And, this crisis is all too evident here in Takoma Park.
We have almost no independent local news anymore: no Gazette, no Takoma Voice, and the loss of local coverage by the Post and others. All we really have left is a publication put out by the City staff, the “Takoma Park News.”
But this month, we had a stark reminder that this paper newsletter is not an actual news outlet, but a public relations organ.
Residents have a right to expect factual accuracy in the city newsletter.
Unfortunately, the article on page 4 in the May issue, on the Takoma Park Minor Master Plan Amendment (“the Plan”), is filled with spin and misinformation. (The Plan has now been approved by both City and County Councils).
The Plan upzones to increase land values, incentivizing building owners on Maple and Lee Avenues, and around the former hospital site, to tear down old affordable buildings and build new (larger) ones with higher rents. Someone who did not follow the process closely would be left with the reassuring impression that the Plan ensures that in this gentrification process there will be nonet loss of affordable housing, and a right for current residents to return if their building is renovated or replaced.
And yet, the stark reality is that the plan does not ensure either of those outcomes in any way.
City spin: The article contains a quote stating that the plan “explicitly calls out the right to return.”
Reality: What does the ambiguous term “call out” mean here? Perhaps it simply means the right to return was discussed, or mentioned? Because the truth is that the plan does not ensure any such right to return. It says only that priority should be given to eligible residents to return. So, what happens if a building owner tears down a building and builds a new one? If they define “eligible residents” as those with ability to pay what we know will be a new higher market rate rent, then those residents will be displaced.
City spin: There’s a reference in the article to having “strengthened plan language around no-net loss of affordability.”
Reality: The plan calls only for preserving affordable housing “where practicable.” What if the developer does not deem it practicable? And the plan calls only for “striving for no net loss.” Striving is not ensuring.
City spin: The article casually mentions the idea that “tenant displacement laws appropriately meet the needs of our residents.”
Reality: The Plan only “recommends…strategies to minimize displacement.” A recommendation to develop strategies is not the same as a requirement to prevent displacement. And when the plan talks about minimizing displacement, it is acknowledging, as the Planning Board vice chair acknowledged, that there will be displacement.
ACTION ITEMS
At least one large building filled with affordable housing in the Plan area is already up for sale. How is the City ensuring no residents are displaced with each sale or renovation? Stay alert. Ask questions.
The Planning Board, County Council, and City officials have all mentioned the possibility of reconsidering Takoma Park’s strong rent stabilization policy. This policy helped create our exceptionally affordable housing stock, and has kept Takoma Park an exceptionally diverse city. Now there is pressure to weaken that rent stabilization policy. Stay alert. Ask questions.
We have no more local independent press (most of the remaining local press is dependent on real estate and development advertising). To stay informed, we must demand complete and timely accuracy and transparency in the City’s newsletter. Anything short of this creates further erosion of trust. Stay alert. Ask questions.
Below, we post the Executive Summary of an analysis by Takoma Park resident David Reed, PhD, an author, policy analyst, and longtime organizer for tenants’ rights.
The Struggle for Takoma Park’s Future
Executive Summary
Takoma Park’s Minor Master Plan Amendment (MMPA) will determine the future of our City. Either the plan will provide new housing opportunities for low- and middle-income families on the vacant hospital site and protect low-income families along Maple Avenue. Or it will convert both the hospital site and Maple Avenue into a glistening corridor of 12- and 15-story high apartments as in Bethesda or downtown Silver Spring.
The controversy in Takoma Park began in 2019 when the Adventist Hospital, then the City’s largest employer, moved its operations to a new White Oak location. In mid-2023, after 18 months of preparation, staff of the County Planning Department submitted the MMPA for the City Council’s first review. However, the plan did not offer the public an urban development program. It had no implementation stages, no discernible timeline, no identified lead agency, no budgetary allocation of public resources, and no infrastructure improvements.
