington, DC region dedicated to making the case for smart growth. Our mission is to promote walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities, and the land use and transportation policies needed to make those communities flourish.

CSG Testimony Re: Subdivision Staging Policy

Posted on by Emily Maurer

June 5, 2020 

Montgomery Planning Board

8787 Georgia Ave

Silver Spring, MD 20910 

2020-2024 Subdivision Staging Policy (Item 7) 

Testimony for June 11, 2020 

Jane Lyons, Maryland Advocacy Manager 

2020.06.01-CSG-Testimony-for-6-11-20-FullDownload

Chair Anderson and Planning Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to testify. This testimony is on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the DC region advocating for more walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. Please see below for our comments on the 2020-2024 Subdivision Staging Policy (SSP) working draft. Generally, we urge you to support policies that encourage sustainable growth patterns and maintaining a high-quality school system. 

Schools & Taxes: 

1. We strongly support the elimination of automatic housing moratoria throughout most of the county. The staff recommendation to create School Impact Areas correctly takes into consideration the distinct development contexts of different areas and how those contexts impact school enrollment growth. 

The current moratorium policy assumes that the majority of new student generation comes from new development. However, we now know from the data that stopping development does not actually solve school overcrowding – less than 30 percent of school enrollment growth can be attributed to new development. Most new students come from young families moving into existing single-family homes – not from new apartment buildings. 

The working draft also correctly identifies the other negative impacts of the current housing moratorium policy, including worsening housing affordability, hindering economic development, and preventing sustainable growth patterns. Rather than locating in a transit-oriented neighborhood, households and businesses alike are pushed into less desirable areas for growth. We should do all we can to encourage new housing in major transit and job hubs, not ban it – especially during a recession. 

2. We support reducing the school impact tax to 100 percent of the cost of a seat, maintaining the current rate at 120 percent in the Agricultural Reserve, and further lowering the rate to 60 percent in Activity Centers. This recommendation correctly recognizes that impact taxes are a tool to either incentivize or disincentivize economic development. In some cases, it may be worth lowering impact taxes in order to expand the overall, long-term tax base and promote growth in the places we want to see it. Although, we’d like to note that some of the identified Activity Centers in outer areas lack transit and are overly large. 

Montgomery County has one of the highest school impact taxes in the region. Even at this comparatively high rate, school impact fees only funded approximately 8 percent of the Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) capital budget in both FY19 and FY20. For FY21, impact taxes are only 6 percent of the MCPS capital budget, while recordation taxes fund nearly 24 percent of the budget. In short, reducing the school impact tax for areas where we desire growth will not make or break the MCPS capital budget, but impact taxes do play a significant role in whether new home projects pencil out. Even if a project can move forward at the existing tax rate, the increased cost is ultimately passed onto buyers through higher housing prices. 

3. We are concerned by the proposed Utilization Premium Payments. 

We should not charge developers for impacts not caused by their project. If a school is already overcrowded, it is because of past student enrollment growth and points to a larger funding failure within the county to raise and allocate enough resources to adequately fund schools’ capital needs. A future project will add to the overutilization, which is why future projects should contribute to the school impact fee pool to fund the seats of any students that project generates. 

This recommendation will not build schools, just as the past School Facility Fees provided marginal funding at best – Utilization Premium Payments will only deter economic development. However, we would support increasing the school impact tax from 60 percent to 100 percent for projects located in Activity Centers with overcrowded schools. 

4. We support progressive increases to the recordation tax. 

While we do not think the Utilization Premium Payments have a strong nexus, the recordation tax does. Since over 70 percent of new students come from neighborhood turnover and recordation taxes account for nearly a quarter of the MCPS capital budget, it makes sense to target home purchases to fund school capacity projects. 

We especially support an increase that is progressive, thus raising prices more on homes over $1.5 million, with an expansion of the first-time homebuyer exemption. Staff estimates that these changes would have raised roughly $20 million more for school construction in FY19. Nevertheless, if increasing the recordation tax is not feasible, we recommend instead adjusting the distribution of the revenue to increase the share going to schools and affordable housing. 

5. We oppose ending the impact tax exemption for downtown Silver Spring. 

As previously stated, impact taxes are a tool to either incentivize or disincentivize economic development, and it’s important to consider the short-term tradeoffs for longer term benefits. The Silver Spring impact tax exemption is a perfect example of this: between 2006 and 2016, the exemption only cost the county $5.8 million. Although Silver Spring is the only Enterprise Zone to successfully graduate from the program, its future success is far from guaranteed, especially in the current difficult economic environment. 

