Watch out, he or she will call you a racist now for some reason or another. |
Mic drop. Well said, PP. |
*picks up microphone* Hey, let’s all thank the libertarians for showing up. I hope that they will stfu when I turn my yard into a rental parking lot to house all of the new Libertarians In My Back Yard (LIMBY) cars from the multiplexes that won’t have required parking any longer thanks to the MoCo Council. I’m going to sweeten the deal for prospective clients by including free daily dog care in my yard and a shiny new discount cigarette machine. My property, my rules. |
There's lots of affordable housing PG County. I think the issue here is we have lots of entitled young white people who have champagne tastes and beer budgets. |
Please make sure to express this opinion at every Montgomery County public hearing. |
They're not even remotely wrong though. The biggest BS being spewed on this thread are all the people who were able to afford desirable homes on reasonable salaries calling younger people who are simply asking for the same thing "entitled." |
All those white people will faint at the idea of living in PG county! |
The crisis isn’t availability it’s affordability. Incentives to offer reduced or subsidized rent for first responders, educators, social workers, small business employees with proven job record that work in the city….there are a number of ways to make the city affordable within reason. Benefits don’t have to be one way either, landlords can be given tax incentives for offering reduced rent units, get creative. |
This but unironically. |
Housing here is more affordable than it looks because salaries here, across the broad, are high. It's not uncommon for elementary school teachers and cops to make six figures. |
You're comparing housing for people to parking lots, doggy day care, and cigarette machines. Mind you, I think that people would probably love to have a conveniently-located doggy day care in their neighborhood, instead of having to drive their dogs off to who knows where. |
And here we have the same folks who can't have a reasoned discussion on a similar thread come back to dig up this one to try to keep at top of mind a justification for increased "missing middle" densities in detached SFH neighborhoods via zoning redefinition end-arounds that avoid the level of input of residents of those neighborhoods that standard processes would entail.
But, hey, they want what they want, and who cares if they take it from someone else or if it ends up in places that won't have the infrastructure to support the additional residents? Gotta make it seem like a crisis to get that done! And please don't consider alternatives that aren't in exactly those places -- those wouldn't work for the kinds of developers they are supporting! Anyone with such ideas or objections must be ridiculed with strawman hyperbole and other rhetorical employment of logical fallacy. |
Eh? There is a legal process. The process includes public input. The county is following the process. |
Just think if you owned an unit in a 3-4 unit complex, and if a buyer for one of the other units turns out to be a smoker, you would be screwed with no real recourse. Turning SFH into 2-4 unit complexes will be a disaster. |
That's an insincere response, and you know it. How often does the county redefine away zoning such as they are currently pursuing? The normal process would re-zone properties, which would require more significant input from the individual neighborhoods to be rezoned. Knowing they wouldn't get enough support there, "missing middle" supporters have adopted the zoning text amendment approach. But even that they've messed with by not changing the entirety of R60 zoning and the like, but by limiting the changes to certain geographic areas -- essentially the neighborhoods for which they would otherwise need to use the more community-inclusive/responsive process. And this is on top of recent redefinitions of many corridor neighborhood edges into separate "neighborhoods" (or shifting them to adjacent already-higher-density areas) so that they could apply zoning policy just to those without the same neighborhood input. I mean, one can edge closer to the nuclear option all one wants -- that's technically part of the "legal process," too, but then we end up with hyper-polarized, junk government and Trump SCOTUS appointees. Have you learned nothing, or do you find your policy pursuit important enough to minimize the voices of those most directly affected? |