MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

Yes, but WHY are you willing to bet that? Is there any evidence that the people that currently live in these small two-4 units are "takers"?

There is no evidence - it’s my opinion.

If I were in the top 10% in terms of income or wealth (I am not), I would not want to live in one of these multi dwelling units. Zero chance. I also would not recommend that my children buy one. Zero chance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

You are absolutely ridiculous and hav contributed nothing of substance to this discussion. The YIMBYs on this thread do nothing more than gaslight concern residents and make fallacious arguments why everyone else is crazy. Anytime someone points out a reason why they are wrong they just ignore it entirely, change the topic, or devolve into a diatribe about the moral superiority of their irrational beliefs.

I'm the PP you're responding to. It seems reasonable, to me, to clarify who or what we're talking about when we talk about "the county". I don't understand why you would think this is unreasonable, or why you think such questions are in bad faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

Meaning the operating budget of the county. Do schools lose funding because we now have more residents that need services and the county operating budget can’t cover it all? So they have to choose - maternity services for undocumented clients or schools - who takes the hit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

Yes, but WHY are you willing to bet that? Is there any evidence that the people that currently live in these small two-4 units are "takers"?

Because residents with resources have resources and they have choices. That is why they buy SFHs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

Yes, but WHY are you willing to bet that? Is there any evidence that the people that currently live in these small two-4 units are "takers"?

There is no evidence - it’s my opinion.

If I were in the top 10% in terms of income or wealth (I am not), I would not want to live in one of these multi dwelling units. Zero chance. I also would not recommend that my children buy one. Zero chance.

Ok? So what about the other 90% of the population?

There's a word for a government run for the benefit of 10% of the population, and that word is oligarchy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

Yes, but WHY are you willing to bet that? Is there any evidence that the people that currently live in these small two-4 units are "takers"?

Because residents with resources have resources and they have choices. That is why they buy SFHs.

I am the former DHHS worker, and yes. This is it. If our clients were coming from single family homes, they were multigenerational. If not, primarily apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

You are absolutely ridiculous and hav contributed nothing of substance to this discussion. The YIMBYs on this thread do nothing more than gaslight concern residents and make fallacious arguments why everyone else is crazy. Anytime someone points out a reason why they are wrong they just ignore it entirely, change the topic, or devolve into a diatribe about the moral superiority of their irrational beliefs.

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

Yes, but WHY are you willing to bet that? Is there any evidence that the people that currently live in these small two-4 units are "takers"?

There is no evidence - it’s my opinion.

If I were in the top 10% in terms of income or wealth (I am not), I would not want to live in one of these multi dwelling units. Zero chance. I also would not recommend that my children buy one. Zero chance.

Ok? So what about the other 90% of the population?

There's a word for a government run for the benefit of 10% of the population, and that word is oligarchy.

This is irrelevant and that is not even what oligarchy means. Growth in high income taxpayers benefits the lower income taxpayers by increasing funding for local government services. Pushing high income taxpayers away by reduce the supply of SFH housing and decreasing the desirability of neighborhoods will harm everyone by worsening the fiscal position of MOCO budget.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

You are absolutely ridiculous and hav contributed nothing of substance to this discussion. The YIMBYs on this thread do nothing more than gaslight concern residents and make fallacious arguments why everyone else is crazy. Anytime someone points out a reason why they are wrong they just ignore it entirely, change the topic, or devolve into a diatribe about the moral superiority of their irrational beliefs.

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Fewer SFHs in MC means fewer wealthy people in MC. Fewer wealthy residents mean fewer tax dollars that pay for the social services. This is not an Ayn Rand mentality. People who need social services need social services. But someone has to pay the taxes that pay for those services. The net payors are not likely to be residents of these multi-unit dwellings. Reducing the number of SFHs is counter-productive from a fiscal standpoint. And a focus on upzoning is particularly stupid given the quantity of underutilized commercial property in MC, especially along Rockville Pike and Georgia Avenue. Latter are both also convenient to roads and public transport.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

You are absolutely ridiculous and hav contributed nothing of substance to this discussion. The YIMBYs on this thread do nothing more than gaslight concern residents and make fallacious arguments why everyone else is crazy. Anytime someone points out a reason why they are wrong they just ignore it entirely, change the topic, or devolve into a diatribe about the moral superiority of their irrational beliefs.

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

Yes, but WHY are you willing to bet that? Is there any evidence that the people that currently live in these small two-4 units are "takers"?

There is no evidence - it’s my opinion.

If I were in the top 10% in terms of income or wealth (I am not), I would not want to live in one of these multi dwelling units. Zero chance. I also would not recommend that my children buy one. Zero chance.

Ok? So what about the other 90% of the population?

There's a word for a government run for the benefit of 10% of the population, and that word is oligarchy.

This is irrelevant and that is not even what oligarchy means. Growth in high income taxpayers benefits the lower income taxpayers by increasing funding for local government services. Pushing high income taxpayers away by reduce the supply of SFH housing and decreasing the desirability of neighborhoods will harm everyone by worsening the fiscal position of MOCO budget.

Generally it actually does not benefit lower-income taxpayers when the government is run for the benefit of high-income taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

Yes, but WHY are you willing to bet that? Is there any evidence that the people that currently live in these small two-4 units are "takers"?

There is no evidence - it’s my opinion.

If I were in the top 10% in terms of income or wealth (I am not), I would not want to live in one of these multi dwelling units. Zero chance. I also would not recommend that my children buy one. Zero chance.

Ok? So what about the other 90% of the population?

There's a word for a government run for the benefit of 10% of the population, and that word is oligarchy.

MC needs the top 10% to pay for the social services being provided to all residents. Simple fact. The question is not who runs the govt. The concern here is the exact opposite-ensuring the govt has the financial resources to pay for social services that disportionally benefit lower income families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. It will cost all of us more in the long run.

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?

By “us” I mean the county.

The county, meaning the residents of the county?

You are absolutely ridiculous and hav contributed nothing of substance to this discussion. The YIMBYs on this thread do nothing more than gaslight concern residents and make fallacious arguments why everyone else is crazy. Anytime someone points out a reason why they are wrong they just ignore it entirely, change the topic, or devolve into a diatribe about the moral superiority of their irrational beliefs.

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue) to offset the lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the housing supply for high end residential . It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in, but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO.

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically.

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative.

Yes, but WHY are you willing to bet that? Is there any evidence that the people that currently live in these small two-4 units are "takers"?

There is no evidence - it’s my opinion.

If I were in the top 10% in terms of income or wealth (I am not), I would not want to live in one of these multi dwelling units. Zero chance. I also would not recommend that my children buy one. Zero chance.

Ok? So what about the other 90% of the population?

There's a word for a government run for the benefit of 10% of the population, and that word is oligarchy.

MC needs the top 10% to pay for the social services being provided to all residents. Simple fact. The question is not who runs the govt. The concern here is the exact opposite-ensuring the govt has the financial resources to pay for social services that disportionally benefit lower income families.

Well. You believe it should be a high priority for government to keep the wealthiest people happy. I don't believe that. I believe we all do best when we all do well. So that's a fundamental disagreement right there.