Marc Elrich doesn’t think there “is demand for market housing.” He’s never going to fix our housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BS!!!!!!!! Why are you so obsessed with changing the character of certain neighborhoods, when those residents do not want to change the character. You clearly need to get a life!!!! MC is big enough for all types of housing. There is plenty of space.

Well, yeah, that's kind of the point of Thrive's recommended housing policies, isn't it? Lots of different types of housing, in lots of different places.

No, Thrive will alter the character of SFH areas, reducing those the size of those areas.

Again, Thrive is recommending policies to promote lots of different types of housing in lots of different places. That includes neighborhoods where currently only single-unit detached residential buildings are allowed.

If you moved into a neighborhood expecting nothing in the neighborhood to ever change, well, I'm sorry, but that's not how the world works. Even if Thrive went POOF tomorrow, your neighborhood would still change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I’d be happy to see alternative scenarios based on real data that show MF probably is the most profitable use of land in areas where SF demand is highest. But I’m not persuaded by your mythical $1 million acre of land and 8 $400k units. I’d consider buying one of those $400k units and renting it out at market rate because it would have a decent cap rate.

And if the zoning changes happen, you'll be able to.

But right now, there are no real data, because it's not allowed.

What’s your plan b when this doesn’t generate much new housing? Hope isn’t a strategy.

What's your plan b if it does? Crystal balls aren't a basis for good policy-making.

I hope it does. I'm in favor of more density but I think the outcomes Thrive advocates claim are unlikely based on the state of the market.

What is it like to be so certain your policy is the only way even when you lack to creativity/critical thinking skills to put together a forecast even remotely based in reality?

What are you talking about? Nobody is saying that it's duplexes or bust. There are multiple strategies, some market-based, some not.

The more I read your defense of Thrive the more I think it's just a developer wish list with a veneer of equity, debunked economic theory, and lame ex-post justifications sprinkled in.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

BS!!!!!!!! Why are you so obsessed with changing the character of certain neighborhoods, when those residents do not want to change the character. You clearly need to get a life!!!! MC is big enough for all types of housing. There is plenty of space.

Well, yeah, that's kind of the point of Thrive's recommended housing policies, isn't it? Lots of different types of housing, in lots of different places.

No, Thrive will alter the character of SFH areas, reducing those the size of those areas.

Again, Thrive is recommending policies to promote lots of different types of housing in lots of different places. That includes neighborhoods where currently only single-unit detached residential buildings are allowed.

If you moved into a neighborhood expecting nothing in the neighborhood to ever change, well, I'm sorry, but that's not how the world works. Even if Thrive went POOF tomorrow, your neighborhood would still change.

Residents living in single unit detached houses want that kind of neighborhood. That is what made the County an attractive place to live for a large portion of its residents. If your eliminate that, some will move. Thrive will drive middle class families out of the County. I have seen no justification for Thrive on this thred. None. The County has plenty of underutilized commercial land. Go elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
The more I read your defense of Thrive the more I think it's just a developer wish list with a veneer of equity, debunked economic theory, and lame ex-post justifications sprinkled in.

Who's "you"? I know for a fact that there are at least two posters on this thread: me, and the source of all of the posts that aren't mine.

In any case, you don't have to read about Thrive on DCUM. You can actually directly read the most recent Thrive draft.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PHED-Committee-Draft-Thrive-2050-for-11-16-21.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The more I read your defense of Thrive the more I think it's just a developer wish list with a veneer of equity, debunked economic theory, and lame ex-post justifications sprinkled in.

Who's "you"? I know for a fact that there are at least two posters on this thread: me, and the source of all of the posts that aren't mine.

In any case, you don't have to read about Thrive on DCUM. You can actually directly read the most recent Thrive draft.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PHED-Committee-Draft-Thrive-2050-for-11-16-21.pdf

y
I have come to the belief that there is one person, this person, that when people point out his ideas are bad he responds to say “wasn’t me”. It’s pretty funny actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The more I read your defense of Thrive the more I think it's just a developer wish list with a veneer of equity, debunked economic theory, and lame ex-post justifications sprinkled in.

Who's "you"? I know for a fact that there are at least two posters on this thread: me, and the source of all of the posts that aren't mine.

In any case, you don't have to read about Thrive on DCUM. You can actually directly read the most recent Thrive draft.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PHED-Committee-Draft-Thrive-2050-for-11-16-21.pdf

You is Thrive backers, or backer.

I've read Thrive. I thought it was OK. But hearing Riemer and Anderson try to sell the plan made me skeptical, and listening to the arguments from the outside advocates and dark money groups like the Coalition for Smarter Growth has turned me into an opponent. It's pretty clear it's designed to help land use lawyers and developers but not really anyone else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The more I read your defense of Thrive the more I think it's just a developer wish list with a veneer of equity, debunked economic theory, and lame ex-post justifications sprinkled in.

Who's "you"? I know for a fact that there are at least two posters on this thread: me, and the source of all of the posts that aren't mine.

In any case, you don't have to read about Thrive on DCUM. You can actually directly read the most recent Thrive draft.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PHED-Committee-Draft-Thrive-2050-for-11-16-21.pdf

You is Thrive backers, or backer.

I've read Thrive. I thought it was OK. But hearing Riemer and Anderson try to sell the plan made me skeptical, and listening to the arguments from the outside advocates and dark money groups like the Coalition for Smarter Growth has turned me into an opponent. It's pretty clear it's designed to help land use lawyers and developers but not really anyone else.

I agree with this. For me it’s really Anderson and Riemer. Those two have well deserved reputations which just put red flags all over this plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The more I read your defense of Thrive the more I think it's just a developer wish list with a veneer of equity, debunked economic theory, and lame ex-post justifications sprinkled in.