A few things that weren’t mentioned: The working draft does not reference the capacity relief that boundary changes would bring system-wide, reducing the need for some expensive capital projects. Utilization is one of the three factors being examined by the current boundary analysis. We also urge the staff to make note of the effect that flexible school siting and creative project financing techniques could bring on the MCPS capital budget. 

We recognize that these recommendations fall under the jurisdiction of MCPS and the Board of Education, not the SSP. Still, we believe those ideas warrant mentioning. Furthermore, it is apparent that there needs to 

be a better dialogue between MCPS, the Board of Education, Planning Board, and the County Council. Schools issues are greatly interconnected with housing, health, transportation, and more, and should be treated as such by the county’s various institutions. 

Transportation: 

We appreciate and strongly support the move to better incorporate Vision Zero into the Subdivision Staging Policy, as well as the recommendation to increase intersection delay standards along Purple Line and BRT corridors. This small adjustment would save lives and support walkability around these future transit nodes. 

We understand the objective to look at policy area transportation impacts for Master Plans, but are unsure why this should require a mandate within the SSP. If this recommendation moves forward, we believe that there should be higher standards than the baseline requirements to help us work towards our mode share, climate, and congestion goals. For example, we should set more equal standards for average time per trip. 19 minutes for auto trips and 52 minutes for transit encapsulates the transit inequities ingrained into our land use and transportation planning. We must do better. 

Thank you for your consideration.

CSG Testimony Regarding the DTSS Master Plan Boundary

Posted on by Emily Maurer

Chair Anderson and Planning Commissioners, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am speaking on behalf of the Coalition for Smarter Growth, the leading organization in the DC region advocating for more walkable, inclusive, transit-oriented communities. We support expanding the boundary of the Silver Spring Downtown Plan, in line with option D.

Thoughts about where we live on this Earth Day

Thoughts about where we live on this Earth Day

Posted on by Cheryl Cort

Where we live and how we design our communities matters

Today we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Day, when millions of people took to the streets to demand better stewardship of the planet that is our home. While we may not be able to gather in the same way on this day, we can reflect on actions we can take.

Just as natural systems on our Earth are interconnected, so too are land use, housing, transportation, and our environment. Reliance on cars is the single largest source of carbon emissions in the U.S. and a major contributor to respiratory illnesses, however, by designing our communities to reduce reliance on vehicles we can create a safer, healthier world.

That’s why CSG has campaigned for walkable, transit-oriented communities. We recently released a presentation and fact sheet summarizing the benefits of transit-oriented communities for fighting climate change.

Amid the COVID-19 crisis, people are rediscovering the value of walking and bicycling, and the need for parks, greenways, and safe streets for our quality of life. Dedicating more space for bicycling and walking on our streets will allow for better physical distancing and reduce air pollution and carbon emissions.

Just as we need to focus on stopping future pandemics with science, preparation, and global cooperation, we will need to do the same if we are going to address the existential threat of climate change. We are social creatures and our walkable cities, towns, and urban neighborhoods offer important social, economic, and environmental benefits that we will continue to depend upon as a society.

So, thank you for supporting CSG and more sustainable communities. We wish you the best on this Earth Day and hope that you and your families are safe and healthy.

All the best,
Stewart, Cheryl, Jane, Sonya, Emily and Alina

Photo credit: Jane Lyons

CSG Comments on Thrive 2050 Draft Vision and Goals

Posted on by Emily Maurer

April 15, 2020

Montgomery Planning Board

8787 Georgia Avenue

Silver Spring, MD 20910

Re: Montgomery Thrive 2050 Draft Vision and Goals

Dear Chair Anderson and Planning Commisioners:

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written comments on the draft vision and goals for Thrive Montgomery 2050. We understand that this is a challenging time due to the coronavirus crisis. The Planning Department’s quick shift to virtual meetings, community engagement, and public testimony is commendable, and we are pleased to see the department’s work plan continue on. We hope that this is an opportunity for the department to experiment with more inclusive, transparent community engagement strategies, which can then be incorporated into outreach going forward. 

The Coalition for Smarter Growth strongly supports the draft vision and goals. The concept – a web of complete, mixed-use communities connected by vibrant transit and green corridors – is strong and builds off of the revolutionary “wedges and corridors” idea. We especially support the strong language around housing, including on ensuring affordability, diversifying the housing stock, and considering housing a right. We are also pleased with the vision of a county no longer developed around the automobile. 

One significant critique of the draft is the language used in reference to transportation. We need to be firm about our commitment to public transit, walking, and biking as the future of transportation in Montgomery County. In recent years, the term “multi-modal” has come to be used as an excuse for continuing car-centric planning standards. If we’re going to significantly alter mode share over the next 30 years, it’s not enough to be multi-modal – we must be transit first. 

