There is no housing crisis in MoCo or most of the DMV for that matter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

Go back to your cave. You spew this bs on every thread.

~~ not a boomer

Watch out, he or she will call you a racist now for some reason or another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is defining entitlement as wanting to be able to afford housing on your salary.

I think it's entitled for people who already own houses to think they can dictate what happens to all the land around them, in order to ensure they can one day sell their home for 3-4x what they paid for it.

But I guess we just get to define words however we want now.

Nice try. Let’s help you out here. Entitlement happens when your ABC salary affords you ABC housing — which definitely exists already in your metro area — but YOU want XYZ type housing in the same general zip codes because it’s nicer than the ABC housing you are able to afford with your salary and life choices.

Rather than accept your readily available ABC housing, you demand that others (not you) change so you can obtain your nicer XYZ housing.


That is entitled

You don't understand how any of this works.

What happens us that people have ABC salary and then they get ABC housing. Fine. But they are saving with the intention of buying DEF housing when they start making DEF money. Then they increase to DEF salary but, surprise! DEF housing now costs GHI money. Okay, so they keep saving. Before they are even making GHI money, DEF housing costs JKL money. Once they are finally making GHI money, rates have gone up and now DEF housing is still priced at JKL money, but the real cost is MNO money because they are paying 7% interest on a home that has appreciated 80% of its value in the last 10 years.

And the seller of this house (that's you) bought or refinanced at 2%, and they'll be damned if they are going to accept DEF or even GHI money for this house when their mortgage is so cheap. They'll sit in it or rent it out until they can get what they think it's worth, even though the percent of prospective buyers who can afford what they are offering is minuscule. This reluctance to sell at a price the market can afford creates false scarcity in the market, which drives up prices more.

And now you want to tell the people who own the house down the block that they MAY NOT sell their house to a developer who might turn it into a four-plex where each of the units will sell for DEF money. Because you benefit from the false scarcity if housing in the area. Your housing is cheap, thanks to record low rates that current buyers missed out on, and if you can keep the cost of housing going up, it's all profit to you. So you want to prevent the seller down the street from selling their home for a market-set price, to a developer who will hire a bunch of local people to renovate the property (creating numerous jobs), and then sell the resulting property for a profit to people who would otherwise not be able to buy in your neighborhood (I creasing property tax revenues, filling jobs in the area, getting more kids into area schools, spending more money at area businesses). You want to handicap the seller, the developer, and multiple home buyers, all so you can eventually sell the house you bought for ABC money for an XYZ price.

THAT is entitlement. Keep your house, sell your house, whatever. But you don't get to tell everyone else what to do just to ensure you maximize the profit you can make on your home for doing absolutely nothing.

Mic drop. Well said, PP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is defining entitlement as wanting to be able to afford housing on your salary.

I think it's entitled for people who already own houses to think they can dictate what happens to all the land around them, in order to ensure they can one day sell their home for 3-4x what they paid for it.

But I guess we just get to define words however we want now.

Nice try. Let’s help you out here. Entitlement happens when your ABC salary affords you ABC housing — which definitely exists already in your metro area — but YOU want XYZ type housing in the same general zip codes because it’s nicer than the ABC housing you are able to afford with your salary and life choices.

Rather than accept your readily available ABC housing, you demand that others (not you) change so you can obtain your nicer XYZ housing.


That is entitled

You don't understand how any of this works.

What happens us that people have ABC salary and then they get ABC housing. Fine. But they are saving with the intention of buying DEF housing when they start making DEF money. Then they increase to DEF salary but, surprise! DEF housing now costs GHI money. Okay, so they keep saving. Before they are even making GHI money, DEF housing costs JKL money. Once they are finally making GHI money, rates have gone up and now DEF housing is still priced at JKL money, but the real cost is MNO money because they are paying 7% interest on a home that has appreciated 80% of its value in the last 10 years.

And the seller of this house (that's you) bought or refinanced at 2%, and they'll be damned if they are going to accept DEF or even GHI money for this house when their mortgage is so cheap. They'll sit in it or rent it out until they can get what they think it's worth, even though the percent of prospective buyers who can afford what they are offering is minuscule. This reluctance to sell at a price the market can afford creates false scarcity in the market, which drives up prices more.

And now you want to tell the people who own the house down the block that they MAY NOT sell their house to a developer who might turn it into a four-plex where each of the units will sell for DEF money. Because you benefit from the false scarcity if housing in the area. Your housing is cheap, thanks to record low rates that current buyers missed out on, and if you can keep the cost of housing going up, it's all profit to you. So you want to prevent the seller down the street from selling their home for a market-set price, to a developer who will hire a bunch of local people to renovate the property (creating numerous jobs), and then sell the resulting property for a profit to people who would otherwise not be able to buy in your neighborhood (I creasing property tax revenues, filling jobs in the area, getting more kids into area schools, spending more money at area businesses). You want to handicap the seller, the developer, and multiple home buyers, all so you can eventually sell the house you bought for ABC money for an XYZ price.

THAT is entitlement. Keep your house, sell your house, whatever. But you don't get to tell everyone else what to do just to ensure you maximize the profit you can make on your home for doing absolutely nothing.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Signed, a boomer that got their housing for 3 blueberries back in 1940 from a Sears catalog. Go talk to young people, even high earners, on how difficult it is to buy a house nowadays.

Go back to your cave. You spew this bs on every thread.

~~ not a boomer

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."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

All those white people will faint at the idea of living in PG county!

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is defining entitlement as wanting to be able to afford housing on your salary.