Who's "you"? I know for a fact that there are at least two posters on this thread: me, and the source of all of the posts that aren't mine.

In any case, you don't have to read about Thrive on DCUM. You can actually directly read the most recent Thrive draft.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PHED-Committee-Draft-Thrive-2050-for-11-16-21.pdf

You is Thrive backers, or backer.

I've read Thrive. I thought it was OK. But hearing Riemer and Anderson try to sell the plan made me skeptical, and listening to the arguments from the outside advocates and dark money groups like the Coalition for Smarter Growth has turned me into an opponent. It's pretty clear it's designed to help land use lawyers and developers but not really anyone else.

How dare those "developers"... checks notes .... build new houses for people who want them?

Really? That's your argument? Jesus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
The more I read your defense of Thrive the more I think it's just a developer wish list with a veneer of equity, debunked economic theory, and lame ex-post justifications sprinkled in.

Who's "you"? I know for a fact that there are at least two posters on this thread: me, and the source of all of the posts that aren't mine.

In any case, you don't have to read about Thrive on DCUM. You can actually directly read the most recent Thrive draft.

https://montgomeryplanning.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/PHED-Committee-Draft-Thrive-2050-for-11-16-21.pdf

You is Thrive backers, or backer.

I've read Thrive. I thought it was OK. But hearing Riemer and Anderson try to sell the plan made me skeptical, and listening to the arguments from the outside advocates and dark money groups like the Coalition for Smarter Growth has turned me into an opponent. It's pretty clear it's designed to help land use lawyers and developers but not really anyone else.

How dare those "developers"... checks notes .... build new houses for people who want them?

Really? That's your argument? Jesus.

It’s also the point of Thrive to prevent developers from building houses that people want for people who want them.

You should really drop the smug attitude and disingenuousness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Take 1 acre of land. Buy it for $1M. Build one house on it and sell it for $1.5-2M or build 8 condos and sell each for $300K-$400k.

In the first scenario I make $500k to $1M in profit. In the second I make $1.4M to $2.2M. I’ll take the second please and also have 8 times as many people living in the county, performing MC and LC jobs and paying sales tax and real estate tax in my county. It is not about affordable housing, it is about smart business and free markets and not letting rich NIMBYs have their way in hoarding land for large estates and preserved green space.

Dude: MC families want sfh neighborhoods, not mf units.

+1. I don’t want that $400K unit when I can move to another county and get a SFH with a yard for the same price. (Already made this decision, actually. We looked into MoCo and then selected a house in a neighboring county.)

This will also help with costs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The American dream isn't a wasteland of concrete either.

Stop trying to turn the country into Japan where it is a sea of urbanism an asphalt for hundreds and hundreds of miles. We are not Japan. We are not Europe. Leave us the hell alone or get the hell out of the country and move to an area that you think is a utopia. Stop trying to crapify peoples' neighborhoods because you think you are going to get back at some historical bad guys.

We all know what is going to happen. Multi unit complexes get built in neighborhoods which house 8 adults per unit that all have cars that they'll all park on the street. The entire neighborhood is littered with cars everywhere, run down vehicles get left on neighborhood streets, and you reduced the QOL for everyone.

What did Japan do to you? About 70% of Japan's land area is forested.

Japan's population density is about half of Maryland's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you be happy. You eliminate what many consider to be the American dream of a sfh in a suburban community.

Generally, the people who define the American dream as owning a one-unit detached house with a yard, in a suburb, are Realtors.

And the tens of millions of people living in one-unit detached houses with a yard, in a suburb.

Really? And here I thought the American dream was about opportunity and freedom, not specific kinds of real estate.

You're right. It's about the opportunity and freedom to not live in the ghetto.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you be happy. You eliminate what many consider to be the American dream of a sfh in a suburban community.

Generally, the people who define the American dream as owning a one-unit detached house with a yard, in a suburb, are Realtors.

And the tens of millions of people living in one-unit detached houses with a yard, in a suburb.

Really? And here I thought the American dream was about opportunity and freedom, not specific kinds of real estate.

The American Dream, according to NIMBY morons, is having a single family home and being allowed to do whatever you want on your property, while simultaneously demanding a say in what your neighbors do with their property, because the American Dream only applies to the single specific vision they have in their own head.

It's about expectations. The people who wanted to live in SFH neighborhoods moved to SFH neighborhoods with the expectation that they would remain SFH neighborhoods. East county progressives hate SFH neighborhoods and are using thrive to destroy them. The people who love their SFH neighborhoods are pushing back.

[Anonymous]

Immigration to Japan is practically zero so the housing pressures are completely different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why would you be happy. You eliminate what many consider to be the American dream of a sfh in a suburban community.

Generally, the people who define the American dream as owning a one-unit detached house with a yard, in a suburb, are Realtors.

And the tens of millions of people living in one-unit detached houses with a yard, in a suburb.

Really? And here I thought the American dream was about opportunity and freedom, not specific kinds of real estate.

The American Dream, according to NIMBY morons, is having a single family home and being allowed to do whatever you want on your property, while simultaneously demanding a say in what your neighbors do with their property, because the American Dream only applies to the single specific vision they have in their own head.

It's about expectations. The people who wanted to live in SFH neighborhoods moved to SFH neighborhoods with the expectation that they would remain SFH neighborhoods. East county progressives hate SFH neighborhoods and are using thrive to destroy them. The people who love their SFH neighborhoods are pushing back.

They don’t hate SFH neighborhoods. They love their own, but are not happy because they are jealous that other people may be doing better than them. So they are trying to protect and improve their own neighborhoods (eg purposefully gentrifying Silver Spring and trying to move out the poor Blacks and immigrants - primarily Ethiopians) while simultaneously damaging others, in the name of equity!