MoCo Planning Board Meeting - Upzoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Can you point to a city where upzoning has lowered prices?

Minneapolis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Yeah that makes zero sense. Gentrification ("upzoning") drives prices up, not down.

The reason housing is super expensive on 14th Street is because people want to live within walking distance of bars and restaurants and stores. But the only reason those bars, restaurants and stores are there is because they radically increased the number of housing units around 14th Street. If they hadn't done that, all those businesses never would have opened because there wouldnt be enough foot track to support them.

20 years ago, 14th street was mostly empty store fronts and no one went there at night unless they were going to the Black Cat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Can you point to a city where upzoning has lowered prices?

Minneapolis.

Nope:

https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/the-minneapolis-miracle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

How many years do you need?

Four sounds right. And I’d also need a way to isolate the impact of the “YIMBY policy” t I’m other factors that also impact housing (ex: supply chain and credit issues in the financial market)

I love that you’ve pre-positioned your excuses and also claimed you can’t isolate your policy’s effects on housing markets. But you remain committed to it as the only way forward. No wonder we have a housing crisis.

Just look at the smart growth movement. That was championed by Doug Duncan in 1998(?) and it’s basically the same framework that produced thrive, the new master plans, and the numerous tax breaks and cash incentives that the county has given to developers. We closed vast swaths of land to housing (the ag reserve) in the interest of concentrating new housing in revitalized downtowns. The policy has been in place through loose credit and tight credit and then loose credit again (credit markets fluctuate over time and good policy accounts for that). It’s also weathered tight supply chains and loose supply chains (like credit markets, supplies of housing inputs fluctuate over time and good policy can survive that).

Smart growth succeeded in concentrating new development down county in dense developments around transit. It also promised to lower housing prices and improve the county’s revenue. It did neither of those things. Housing is more expensive than ever and the county had to raise taxes again last year. Not only that, but we’ve now found out that we need to subsidize smart growth through tax abatements.

TL;DR: You’re convinced your policy works, but you can’t prove it, and you continue to argue that it’s the only way even though it hasn’t delivered on its affordability or budget promises and is such a failure that we need to pay people to build housing according to the plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Can you point to a city where upzoning has lowered prices?

Minneapolis.

Nope:

https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/the-minneapolis-miracle

Yep. A much more recent piece from a much more reputable organization: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/twin-cities-region-meets-ambitious-housing-goals-for-second-year-but-has-much-work-left-to-do

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Can you point to a city where upzoning has lowered prices?

Minneapolis.

Nope:

https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/the-minneapolis-miracle

Yep. A much more recent piece from a much more reputable organization: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/twin-cities-region-meets-ambitious-housing-goals-for-second-year-but-has-much-work-left-to-do

DP. If you read closely you’ll see it’s a regional analysis. Most cities in the region didn’t adopt the new rules that Minneapolis did and some adopted rent control. Maybe it was the rent control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Yeah that makes zero sense. Gentrification ("upzoning") drives prices up, not down.

The reason housing is super expensive on 14th Street is because people want to live within walking distance of bars and restaurants and stores. But the only reason those bars, restaurants and stores are there is because they radically increased the number of housing units around 14th Street. If they hadn't done that, all those businesses never would have opened because there wouldnt be enough foot track to support them.

20 years ago, 14th street was mostly empty store fronts and no one went there at night unless they were going to the Black Cat.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

This whole "'upzoning" thing is so silly. Cities have been getting more densely populated for literally hundreds of years. No one tears down an apartment building so they can replace it with a single family home, but they definitely do the reverse and they've been doing it for a very long time. Guess what? The most densely populated cities in this country also tend to be the most expensive.

New York City has been “upzoning” for 350 years

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

This whole "'upzoning" thing is so silly. Cities have been getting more densely populated for literally hundreds of years. No one tears down an apartment building so they can replace it with a single family home, but they definitely do the reverse and they've been doing it for a very long time. Guess what? The most densely populated cities in this country also tend to be the most expensive.

New York City has been “upzoning” for 350 years

You can tell because it’s so affordable now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Can you point to a city where upzoning has lowered prices?

Minneapolis.

Nope:

https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/the-minneapolis-miracle

Yep. A much more recent piece from a much more reputable organization: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/twin-cities-region-meets-ambitious-housing-goals-for-second-year-but-has-much-work-left-to-do

DP. If you read closely you’ll see it’s a regional analysis. Most cities in the region didn’t adopt the new rules that Minneapolis did and some adopted rent control. Maybe it was the rent control.