What the Planning Department staff submitted was a one-dimensional rezoning proposal. In essence, the plan incentivizes private investors to build more than 3,500 new residential units for as many as 8,400 new residents in Takoma Park, whose population in 2021 was approximately 17,500 residents. The plan envisions building 12- to 15-story high-rise apartments on the old hospital site, identified as “Site 23”. The staff’s proposal also called for the “up-zoning” of the entire length of the Maple Avenue District with its 14 garden-, mid-, and high-rise apartment buildings.
“Planning is never just a bureaucratic or technical exercise: in its essence, it is an exercise of political power.”
“Up-zoning” is urban planners’ preferred tool for increasing the value of land. Through increased land values, planners incentivize builders to tear down old residential buildings and replace them with luxury apartments that will boost owners’ rental profits and increase tax revenues. Up-zoning, unless accompanied by robust government protections and incentives, has driven thousands of Black and Brown families over past decades from their apartments into untold social instability in urban areas across the country.
The Struggle for Takoma Park’s Future contends that, with the recent approval of the MMPA, our City Council, County Council, and Planning Board have abandoned our City’s basic values, vision, and goals. Those goals were first established when it created the Maple Avenue corridor in the 1970s and 80s. During that period, local developers, the Montgomery Housing Partnership, and government agencies drew on federal, state and local financing to create the County’s densest concentration of low-income families. Today, Maple Avenue remains among the County’s most affordable and culturally diverse communities.
Now, the MMPA promises to replace existing, deeply affordable housing with higher-priced apartments that would lead to the displacement of current low-income (primarily Black and Brown) families who would struggle to find housing elsewhere in the County. County planners have also recommended weakening Takoma Park’s rent stabilization law. Throughout the two-year process, County planners repeatedly promised, but never delivered, a comprehensive social equity analysis. In the final measure, an independent equity analysis issued from the County Executive’s office states: The Plan “could do real harm” to vulnerable residents, incentivizes “displacement” along Maple Avenue, and fails to provide resources that will allow “residents to remain” in their place of residence. Moreover, planners have failed to provide a local transportation infrastructure study and an impact analysis on public schools.
As the struggle over the future of Takoma unfolded, City and County Councils embraced the allegedly neutral technical proposals of the County’s urban planners pointing our City towards unregulated, for-profit solutions to our housing crisis. City elected officials abandoned community-driven solutions and priorities built on equity and sustainability, and expressed support for the approved blueprint for a racially inequitable, unjustifiably dense enclave along Maple Avenue.
Expert witnesses, housing professionals, and hundreds of neighbors steadily rallied to modify the MMPA. Under the current County Council, we can expect that what is happening in Takoma Park will be repeated across Montgomery County. To halt that trend, our challenge as a community is to build partnerships with community organizations, tenants, religious groups, unions, elected officials, and socially committed entrepreneurs to promote the following actions:
· Protect Takoma Park’s rent stabilization law
· Promote similar strong statutes in Rockville and Gaithersburg
· Protect tenant-landlord regulations and courts
· Ensure the Montgomery Housing Partnership remains focused on preserving and expanding low-income housing – without displacement
· Encourage moderately priced housing development by non-profits
· Promote public acquisition of land and housing stock
UPDATE: Despite the fact that the City Council was on spring break and held no public meetings on the Equity Review, the Mayor wrote a letter to the County Council supporting the MMPA. The County Council then voted to approve the MMPA on April 2nd.
Our City is being ignored and disrespected by the County Council, which is rushing to approve a plan that could displace vulnerable city residents, gentrify Maple Avenue, and reduce the socioeconomic and racial diversity of our City.
On Monday, County Executive Marc Elrich released the long-awaited independent Racial Equity and Social Justice Review (attached below) of the proposed Takoma Park Minor Master Plan (MMPA). It found the Plan “could lead to real harm” to vulnerable City residents.
The next day, the County Council went ahead with a unanimous “straw vote” that set up approval of the Plan.
The County Council gave themselves, their staff, our Mayor, our City Council, and residents less than 24 hours to absorb or weigh in on the new equity review before that vote.
The County Council has now scheduled a final vote on the Plan at their next meeting, immediately after spring break, on April 2nd.
The City’s last chance to try to improve the Plan and prevent displacement of residents is in this two-week window, unless the County Council postpones the vote.
