Montgomery County hearing on 'More Housing Now' splits residents over upzoning, tax abatements and infrastructure

Montgomery County residents and housing advocates filled a council hearing on the 'More Housing Now' package on March 17 as supporters said the zoning changes are a necessary step to address an acute housing shortage while opponents urged pauses, additional studies and tighter protections to prevent displacement.

Proponents framed the package as a practical set of reforms to allow duplexes, triplexes and small multifamily buildings along major corridors and to speed conversion of underused offices to housing. Dan Reed, Maryland policy director for Greater Greater Washington, said local zoning power is a key lever and urged the council to pass the package as part of a broader push to reverse rising costs: “This county’s official policy on land use, Thrive 2050, is explicit about the need to make our zoning more flexible,” Reed said.

Advocates from Montgomery for All, Action in Montgomery and other groups said modest reforms by right, corner‑lot inclusion and more permissive corridor maps would expand housing options for younger residents and essential workers. Alex Campbell, a University of Maryland civil engineering student, told the council his generation’s future depends on it and cited local price data to make the case that new housing types can be more affordable than single‑family homes.

Opponents, including homeowners associations and multiple civic associations, urged the council to slow the process and provide detailed infrastructure analyses. Karen Bolte of the Wildwood Manor Citizens Association cited school‑capacity figures (for example, Ashburton Elementary’s cited capacity numbers) and warned that aging water mains and stormwater systems could be overburdened by sudden density increases.

Several speakers challenged the financial incentives in related legislation. Multiple residents criticized Bill 2-25’s proposed 25‑year tax abatement for office‑to‑housing conversions as an excessive developer subsidy that would shift fiscal burdens to homeowners and could reduce revenue available for schools and other services. As one speaker put it, the tax relief “feels like a corporate giveaway” and raises questions about how foregone revenue will be replaced.

Other recurring concerns included parking and emergency‑vehicle access on narrow streets, potential lot assemblage that could enable much larger developments than neighbors expect, and the risk of gentrification and displacement in historically Black and Latino neighborhoods. Kim Prasad, speaking from Wheaton, framed the package as accelerating a “gentrification machine” unless safeguards are added.

Supporters responded to those concerns with policy fixes and targeted amendments: Action Committee for Transit urged locating new housing within transit sheds and consulting with affordable‑housing builders; several speakers suggested retaining optional site‑plan review for sensitive sites, clarifying maps with appendices that list eligible lots, and ensuring on‑site stormwater controls.

The council did not vote on any of the measures during the hearing. Council members heard hours of testimony and were asked repeatedly by speakers on both sides to either slow the process to permit more detailed impact analyses or to move more decisively to expand housing supply. The record for the hearings will remain open through deadlines announced by council staff and the items were referred to upcoming committee work sessions for further deliberation.