How about this:
"It’s become much cheaper to rent in Minneapolis over the past few years, particularly when you consider rising incomes and consumer prices generally. "
https://onefinaleffort.com/blog/a-detailed-look-at-minneapolis-housing-supply-reforms

Or this:
"upzoning along commercial and transit corridors and eliminating minimum parking requirements have made housing development cheaper and easier. In other places that have expanded the availability of apartments in commercial areas and eliminated parking requirements, more housing has been built and affordability has improved."
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Can you point to a city where upzoning has lowered prices?

Minneapolis.

Nope:

https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/the-minneapolis-miracle

Yep. A much more recent piece from a much more reputable organization: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/twin-cities-region-meets-ambitious-housing-goals-for-second-year-but-has-much-work-left-to-do

DP. If you read closely you’ll see it’s a regional analysis. Most cities in the region didn’t adopt the new rules that Minneapolis did and some adopted rent control. Maybe it was the rent control.

How about this:
"It’s become much cheaper to rent in Minneapolis over the past few years, particularly when you consider rising incomes and consumer prices generally. "
https://onefinaleffort.com/blog/a-detailed-look-at-minneapolis-housing-supply-reforms

Or this:
"upzoning along commercial and transit corridors and eliminating minimum parking requirements have made housing development cheaper and easier. In other places that have expanded the availability of apartments in commercial areas and eliminated parking requirements, more housing has been built and affordability has improved."
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability

According to the fed report, housing production was in middle of the pack among peer regions. It wasn’t remarkable one way or the other so it looks a lot more like correlation than causation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Can you point to a city where upzoning has lowered prices?

Minneapolis.

Nope:

https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/the-minneapolis-miracle

Yep. A much more recent piece from a much more reputable organization: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/twin-cities-region-meets-ambitious-housing-goals-for-second-year-but-has-much-work-left-to-do

DP. If you read closely you’ll see it’s a regional analysis. Most cities in the region didn’t adopt the new rules that Minneapolis did and some adopted rent control. Maybe it was the rent control.

How about this:
"It’s become much cheaper to rent in Minneapolis over the past few years, particularly when you consider rising incomes and consumer prices generally. "
https://onefinaleffort.com/blog/a-detailed-look-at-minneapolis-housing-supply-reforms

Or this:
"upzoning along commercial and transit corridors and eliminating minimum parking requirements have made housing development cheaper and easier. In other places that have expanded the availability of apartments in commercial areas and eliminated parking requirements, more housing has been built and affordability has improved."
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability

According to the fed report, housing production was in middle of the pack among peer regions. It wasn’t remarkable one way or the other so it looks a lot more like correlation than causation.

You picked out the one phrase that indicated it was still in the middle of the pack on the metric of housing units per 1000 residents, though housing production is steadily improving that number. You ignore everything around it that says that that rents are more affordable and homeownership is second highest among peers, which was the issue in question.

"rents in the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA have increased at a rate lower than that of most of our peer regions. The region’s five-year change in the typical market-rate rent was among the lowest, second only to that of the San Francisco MSA, which has the highest rent."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Can you point to a city where upzoning has lowered prices?

Minneapolis.

Nope:

https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/the-minneapolis-miracle

Yep. A much more recent piece from a much more reputable organization: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/twin-cities-region-meets-ambitious-housing-goals-for-second-year-but-has-much-work-left-to-do

DP. If you read closely you’ll see it’s a regional analysis. Most cities in the region didn’t adopt the new rules that Minneapolis did and some adopted rent control. Maybe it was the rent control.

How about this:
"It’s become much cheaper to rent in Minneapolis over the past few years, particularly when you consider rising incomes and consumer prices generally. "
https://onefinaleffort.com/blog/a-detailed-look-at-minneapolis-housing-supply-reforms

Or this:
"upzoning along commercial and transit corridors and eliminating minimum parking requirements have made housing development cheaper and easier. In other places that have expanded the availability of apartments in commercial areas and eliminated parking requirements, more housing has been built and affordability has improved."
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability

According to the fed report, housing production was in middle of the pack among peer regions. It wasn’t remarkable one way or the other so it looks a lot more like correlation than causation.