The City must write a very clear and specific resolution to prevent displacement, now.
ACTION STEP:Write the Mayor and City Council, to urge them to demand a delay of the final County Council vote, to give the City Council time to write a stronger resolution to prevent displacement, in response to the critiques by the County Executive, the County Housing, Transportation and Environment departments, and the equity review.
ACTION STEP: Write the County Council, especially our rep, Council Vice President Kate Stewart (Councilmember.Stewart@montgomerycountymd.gov), to demand that they make changes to the Plan in response to the equity review, and await the City’s review and input before voting on it.
Racial Equity and Social Justice Review findings:
“It does not appear there is a clear rationale provided for why a large swath of multi-family properties are included in a Minor Master Plan aimed at addressing the redevelopment of a hospital campus.”
Residents on Maple “were not informed or asked about zoning changes impacting their place of residence.”
The Review warns that “when you upzone it increases land value and speculation, which can trigger market reactions that lead to displacement of vulnerable residents.”
The Plan lacks the “teeth” to protect our deeply affordable housing.
“No net loss does not go far enough” when newly-built Moderately Priced Dwelling Units (MPDUs) are more expensive than the units they replace.
We should be “looking to increase the affordable housing inventory, not just replace the existing inventory.”
We should ensure that “as the area changes, residents are able to remain, even during the construction phases.”
“Declaring people’s fear of displacement as a ‘perception’ while directly stating that the biggest issue is ‘concentrations of poverty’ that need to be ‘diluted’ with new development is exactly the type of rhetoric that justifiably stokes the fear of displacement.”
The Review points out that “If done well, this could be a successful case study of how to do development without displacement, which would be celebrated as a best-practice and earn the municipality and County positive recognition.”
As a reminder, the County Executive had to order a racial equity review because a racial equity study repeatedly promised by Planning staff turned out to never exist, and the County Council failed to order one. For the County Executive’s critique of the Plan, read his analysis, or watch the video of our Affordable Housing Town Hall.
CVT’s Takoma Park Affordable Housing Town Hall, March 10 2024
Over 85 people came out on a Sunday for our Takoma Park Affordable Housing Town Hall at 7510 Maple Ave (Piney Branch Elementary). The panelists were CVT’s Jessica Landman, CVT’s Denise Jones, and special guest, County Executive Marc Elrich. Takoma Park’s Mayor and two Councilmembers attended. It was the first chance in the entire Plan process for people to ask questions and get immediate answers.
Takoma Park has an unusual density of affordable housing, especially on Maple Avenue. But the County Executive just issued a warning that the proposed Takoma Park Minor Master Plan Amendment (MMPA) will reduce, rather than increase, our stock of affordable housing, and displace residents. The Planning Board and County Council failed to demand an equity study. And planning staff repeatedly promised an equity study that never materialized. So the County Executive finally ordered one. It should be completed very soon. (UPDATE: Find the equity review HERE).
Nevertheless, the County Council housing committee pushed the MMPA through last Monday (March 4) without waiting for the equity study. And the full Council will begin considering it this Tuesday (March 12), apparently without the equity study, and over the objections of residents.
We ask, what is the rush to push ahead without an equity study?
A: This Plan Amendment upzones the former Washington Adventist Hospital site and surrounding neighborhoods, AND all along Maple Avenue from Sligo Creek to the Community Center. (BREAKING: Read the County Executive’s thorough critique of the Plan here. And, County Council will begin voting on the plan TUESDAY MARCH 12th).
Q:What is upzoning?
A: Upzoning increases the zoning to allow buildings of greater heights and more dense neighborhoods. In this case, the upzoning encourages new high-rises in “empty spaces” on Maple, and at the hospital site. The Plan Amendment is designed to allow more than 3500 additional units of housing in the Plan Amendment area, a significant share of that on Maple. This could expand the population of the City by up to 40%. This is not minor.
Q: I understand that we needed to rezone to build housing on the hospital site, but why was Maple Ave included?
