My website rogerforward3.org emphasizes plenty of “bread-and-butter” neighborhood issues. Still, there’s no ignoring that development is a big question in our community. Organized efforts have led to distortions and polarization, so I want to let you know clearly where I stand.
You need to know that I favor the principles of New Urbanism, which supports transit-oriented infill development, walkability, diverse mixes of housing and commerce, human-scale design, and ecological sustainability. I favor the construction of new housing units in Takoma Park and have criticized the City’s housing strategy for not setting measurable targets and objectives (see below).
Observing how D.C. has changed in the past three decades, I understand that leaving it purely to “market forces” to produce new housing is irresponsible. Under existing national policies, market forces alone do not protect against displacement, do not make amends for past racial harms, and do not respond adequately to our climate crisis. If Takoma Park takes these values seriously, it must use what power it has to refine local policies and proposed site plans accordingly. This is part of a long-standing tradition in Takoma Park that opposed the construction of an interstate highway through town while supporting a nearby Metro station, and that will soon welcome two nearby Purple Line stations while having insisted on safeguards for existing businesses and communities.
I understand the argument that the construction of new market-rate housing is the best way to generate more affordable (or “accessible”) housing. This economic “rule” does not apply, however, on the local scale in our most in-demand metropolitan areas. The production of more market-rate housing in Takoma Park would of course increase the regional housing supply and thus could bring down housing costs somewhere in the region. But if it matters in Takoma Park that we have a particular mix of housing – in terms of type, size, distribution, and cost – we have to be decisive, vigilant, and creative in setting and pursuing those goals. This is the way to protect our existing diversity. This is the way to ensure that more people who grow up here or retire here can keep living here, if they choose to do so as they transition to new stages of life.
If you hear during this election season that I am “anti-development,” you are hearing falsehood. My record with the controversial Takoma Junction development proposal was to look closely at the actual site plans submitted and to call for revisions that would align with the City’s negotiated objectives for safety, public space, access, and environmental well-being. Similarly, my stance on the proposed closure of Laurel Avenue is to insist upon a comprehensive study that seeks the optimal way to achieve City objectives for safety, public space, access, and environmental well-being. You can expect no more or less from me with bigger future development proposals in and beyond Ward 3, along New Hampshire, Maple, and Flower Avenues.
Any community that cares for its people and its environment must put care and intelligence into guiding change, without either reflexively blocking change or passively rubber-stamping it. If you hear my views on development simplified or characterized differently from this, assume that someone finds my nuanced positions threatening for one reason or another. Please reach out to me directly at rogerforward3@gmail.com for clarity or if you have any questions.
– Roger
Past Record on Housing
To understand my consistent longtime record advocating for new housing in Takoma Park, read these 2020 responses on a candidate questionnaire:
- Do you agree with us that more housing, both market rate and subsidized, should be created in Takoma Park? If so, what steps will you take to facilitate creation of new housing?
In light of the regional housing crisis, I agree with the goal of creating more housing in Takoma Park. Absent the generation of more equitably distributed housing, particularly in the affordable range, our community, situated as it is between Bethesda and Landover, downtown DC and Burtonsville, is going to continue to accommodate more and more through-commuters, while itself becoming ever more bifurcated in terms of income and wealth. Generating a good balance of new housing here in Takoma Park will help increase the market for local goods-and-services businesses and will thus help to support the transition to more localized and thus greener transportation patterns.
I think that Takoma Park’s priorities should be on generating truly affordable housing, e.g. for households with incomes at or close to the regional poverty rate, and on generating first ownership opportunities in the form of new properties that are simple, efficient, transit-oriented, and thus affordable to households at or below the median income level for Takoma Park (I would call these “simplicity homes.”)
The Housing and Economic Development Strategic Plan approved by the Council last year contains no real objectives. There’s nothing in the Plan that seriously indicates a commitment to stemming and reversing the loss of affordable housing in Takoma Park. Not one of the 17 objectives in the Plan contains a single numerical target, measurable indicator, specific location, or date by which the objective should be achieved. In other words, these “objectives” are not specific, measurable, or time-bound.
An October 29, 2018 Council work session suggested that staff would be responsible for creating indicators associated with the Plan. While it may be that staff are in the process of developing indicators for equitable generation of new housing, it has been at least a year now since such work should have begun; and any staff-generated indicators are only the precursors to a productive community dialogue and decision-making process.
Without clear objectives, it is not possible to prioritize actions, schedule actions, or budget properly for actions. These objectives cannot be called “realistic” since there is no clear path to ensuring that they are achieved. The only thing making these statements look like objectives is the fact that, in broad terms, they are “actionable.”
Therefore, I would go further than the current Housing and Economic Development strategy, which calls without elaboration for “aligning” housing generation by 2030 with regional targets; I would work to establish community and Council consensus on definitions and specific numerical targets for the categories of “affordable,” moderately priced,” and “market priced” units. As a starting point for discussion, if the City were to apply available regional targets proportionately to Takoma Park’s population, City targets would need to be set at:
- 393 additional low-cost housing units (round to 400 units)
- 166 additional units that are affordable to middle-income households, at under $2,500/month (round to 170 units)
- 186 additional units that are affordable to higher-income households (round to 190 units).
These numbers indicate the magnitude of the commitment that our current plan seems to have made implicitly: roughly 760 new units in ten years.
In planning how and where to generate new housing units, two key first steps are to agree on Takoma Park’s definitions of “affordability” and to agree on targets for new housing creation by neighborhood to support a more equitable distribution of housing types (in terms of rent levels/prices) across the City.
To produce new affordable housing in big numbers, the City should explore and seek to implement the following three strategies, perhaps to varying extents. Individually or combined, these strategies would clearly disrupt the current pattern and function as significant “game-changers”:
Reserving Land for Future Affordable Housing
The cost of land, not the cost of construction, is the biggest obstacle to producing new affordable housing. One strategy the City could use to mitigate this problem is to leverage government grants, nonprofit grants, donations, or City funds to reserve particular properties around town for potential future development of housing. These could include underused sites in commercial areas, empty or underused institutional properties, or other properties with a right to build more housing density. The idea would be that easements or agreements can be purchased right now at lower cost than would be the case in the future, assuming that area property values continue to increase. “Land trusts” are one form that these kinds of agreements can take.
Zoning and Regulatory Changes in Detached-Home Neighborhoods
In the past, Takoma Park’s detached-home neighborhoods accommodated many more low-priced housing units. This is because many larger homes were subdivided as duplexes, triplexes, etc., were used informally as group houses, or had owner-managed rental units on site (sometimes unregulated), also known as “Accessory Dwelling Units” (ADUs), perhaps in a converted garage, a basement, or an upper floor with separate access. A simple and (environmentally speaking) fairly low-impact path to producing more housing is simply to make it easier for homeowners to establish ADUs. (This can also help some homeowners of limited means to pay their property taxes and thus stay in Takoma Park.)
Takoma Park could make it possible for more detached homes to host ADUs by easing its regulations and allowing more ADUs to be permitted in closer proximity to each other. In some cases, the City would have to advocate for changes at the County level to achieve these results.
If Takoma Park wanted to go even further, it could follow the lead of Minneapolis, Minnesota and push to get all detached-home neighborhoods rezoned so that any detached home could be modified or replaced to accommodate a duplex or triplex. (Since 2019, Minneapolis allows triplexes and was considering allowing four-plexes but backed away due to neighborhood opposition.) This radical change won support in Minneapolis when it came to be viewed by the majority of homeowners as an opportunity to “welcome new neighbors.” Key issues to resolve in considering such a change would be the supply and allocation of parking, the impact on local schools, and the importance of mitigating negative environmental impacts such as increased impervious surfaces and tree canopy loss.
Zoning Changes to Accommodate More Affordable Units in Mixed-Use Developments
Montgomery County’s zoning code governs how land can be used in Takoma Park. In recent years, many commercial areas have been rezoned to allow for “mixed-use” development, which typically combines first-floor commercial space with upper floor housing. Takoma Park could advocate with the County to allow mixed-use developments to add, say, an additional floor if the extra units thus produced were permanently priced at affordable levels.
