Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the More Housing Now topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lengthy public hearing on 'More Housing Now' package exposes deep divides: advocates call for urgent action, residents warn of infrastructure and displacement
Summary
At a marathon public hearing on ZTA 2502/2503 and related pilot Bill 2‑25, supporters (including planning board, housing advocates, developers and business groups) urged measures to increase housing supply and convert vacant offices, while many residents and civic associations warned the package was rushed, lacked infrastructure analysis, risked displacement, and needed stronger affordability and anti‑displacement safeguards.
The Montgomery County Council devoted a large portion of its public‑hearing calendar to the “More Housing Now” package — a trio of zoning text amendments and an accompanying pilot to encourage workforce housing and commercial‑to‑residential conversions. Testimony ran for hours and sharply divided speakers.
Supporters, including Planning Board Chair Artie Harris, industry groups and housing advocates, argued the county faces a structural shortage of housing—particularly for middle‑income workers—and that modest zoning changes and a targeted tax‑abatement pilot will unlock conversions of vacant office and retail space. "Our county has been steadily losing our middle‑income residents," Planning Board Chair Artie Harris said, citing long‑term affordability declines and endorsing the package as a multi‑pronged response.
Housing advocates and nonprofits urged doubling down on down‑payment assistance and making financing tools accessible; Habitat for Humanity Metro Maryland’s CEO described the package as expanding both supply and homeownership pathways.
Opponents—individual residents, civic associations and some labor and faith groups—raised repeated objections: many said the corridor maps and lot‑chaining rules were unclear, public outreach had been inadequate, and key analyses were missing. Residents cited traffic, parking, school capacity, stormwater and tree‑canopy impacts. "This package is being rushed," said Michelle Penn of Camp Mill, who warned the proposal would intensify parking and traffic problems and change neighborhood character.
Several witnesses cautioned that the proposed pilot’s 25‑year full property‑tax abatement could be fiscally harmful and risk widening racial and economic disparities unless paired with stronger affordability safeguards and monitoring. Labor groups and unions also flagged revenue loss and enforcement concerns.
Some civic groups proposed middle‑ground amendments: limit parcel chaining, retain site‑plan public review (rather than administrative waivers), require minimum on‑site parking in constrained areas, ban stormwater waivers, and adopt anti‑displacement protections to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing.
Council members did not take a vote; staff noted committee work sessions are scheduled (planning, housing and parks; government operations and fiscal policy) and asked interested parties to submit written testimony by posted deadlines. The hearing record will inform deliberations and potential amendments in the coming weeks.