A: No one has given a compelling explanation of why the rezoning of Maple was added on to the Plan Amendment. The landscape (already dense) and needs (renovation) on Maple are completely different from the landscape and needs on the abandoned hospital site. So why were they joined? What IS clear is that residents of Maple Avenue were not asked (or adequately informed) about upzoning their neighborhood.
Q: What is wrong with upzoning?
A: Sometimes upzoning is necessary. On the former hospital site, there is common ground that some rezoning is needed to see multi-family housing on that site. But Maple already has dense multifamily housing. Upzoning on Maple Ave will increase land values. Increased land values benefit owners, not renters. Increased land values put pressure on owners to sell or tear down buildings, displacing current residents in order to build market-rate housing. In short, as nationally-renowned architect Carl Elefante’s analysis of the Plan Amendment sums it up, “It threatens, rather than protects and enhances, the City’s most substantial inventory of affordable housing.”
Q: Aren’t most residents on Maple protected by rent stabilization?
A: New “infill” buildings, and buildings that are torn down and rebuilt, do not have to conform to rent stabilization for five years, under City code. Right now, we have the lowest rents in the County. The average rents would rise, creating market pressure. So no, rent-stabilized buildings (less than half the current buildings) are not protected.
Q: Aren’t most of the buildings on Maple protected, because they are owned by non-profits with “deed covenants” to provide government-subsidized apartments?
A: No, only about half of them. We have asked for a map detailing all the apartment buildings that would be affected, and all of the potential “infill” building spots on Maple, but so far there is no such map. What we know is that only about half the housing units on Maple are currently protected by “deed covenants,” and those covenants expire in different years.
Q: I’ve heard that Montgomery County needs more housing. Why not put that housing on Maple?
A: Why are we expecting one of the most dense neighborhoods of affordable housing in the County, on Maple, to shoulder the burden of yet more density? Is there nowhere else in the County to put needed housing? Right now, residents on Maple benefit from the open spaces, green spaces, and parking spaces in their neighborhood. How would residents feel about losing that open space to additional density? Do they want more traffic? More congested schools? Did anyone ask the residents these questions? And, does the City have some plan we haven’t heard about yet to protect them from displacement?
Q: The County says they did outreach to residents on Maple. Did they?
A: Unfortunately, the County outreach campaign occurred during the pandemic, which made it difficult to reach residents. And, the outreach featured sticky note responses to vague questions such as “Why do you love your neighborhood?” and “What would you like to see on the hospital campus?” There is no evidence Maple Avenue residents were asked about how they felt about the effects of upzoning their neighborhood.
Q: But it says the plan recommends “no net loss” of affordable housing. Doesn’t that protect us?
A: New buildings in Takoma Park are free from rent stabilization for five years, and are only required to have 12.5% affordable units. So, even if we built enough buildings to maintain the number of affordable housing units, they won’t have the same people in them, and they won’t be rent-stabilized. And even if we had “no net loss” of housing units, the market will push landlords to build studios and one-bedrooms, which won’t accommodate families. In any case, the Plan’s recommendation for “striving to achieve no net loss of affordable housing” as a goal does not actually require the City, or County, or developers, to reach that “no net loss” target. In other words, it would not be a requirement, just a wish.
Q: Why is this upzoning an equity issue?
A: The City created the dense affordable housing on Maple Avenue through a complex collaboration of non-profits, government, and building owners. Upsetting that delicate balance risks displacement of current residents, who are primarily people of color, and currently benefit from either deed covenant housing (government vouchers) or rent stabilization. There is a risk of overall gentrification as new buildings without rent stabilization are built, and land values rise. And there is a risk of displacement of current Maple Ave residents if current buildings are torn down (either because they are low garden apartments that could become high-rises, or because they are high-rises torn down as “too old” as land values rise). A plan that takes these risks does not conform to the City or County’s commitment to equity, and to preserving affordable housing. And neither the City nor County requires an equity analysis before proceeding with this Plan Amendment.
Q: I’ve heard the high-rises on Maple are old, and need to come down anyway?