On page 10 of the Plan, there are four “strategies” outlined for encouraging mixed-use development in Takoma Park. But the objective of these strategies says NOTHING about producing below-market (affordable) housing. This is a major omission that I as mayor would seek to remedy as soon as possible.
Locking in land for future housing, allowing more density in detached-home neighborhoods, and allowing more density in mixed-use developments are all very significant actions. Not only would they require successful advocacy or partnership with other levels of government and/or outside partners; reaching the decision to take any of these actions would require very difficult, frank, and open conversations about our community’s values and interests.
For example, there are questions about how the look and feel of neighborhoods and commercial areas would change if they hosted more housing. There are questions about how each strategy might work to reverse or reproduce historic patterns of residential segregation. There are questions about environmental impacts of greater density, both locally and in global terms. And there are questions about the impact of increased housing density on local taxes, demands placed on services and schools, and allocation of public space such as street parking, parks, and playgrounds to accommodate “new neighbors.” These questions cannot be resolved, and the community cannot move forward amicably and continuously, without a well-facilitated, broadly inclusive community dialogue.
Examine the City’s Housing Strategic Plan, and you will see that it sidesteps consideration of the three big strategies described above. Instead, it focuses on “low-hanging fruit,” such as making sure existing rental properties are maintained in good condition, providing workshops on how to qualify for home buying, and continuing to provide tax credits to homeowners on low incomes. These may be effective approaches, but they do not produce affordable housing.
Whether or not our community would “buy in” to any of the productive and disruptive strategies above is not known. As Mayor, I will advocate for a frank, informed, and transparent conversation about what Takoma Park can and should do about the affordable housing crisis.
2. Takoma Park has several potential development and revitalization opportunities. Please describe your vision for the following sites. In your opinion, how should they be further developed?
a. Takoma-Langley Crossroads (Purple Line station)
The Takoma-Langley Crossroads commercial area is excellently situated for mixed-use infill development, located as it eventually will be (if all goes well) along a key transit corridor. (The small commercial area at the southeast corner of Flower Avenue and Piney Branch Road in Ward 5 has similar potential.)
My vision for the Takoma-Langley Crossroads area is for mixed-use development that protects existing affordable goods and services, generates rental and ownership housing units at a variety of price points, incorporates excellent public amenities including a piazza or public square and a play area, improves pedestrian and bicycle access to the area from Wards 6, 2, and 5, protects the Long Branch and Sligo Creek stream valleys, and maintains the character of the adjacent Ward 6 neighborhood in terms of noise and light buffering and traffic circulation patterns.
Care should be taken to integrate the design of the entire Crossroads area and to coordinate the timing and logistics of construction projects across jurisdictions, so that the area, when developed, has an even more cohesive feel and so that the two major road arteries do not function as dividers between neighborhoods or sub-districts.
To encourage walkability and bikeability as well as reduction of our community’s carbon footprint, innovative designs should be encouraged in coordination with the Counties and State. These could include rooftop or parking-lot based solar installations, narrow-profile wind turbines, the planting of canopy-scale shade trees, bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian pathways, and possibly even a cross-intersection pedestrian bridge.
It is critical that all of Takoma Park begin now to view and use the Crossroads area as a “second front porch” for the City, and to that end, any redesign of local bus/circulator routes and networks should allow for easy transportation to connect Takoma Park’s commercial and major institutional nodes with the Crossroads.
b. Takoma Park Recreation Center (New Hampshire Ave.)
The public-private partnership approach for the Recreation Center project is sound in principle. The City’s challenge is to ensure an inclusive participatory design process whose outcomes are incorporated into the eventual design. Additionally, it is crucial that the City strongly assert its interests for the project, not only with respect to Recreation facilities and programs, but also with respect to the project’s generation of affordable housing, its adherence to City climate-emergency standards for new construction, and its advancement of racial equity.