I think it's entitled for people who already own houses to think they can dictate what happens to all the land around them, in order to ensure they can one day sell their home for 3-4x what they paid for it.

But I guess we just get to define words however we want now.

Nice try. Let’s help you out here. Entitlement happens when your ABC salary affords you ABC housing — which definitely exists already in your metro area — but YOU want XYZ type housing in the same general zip codes because it’s nicer than the ABC housing you are able to afford with your salary and life choices.

Rather than accept your readily available ABC housing, you demand that others (not you) change so you can obtain your nicer XYZ housing.


That is entitled

You don't understand how any of this works.

What happens us that people have ABC salary and then they get ABC housing. Fine. But they are saving with the intention of buying DEF housing when they start making DEF money. Then they increase to DEF salary but, surprise! DEF housing now costs GHI money. Okay, so they keep saving. Before they are even making GHI money, DEF housing costs JKL money. Once they are finally making GHI money, rates have gone up and now DEF housing is still priced at JKL money, but the real cost is MNO money because they are paying 7% interest on a home that has appreciated 80% of its value in the last 10 years.

And the seller of this house (that's you) bought or refinanced at 2%, and they'll be damned if they are going to accept DEF or even GHI money for this house when their mortgage is so cheap. They'll sit in it or rent it out until they can get what they think it's worth, even though the percent of prospective buyers who can afford what they are offering is minuscule. This reluctance to sell at a price the market can afford creates false scarcity in the market, which drives up prices more.

And now you want to tell the people who own the house down the block that they MAY NOT sell their house to a developer who might turn it into a four-plex where each of the units will sell for DEF money. Because you benefit from the false scarcity if housing in the area. Your housing is cheap, thanks to record low rates that current buyers missed out on, and if you can keep the cost of housing going up, it's all profit to you. So you want to prevent the seller down the street from selling their home for a market-set price, to a developer who will hire a bunch of local people to renovate the property (creating numerous jobs), and then sell the resulting property for a profit to people who would otherwise not be able to buy in your neighborhood (I creasing property tax revenues, filling jobs in the area, getting more kids into area schools, spending more money at area businesses). You want to handicap the seller, the developer, and multiple home buyers, all so you can eventually sell the house you bought for ABC money for an XYZ price.

THAT is entitlement. Keep your house, sell your house, whatever. But you don't get to tell everyone else what to do just to ensure you maximize the profit you can make on your home for doing absolutely nothing.

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.

This but unironically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that OP is defining entitlement as wanting to be able to afford housing on your salary.

I think it's entitled for people who already own houses to think they can dictate what happens to all the land around them, in order to ensure they can one day sell their home for 3-4x what they paid for it.

But I guess we just get to define words however we want now.

Nice try. Let’s help you out here. Entitlement happens when your ABC salary affords you ABC housing — which definitely exists already in your metro area — but YOU want XYZ type housing in the same general zip codes because it’s nicer than the ABC housing you are able to afford with your salary and life choices.

Rather than accept your readily available ABC housing, you demand that others (not you) change so you can obtain your nicer XYZ housing.


That is entitled

You don't understand how any of this works.

What happens us that people have ABC salary and then they get ABC housing. Fine. But they are saving with the intention of buying DEF housing when they start making DEF money. Then they increase to DEF salary but, surprise! DEF housing now costs GHI money. Okay, so they keep saving. Before they are even making GHI money, DEF housing costs JKL money. Once they are finally making GHI money, rates have gone up and now DEF housing is still priced at JKL money, but the real cost is MNO money because they are paying 7% interest on a home that has appreciated 80% of its value in the last 10 years.

And the seller of this house (that's you) bought or refinanced at 2%, and they'll be damned if they are going to accept DEF or even GHI money for this house when their mortgage is so cheap. They'll sit in it or rent it out until they can get what they think it's worth, even though the percent of prospective buyers who can afford what they are offering is minuscule. This reluctance to sell at a price the market can afford creates false scarcity in the market, which drives up prices more.

And now you want to tell the people who own the house down the block that they MAY NOT sell their house to a developer who might turn it into a four-plex where each of the units will sell for DEF money. Because you benefit from the false scarcity if housing in the area. Your housing is cheap, thanks to record low rates that current buyers missed out on, and if you can keep the cost of housing going up, it's all profit to you. So you want to prevent the seller down the street from selling their home for a market-set price, to a developer who will hire a bunch of local people to renovate the property (creating numerous jobs), and then sell the resulting property for a profit to people who would otherwise not be able to buy in your neighborhood (I creasing property tax revenues, filling jobs in the area, getting more kids into area schools, spending more money at area businesses). You want to handicap the seller, the developer, and multiple home buyers, all so you can eventually sell the house you bought for ABC money for an XYZ price.

THAT is entitlement. Keep your house, sell your house, whatever. But you don't get to tell everyone else what to do just to ensure you maximize the profit you can make on your home for doing absolutely nothing.

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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Interesting article in the Post about how tenants have little legal recourse when a neighbor smokes. They reference a 'non-smoking' building on CT. Ave that is apparently filled with cigarette and MJ fumes. I generally like apartment living, but that's if it's well maintained and people behave with civility. Apparently that is not the case everywhere, and I can see why multi units can be problematic, including for their own residents.

People who live in detached houses also get upset when a neighbor smokes, and have zero legal recourse.

NP. It’s not nearly the same. We used to live in an apartment in DC and the downstairs neighbors smoked. It came up through the bathrooms where there were cutaways for the pipes. It was awful. Half our family has asthma. It’s one of the big reasons we won’t live in an apartment again if we have any other options.

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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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?