A: The most environmentally-friendly way to treat older buildings is to upgrade them, not tear them down. Maple Avenue needs government and non-profits to work together to ensure that the buildings there are safe, efficient, and up-to-date. But this Plan Amendment will not make that happen. Instead, it would incentivize teardowns, which, again, would create displacement.
Q: Surely a racial equity impact analysis is required before approving a MMPA?
A: The County’s Racial Equity and Social Justice (RESJ) Act only requires a formal written racial equity analysis for zoning text amendments (ZTAs), not for a master plan or master plan amendment. However, the Planning staff stated at a Planning Board work session on October 19th (timestamp 5:40:26) that the County’s Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO) would produce an equity analysis. Planning staff repeated that statement in a December document sent to (and posted by) the City. However, we have now learned that the OLO is not undertaking any such analysis. It is not clear why we (residents, city, Planning Board) were told that OLO would produce one. But the end result is that the City and Planning Board approved the plan with the understanding that there would be an equity analysis, which turns out to be nonexistent. County Executive Marc Elrich then commissioned an independent equity review of the Plan, since no one else had done one. But the County Council forged ahead without waiting for the review, which was released in March 2024.
Q: I’ve heard it makes environmental sense to upzone near transit stations for walkable “infill.” Is that what this is?
A: Again, Maple Avenue is already very dense. And Maple Ave is not considered by planners to be walkable distance from the closest major transit center, which is the Takoma Metro. Planners consider “walkable” to be a half-mile, or ten-minute walk. That walk to the metro is not walkable for seniors or people with disabilities, and it takes longer than the ten-minute walk most people are willing to take before they end up using a car instead. So, no, this is not walkable infill development. And, for reasons that are not clear, the County is proposing even more density here than they did for recent rezoning in neighborhoods that actually DO have current or future transit stations, including Glenmont, Forest Glen, or Lyttonsville.
Q: With Sligo Creek Running Through the Plan, Surely the County Did an Environmental Analysis? And, What About Traffic?
A: The City and Planning Board voted on the plan without seeing the climate assessment, which was only released by the Planning staff on January 18th. That assessment found that the plan could increase greenhouse gas emissions by 78% by 2045. The Brashear’s Run creek relic runs underneath Maple Avenue, forming what resident testimony warns is “the low point of a drainage area of some 550 acres” with “a history of stormwater problems.” There was no specific analysis by any government body of whether the stormwater infrastructure can handle massive development with increasing storms. Read an analysis by environmental expert Paul Chrostowski HERE. And there is no plan for a traffic analysis of impact on local streets and other infrastructure effects.
Q:What Changes Would Make a Better Plan?
Reduce the proposed density and heights on the hospital site so that high-rises are not near the perimeter, and there is a gradient to lower housing near the Creek and the perimeter. Townhouses and garden apartments would make great “missing middle” housing on the campus.
Reduce the proposed commercial zoning that would allow entirely commercial buildings in these residential neighborhoods.
Restrict the plan boundaries to the hospital site…
…OR reduce the density and heights outside the hospital site to match the current building heights, removing pressure to teardown smaller multifamily buildings and older highrises.
Invest in updating older rent-stabilized buildings to protect affordable housing.
Do not proceed without taking into consideration the County Executive’s critique, the equity review, stormwater analysis, and traffic analysis.
Q:How Can I Weigh In? And, What Happens Next?
The County Council’s only Public Hearing on the Plan Amendment was held on January 25th. It can be viewed HERE. Written testimony submitted to the Council prior to the hearing is HERE.
Please weigh in with all the Councilmembers. Emails are HERE.
The Planning, Housing and Parks (PHP) Committee (Council President Andrew Friedson and Councilmembers Natali Fani-González and Will Jawando) voted to recommend approving the plan. Committee meetings can be viewed on YouTube or Facebook Live.
The full County Council has scheduled a final vote on the plan on April 2nd.
The County Executive has panned the Plan based on input from the County’s housing, environment, and traffic departments.
The independent equity review warned the Plan could cause displacement of our most vulnerable residents.
But County Council is forging ahead, dismissing those findings.
The City Council CAN still weigh in again with a resolution demanding changes. But will they?
Input from residents submitted earlier to the Planning Board:
