Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[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:If this is going to continue to be more about housing and less about schools can this thread be moved to another forum.

The discuasion has been about schools. This is just a closely related initiative to the state bill, and the combination of the two is really impactful.

More housing in areas that don't have space for new schools and where schools are already at/above capacity is a school issue. Expecting schools to appear with increased density is magical thinking without a clear plan, and such a plan is unlikely due to the great expense and decades-long heel-dragging of the county that has allowed the overcrowding in the first place.

The housing will not spontaneously generate new students.

It is true that it might redistribute existing students to over-capacity schools, although I think they would probably also be coming from over-capacity schools.

As has been discussed in this thread, that's more magical thinking that all (or even a majority) of the new housing will simply go to house those currently in the area.

It's certainly something that could be studied. But in the absence of data, it's just as much "magical thinking" to say that the housing will spontaneously generate new students as to say that it won't.

That would be a real shame if families with kids didn’t benefit from the increased housing. Are you saying the new housing would be geared towards young adults without kids or retirees? Otherwise why wouldn’t it lead to more kids in MCPS? Families need housing too!

Because families are doubling up in existing housing units.

This is the magical thinking that most of the new housing would be occupied by folks already living in the affected communities instead of folks moving in.

Families doubling up is not magical thinking, it's fact.

Why are they doubling up and how will expensive new units help them?

I think it’s far more likely that sone of the new housing will attract current DC residents who often move to the suburbs once their kids are school aged (like we did).

They are doubling up because housing is expensive. Housing will be less expensive when there is more housing and also when there is more specifically affordable housing (which is a goal of the legislation).
https://thedailyrecord.com/2024/03/18/md-house-passes-moores-renter-protections-proposal/

but there is sufficient housing now just not an unused glut required to drive down prices

Why so shocked? Do you need us to send you links of available places?

Remember recently when there were eggs available to buy in the supermarket, but they were really expensive, because there was a shortage of eggs? https://www.newsweek.com/america-egg-shortage-about-get-whole-lot-worse-1777534

Did egg producers also collude to inflate prices or was that just the big corporate landlords?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Will there be more traffic if Uber drivers live near Metro than if they live far from Metro?

Doesn't matter if they live near Metro or far from Metro. There will be more traffic.

More people = more traffic.

Nonsense. More driving = more traffic. Less driving = less traffic.

More people closer in doesn't mean less driving. It only means less driving than if they lived farther out.

More people will = more traffic.

So actually it does mean less driving.

And more than we have, now. You presume there is no "no build" option. You also presume there is no option better to encourage employment in farther out areas, making housing efforts there more sensible overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Montgomery County legislators are pushing a bill that would put more housing near metro without concern for overcrowding of schools.

https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2024/02/moco-legislators-pushing-bill-that-will.html

So what else is new? It’s part of their master plan to reduce overall housing costs by dragging down housing values. They are succeeding so far.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

So you’re against housing for children then, got it. So hypocritical, you don’t prioritize children either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

So you’re against housing for children then, got it. So hypocritical, you don’t prioritize children either.

BTW, we live in a free-market capitalist society. If you think it's the government's job to house people, you may want to move to a communist country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

So you’re against housing for children then, got it. So hypocritical, you don’t prioritize children either.

Housing is never for children, remember? The county claims new housing does not increase school enrollment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

So you’re against housing for children then, got it. So hypocritical, you don’t prioritize children either.

BTW, we live in a free-market capitalist society. If you think it's the government's job to house people, you may want to move to a communist country.

Ayn Rand, is that you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

So you’re against housing for children then, got it. So hypocritical, you don’t prioritize children either.

BTW, we live in a free-market capitalist society. If you think it's the government's job to house people, you may want to move to a communist country.

If we live in a free-market capitalistic society, why do we have public schools? Public roads? Public parks? Public law enforcement? Public water utilities?

There are many things we, as a society, choose to take on that don't lend themselves to capitalistic incentives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

So you’re against housing for children then, got it. So hypocritical, you don’t prioritize children either.

BTW, we live in a free-market capitalist society. If you think it's the government's job to house people, you may want to move to a communist country.

I am so confused by this response. I don't understand what is trying to be conveyed or how it relates.

If I understand it correctly, it is not the government's business to engage in housing policy, EXCEPT that the government should absolutely limit what kind of housing can be built near existing SFHS. It isn't the government's business whether children have basic shelter, but it IS the government's obligation to provide free education, and in a setting that is "not crowded."

[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:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

So you’re against housing for children then, got it. So hypocritical, you don’t prioritize children either.

BTW, we live in a free-market capitalist society. If you think it's the government's job to house people, you may want to move to a communist country.

I am so confused by this response. I don't understand what is trying to be conveyed or how it relates.

If I understand it correctly, it is not the government's business to engage in housing policy, EXCEPT that the government should absolutely limit what kind of housing can be built near existing SFHS. It isn't the government's business whether children have basic shelter, but it IS the government's obligation to provide free education, and in a setting that is "not crowded."

Half of this thread is about the gov subsidizing "lower-cost" housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

But this isn't true. Proximity to metro doesn't mean that both people can use the metro. Quite the opposite with parents that have kids in daycare.

Proximity to Metro doesn't mean that everyone in the household can use the Metro for every trip. But it sure makes it easier for more people in the household to use the Metro for more trips.

And yes, Metro actually is used by parents with kids in daycare.

There seems to be a strong belief, among some posters on DCUM, that the way those posters live is the only possible way for anyone to live, and that's just not so.

Not the PP, but the housing dudes keep trying to convince us that we NEED more housing to meet the needs of our working class neighbors, but those are exactly the folks who drive. They drive Uber, and Instacart, and other gig economy jobs. They also drive because they work shifts, or they work someplace Metro doesn't serve.

This idea that density won't lead to traffic is just magical thinking. If you don't care, just say you don't care. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining.

Fair point. BUT, will the new high density places near the metro attract these types of workers anyway? When I was on a limited income and needed to drive to work regardless, I lived somewhere further from the metro that was cheaper. Seems like the metro accessible places are more likely to attract white collar workers who commute downtown and maybe want to only have 1 car per family.

But then the new housing should drive down prices overall, making the cheaper further out places even cheaper.

Right- lower income folks may not be able to afford the non-designated “affordable” units, but more supply is better overall for everyone.

Except for those not wanting additional overcrowding.

I want all kids to have a safe place to live, not just rich ones. Don’t you? Housing should be the priority, school capacity will follow.

Not here. It has never followed. Children are not a priority.

School capacity absolutely has followed. MCPS has 211 schools. How many schools were there 100 years ago? 50 years ago? 20 years ago?

[Anonymous]

Without these developer subsidies, our local politicians won't have sufficient $$$ to fund their reflection bids, so it makes sense to me.