You picked out the one phrase that indicated it was still in the middle of the pack on the metric of housing units per 1000 residents, though housing production is steadily improving that number. You ignore everything around it that says that that rents are more affordable and homeownership is second highest among peers, which was the issue in question.

"rents in the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA have increased at a rate lower than that of most of our peer regions. The region’s five-year change in the typical market-rate rent was among the lowest, second only to that of the San Francisco MSA, which has the highest rent."

I picked out the part of the report about supply increasing to refute the claim that supply increasing caused those other good outcomes.

Austin is a better example of supply increasing and prices falling.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Can you point to a city where upzoning has lowered prices?

Minneapolis.

Nope:

https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/the-minneapolis-miracle

Yep. A much more recent piece from a much more reputable organization: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/twin-cities-region-meets-ambitious-housing-goals-for-second-year-but-has-much-work-left-to-do

DP. If you read closely you’ll see it’s a regional analysis. Most cities in the region didn’t adopt the new rules that Minneapolis did and some adopted rent control. Maybe it was the rent control.

How about this:
"It’s become much cheaper to rent in Minneapolis over the past few years, particularly when you consider rising incomes and consumer prices generally. "
https://onefinaleffort.com/blog/a-detailed-look-at-minneapolis-housing-supply-reforms

Or this:
"upzoning along commercial and transit corridors and eliminating minimum parking requirements have made housing development cheaper and easier. In other places that have expanded the availability of apartments in commercial areas and eliminated parking requirements, more housing has been built and affordability has improved."
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability

According to the fed report, housing production was in middle of the pack among peer regions. It wasn’t remarkable one way or the other so it looks a lot more like correlation than causation.

You picked out the one phrase that indicated it was still in the middle of the pack on the metric of housing units per 1000 residents, though housing production is steadily improving that number. You ignore everything around it that says that that rents are more affordable and homeownership is second highest among peers, which was the issue in question.

"rents in the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA have increased at a rate lower than that of most of our peer regions. The region’s five-year change in the typical market-rate rent was among the lowest, second only to that of the San Francisco MSA, which has the highest rent."

I picked out the part of the report about supply increasing to refute the claim that supply increasing caused those other good outcomes.

Austin is a better example of supply increasing and prices falling.

OH got it. Two things then:

1. If we are talking about increasing supply, the more relevant information is in goal one and goal two of that report. They show that the supply has been increasing significantly. True, the region may still have less units than half their peers overall, but the relative supply in the region has increased.

2. I do agree with you that upzoning alone won't make a huge difference. But the original claim in this thread was that "NIMBY policies" make housing more expensive. The other two sources cited do a god job of showing how the combination of different "NIMBY" tactics (parking, transit-oriented development, and upzoning) all come together to make housing more affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county report suggests that one house could actually be converted into 8 units. They are potentially allowing a subdivision of a previously single family lot and then a quadplex for each new lot. IMO, this does not make sense. It needs to allow for more gradual infill denisty that will encourage efficient utilization of existing infrastructure. Allowing 4x to 8x density in large swaths of the county risks creating situation where population growth rapidly outpaces our ability to create capacity for government services. If we are going to do MM zoning, limit the proposal to duplex and triplex units and scrap the lot splitting provision.

I disagree. “Large swaths” of the county will not instantaneously become 4x or 8x. It will take years to ramp up to any major level like that.

Then we can all just wait to draw the short straw and have one built next door.

It is really interesting to track the various arguments in opposition. To be sure, there are some that have merit, such as ensuring appropriate infrastructure.

But then there are comments like this, which reveal that much of the opposition is not wanting something different "next door." It is literally the definition of NIMBYism.

…yes?

Some of it stems from carefully planning where one lives and chooses to raise their family, and that doesn’t include have an apartment building next door. Of course. Are you slow?

“Something different.”

LMAO. You act like they are building a larger than average mailbox.

You can make plans all you like. Then stuff happens that is not under your control. If you want to control what happens on your neighbor's property, you need to get your neighbor to sell you the property.

Or you can rely on the zoning of the area and adequate local input to public processes to change that zoning.

Or not, as has been the case in MoCo of late.

That is literally what they are doing right now.