With the design of the new Rec Center itself, I have participated in the community visioning process and have personally advocated for:
- safe and convenient access (in actuality as well as in perception) by bus/circulator, by bicycle, or on foot; including a pedestrian-activated crosswalk at the site
- space for childcare, a critical expressed need across all neighborhoods of the City
- space for before- and after-school study/activities, to complement or be coordinated with the programmatic aims of the Library renovation (and preferable with a satellite Library kiosk)
- a good flow between indoor and outdoor space, with great (sunny and shaded) outdoor space
- maximal green design
- outdoor space set aside for a pollinator garden and/or a community educational garden
- facilities allowing for creative and fitness activities by people of all age groups
- flexible space for meetings and education/training programs
- a splash area or other outdoor water feature
- a great gymnasium
With respect to the floors of the building devoted to housing, I favor a variety of sizes of housing types, including
- a supply of “simplicity” small-sized units which would be affordable on the market at very reasonable prices
- a supply of truly affordable units, as described in my answer to the first question above
- a supply of moderately-priced “workforce housing” units, with many sizeable enough to accommodate families
- units that could sell/rent for more on the basis of size or amenities to help subsidize the cost of more affordable
The building should have separate entrances for residents and Rec Center users.
The building should have a commodious “third space” for residents to use for free in lieu of everyone living in large-sized apartments,
Efforts should be made to see if the building could accommodate a small food-related establishment as an additional “third space” where Recreation visitors and building residents could meet.
Care must be taken to ensure that there is adequate on-site parking or incentives for residents to forgo the use of a vehicle, e.g. credits for occasional car rentals or transit incentives.
Care must be taken to ensure that parking needs generated by the project can be met on-site; with an awareness that the peak demand time for Rec Center parking may be different from the peak demand time for residential parking, such that some spaces could shift in their use over the course of a 24-hour period.
c. Washington Adventist Hospital campus
I recognize that there is no guarantee now that Washington Adventist Hospital will be selling its property or otherwise opening up parts of it for redevelopment. However, the City should be convening stakeholders (residents as well as neighbors and interested agencies) now to explore various redevelopment or re-use options and arrive at a working vision for desired future use(s) of the property. The City itself as a key stakeholder should be working to align that vision with its strategic objectives for racial equity, climate response, and affordable housing.
My role as Mayor will be to help facilitate this visioning process rather than to advocate for my own personal ideas for the site. I will also say that I need time to walk the entire site (and learn about the status of each building, the steep slope, the infrastructure, etc.) before I can feel informed enough to venture any strong opinions. However, since you are asking for my opinion at this point, I will say that I am intrigued by the following possibilities.
Under a scenario whereby WAU retains control of the property:
Establishment of a regional birthing center on the site, with the leadership of local midwife organizations
- Conversion of any available commercial-grade kitchens on the site to sites available to local food and nutrition advocacy groups, in concert with local farmers and food processors
- Use of the property for new community solar or wind power generation
- Use of parts of the property for new urban forest or community gardening
- Removal of unnecessary sections of impervious surface
- Establishment of a community-based, partly volunteer-staffed, mental health clinic and crisis response team, in conjunction with changes in the City public safety approach
- Use of part of the site for a County-operated fitness center, which could include exercise spaces and equipment and a swimming pool
- Conversion of any suitable space to small senior-living apartments
- Conversion of any suitable space to childcare operations and/or day space for adult children with special needs
Under a scenario where WAU sells the property:
- Any of the above uses as deemed high-priority by the community
- Use of part of the site for a new or replacement MCPS campus
- Use of a significant portion of the site for townhome, duplex-townhome, or other village-style moderate density housing, with the goal of generating a good mix of new middle housing in the heart of town
- Use of part of the property for a neighborhood-scale transit-transfer location (with a bike parking/bike rental area included)
- Rezoning to accommodate a few local goods-and-services businesses to support the goal of a walkable, “20-minute” community and also to provide an informal community meet-up area
- An adjacent small piazza/park with attractions/activities for children as well as seniors.
Home 