As a component of our advocacy for Thrive, we have worked with the community to organize Montgomery for All, a grassroots group committed to ensuring that Thrive paves the way for an equitable, sustainable, prosperous future grounded in the principles of smart growth. We have created a platform with ten goals that we would like to see fully included and built upon in Thrive. Many of our goals are included in this draft, but could be stated more explicitly and expanded upon. Please see our specific feedback below, which addresses these concerns: 

Thrive 2050 Vision: 

• Convenient: We urge you to be stronger and more specific in the goals. “Most” or “many” does not create a bold vision for the future and can be ignored. 

• Healthy: If we can set a goal that every resident lives within a 15 minute walk to a park, then we should also be able to set the same goal for the other components of complete communities, especially healthy food and frequent transit. 

1. Complete Communities: 

• Goal #1: The idea that makes the concept of “complete communities” work is a time constraint on how long it takes to access certain amenities without a car. This has been done by all other communities which have adopted this planning goal, including Paris (15 minutes), Portland (20 minutes), and Copenhagen (5 minutes). We recommend that Thrive adopt 20 minutes as a goal for accessing the required amenities of a complete community. This should become a guiding principle for all future master plans. 

• Goal #4: Equal treatment does not necessarily mean equal outcomes or opportunity. The focus should be on equal outcomes, such as socioeconomic mobility and quality of life measurements, rather than on equal treatment. 

2. Connectedness: 

• Goal #2: We commend the goal of making government planning and decision-making processes accessible, transparent, and easy for all to understand and participate in. In addition, we’d like to see this goal explicitly state the importance of government actively going out into the community for engagement on major actions, rather than expecting the community to come to government. 

3. Diverse Economies: 

• Goal #5: One of Montgomery for All’s goals is to minimize the displacement of small businesses. Thus, we would like this goal to include the protection of small businesses in addition to identifying and removing barriers to establishment and expansion. 

4. Safe and Efficient Travel: 

• Vision: 

o The vision should state that in 2050 heavy reliance on private vehicle “has shifted” rather than “is shifting.” It is essential to shift well before 2050 if the county is to meet its net-zero greenhouse gas emission goals by 2035.

o The frequency of transit is not mentioned in this vision. We know that the two major factors that drive transit use are frequency and reliability.

o We would like to see more about how to county envisions micromobility, autonomous vehicles, and ridesharing playing into the transportation system in 2050. These technologies, especially autonomous vehicles, have both potential positive and negative impacts. Thrive is the place to start thinking through how the county will manage those impacts.

o We urge that the vision include language stating that no new highways will be built, especially during our climate emergency or in the current and likely longer-term challenging budgetary environment. 

• Goals: 

o Goal #1: In addition to shifting mode share, we should also establish goals to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Both goals should be specific and measurable.

o Goal #4: “Multiple travel options” is often repeated throughout this document. However, we would argue that this vision is no different that our current transportation system. Residents may have the option to choose between a private vehicle and local bus service, but because of planning and policy decisions, the private vehicle options is much more attractive than Ride On. Well before 2050, public transit, walking, and biking not only need to be a competitive choices, but also need to be the modes of choice. 

5. Affordability and Attainability: 

• Goal #1: The safety of housing should also be a goal, in addition to type, size, affordability, and location. 

• Goal #2: We would like to see stronger language than “most new housing,” and not only should new housing be in mixed-use locations, but locations that are complete communities. 

• Goal #3: If the county is going to consider housing a right, then we need to set bolder goals than continuing our existing programs. Housing as a right should fundamentally alter how the county approaches housing. 

6. Healthy and Sustainable Environment: 

• Vision: 

o By 2050, all vehicles owned and operated by the county should be zero-emissions. Similarly, biking, walking, and public transit should be the most common modes of travel.

o We would like to see more about net-zero energy buildings in the vision statement. Will all new buildings be net-zero? Were we able to retrofit existing buildings in an equitable way? 

• Goals: We believe that more than three goals are necessary, given the complexity, ambition, and number of topics addressed in the vision statement. 

7. Diverse and Adaptable Growth: 

• Vision: We support the vision that regulatory mechanisms to support development should be nimble, focused on design excellence, and achieve measurable, equitable outcomes. However, we’d like to see equity in diverse and adaptable growth explored further and defined in this context. 

• Goal #3: We strongly support this goal and ask that the adequate public facilities ordinance, capital improvements program, taxes and fees, and review and permitting processes all be reviewed and considered when developing policies and actions for Thrive. 

8. Culture and Design: No comments. 

Sincerely, 

Jane Lyons

Maryland Advocacy Manager

Coalition for Smarter Growth