Nope. They are not doing this on a neighborhood basis or even a cluster of neighborhoods basis. Totally top-down. Inadequate local input, and underhanded to change the definition of the zoning categories, themselves, rather than go through the process that had been set up for changing the zoning of a property or group of properties.

When you don't like the outcome, you complain about the process.

Do you not see the irony in this? This is exactly what the kooky YIMBYs are doing. There is nothing short of the upzoning tantrum that will satisfy them, which means that we shouldn’t trust anything they do.

No, the kooky YIMBYs are getting outcomes they favor. The kooky YIMBYs are actually getting stuff done! Meanwhile, you're complaining about the process.

It’s funny how everyone the YIMBYs “get something done” housing gets more expensive.

No, it's not funny, it's just a factually incorrect statement.

You don’t seem familiar with housing policy, production, or prices in Montgomery County.

I sure am familiar with housing policy, production, and prices in Montgomery County. Your statement is just wrong.

Have prices have gone down in your world?

Can you point to an example of "YIMBY policy" or upzoning that has been in effect long enough for significant housing to be built in Montgomery County that it could even potentially have an effect on housing policy?

Look at 14th Street in DC. There must be five times as many housing units as there was 20 years ago, and it's far, far, far more expensive than it was 20 years ago. Just because you add to the housing supply doesnt mean demand doesnt also go up too or even go up much faster. Housing is complicated and hard and shouting dumb bumper sticker slogans like "upzoning" and "NIMBY!" is not helpful to anyone.

Bad reasoning. What’s the counterfactual? It’s very likely that it would be more expensive had the extra housing not been added

Can you point to a city where upzoning has lowered prices?

Minneapolis.

Nope:

https://kevinerdmann.substack.com/p/the-minneapolis-miracle

Yep. A much more recent piece from a much more reputable organization: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/article/2024/twin-cities-region-meets-ambitious-housing-goals-for-second-year-but-has-much-work-left-to-do

DP. If you read closely you’ll see it’s a regional analysis. Most cities in the region didn’t adopt the new rules that Minneapolis did and some adopted rent control. Maybe it was the rent control.

How about this:
"It’s become much cheaper to rent in Minneapolis over the past few years, particularly when you consider rising incomes and consumer prices generally. "
https://onefinaleffort.com/blog/a-detailed-look-at-minneapolis-housing-supply-reforms

Or this:
"upzoning along commercial and transit corridors and eliminating minimum parking requirements have made housing development cheaper and easier. In other places that have expanded the availability of apartments in commercial areas and eliminated parking requirements, more housing has been built and affordability has improved."
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2024/01/04/minneapolis-land-use-reforms-offer-a-blueprint-for-housing-affordability

According to the fed report, housing production was in middle of the pack among peer regions. It wasn’t remarkable one way or the other so it looks a lot more like correlation than causation.

You picked out the one phrase that indicated it was still in the middle of the pack on the metric of housing units per 1000 residents, though housing production is steadily improving that number. You ignore everything around it that says that that rents are more affordable and homeownership is second highest among peers, which was the issue in question.

"rents in the Minneapolis-St. Paul MSA have increased at a rate lower than that of most of our peer regions. The region’s five-year change in the typical market-rate rent was among the lowest, second only to that of the San Francisco MSA, which has the highest rent."

I picked out the part of the report about supply increasing to refute the claim that supply increasing caused those other good outcomes.

Austin is a better example of supply increasing and prices falling.

OH got it. Two things then:

1. If we are talking about increasing supply, the more relevant information is in goal one and goal two of that report. They show that the supply has been increasing significantly. True, the region may still have less units than half their peers overall, but the relative supply in the region has increased.

2. I do agree with you that upzoning alone won't make a huge difference. But the original claim in this thread was that "NIMBY policies" make housing more expensive. The other two sources cited do a god job of showing how the combination of different "NIMBY" tactics (parking, transit-oriented development, and upzoning) all come together to make housing more affordable.

If the supply increases in Minneapolis were sufficient to drive prices lower then other markets that built even more housing should have seen steeper price drops. The point is the supply increase in Minneapolis wasn’t significant or out of the ordinary among pet markets.

In MoCo, housing has gotten more expensive (even after adjusting for inflation) since it started adopting YIMBY policies 25 years ago. That’s neither debatable nor surprising because they reduced the amount of land available for housing (reducing supply of something makes it more expensive) and then focused development on the most expensive type of housing per square foot (high rise).