Why do “YIMBY” urban planners, bloggers & activists constantly cite what they believe are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

Presumably, you favor gentrification even in face of opposition from residents of those areas. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want those types of neighborhoods. Pretty simple. And there is no economic or policy reason to change that.

Some people do. Some people support change. Some people don't really care either way. And there are plenty of good economic and policy reasons to get rid of zoning laws that forbid all housing types except one, in most parts of Montgomery County.

You sound like one of those people who is “anti-HOA,” yet doesn’t live an HOA.

I don't get it. What's "yet" about it? Wouldn't people who oppose HOAs try, on purpose, to live somewhere where there isn't an HOA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

To repeat: Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

Regardless of who owns it.

Lots of things affect you, and everybody else too. You can have opinions about anything you want. You can even have opinions about things that don't affect you!

Correct, so I will continue to vote, donate & protest against “YIMBY” policies. And my neighbors & I have been very successful in that endeavor.

Not in Montgomery County, you haven't. But I support your advocating for yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

So in other words, you have your single family hime, based on subsidies in housing (your mortgage deduction) and transportation (gas etc heavily subsidized) but you don't want other people to come close to having the lifestyle you are living.

Got it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

Presumably, you favor gentrification even in face of opposition from residents of those areas. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want those types of neighborhoods. Pretty simple. And there is no economic or policy reason to change that.

There actually is a policy and economic reason to change it. We can not keep digging under arable land for more single family exurban housing. We have infrastructure for water and electric in place and we should be maximizing that investment over the short and medium term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

To repeat: Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

Regardless of who owns it.

And yet most of the world have multi family housing with reasonable management of the issues that "impact you" - what makes you so special?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

So in other words, you have your single family hime, based on subsidies in housing (your mortgage deduction) and transportation (gas etc heavily subsidized) but you don't want other people to come close to having the lifestyle you are living.

Got it.

That’s called incentivizing homeownership. You know, when people put down roots & have a stake in a specific area.

I guess you’d prefer we become a nation of transient renters who don’t care about any particular place, instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

So in other words, you have your single family hime, based on subsidies in housing (your mortgage deduction) and transportation (gas etc heavily subsidized) but you don't want other people to come close to having the lifestyle you are living.

Got it.

There are single family homes for the taking throughout the U.S. Ones in major metro areas are highly desirable & command a premium. Sorry you couldn’t afford one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

So in other words, you have your single family hime, based on subsidies in housing (your mortgage deduction) and transportation (gas etc heavily subsidized) but you don't want other people to come close to having the lifestyle you are living.

Got it.

There are single family homes for the taking throughout the U.S. Ones in major metro areas are highly desirable & command a premium. Sorry you couldn’t afford one.

I'm a PP. I own one. I support making more types of housing legal in more parts of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

So in other words, you have your single family hime, based on subsidies in housing (your mortgage deduction) and transportation (gas etc heavily subsidized) but you don't want other people to come close to having the lifestyle you are living.

Got it.

That’s called incentivizing homeownership. You know, when people put down roots & have a stake in a specific area.

I guess you’d prefer we become a nation of transient renters who don’t care about any particular place, instead.

Duplexes, triplexes, condos, etc., are also homes and can also be owned by homeowners.

And that's entirely apart from your odd and pejorative opinion about renters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

So in other words, you have your single family hime, based on subsidies in housing (your mortgage deduction) and transportation (gas etc heavily subsidized) but you don't want other people to come close to having the lifestyle you are living.

Got it.

There are single family homes for the taking throughout the U.S. Ones in major metro areas are highly desirable & command a premium. Sorry you couldn’t afford one.

I'm a PP. I own one. I support making more types of housing legal in more parts of the county.

And I do not. Not everyone can afford to live here. I would love to live in Palo Alto or the Upper East Side, but I am not going to demand that someone build special housing so that I can. This is no different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

So in other words, you have your single family hime, based on subsidies in housing (your mortgage deduction) and transportation (gas etc heavily subsidized) but you don't want other people to come close to having the lifestyle you are living.

Got it.

There are single family homes for the taking throughout the U.S. Ones in major metro areas are highly desirable & command a premium. Sorry you couldn’t afford one.

I'm a PP. I own one. I support making more types of housing legal in more parts of the county.

And I do not. Not everyone can afford to live here. I would love to live in Palo Alto or the Upper East Side, but I am not going to demand that someone build special housing so that I can. This is no different.

That's fine. You are allowed to have any opinion you feel like having.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

So in other words, you have your single family hime, based on subsidies in housing (your mortgage deduction) and transportation (gas etc heavily subsidized) but you don't want other people to come close to having the lifestyle you are living.

Got it.

I will happily give up my mortgage deductions as soon as developers lose their tax breaks.

Also, I walk and bike everywhere so I’m not sure what you mean about my gas being subsidized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

So in other words, you have your single family hime, based on subsidies in housing (your mortgage deduction) and transportation (gas etc heavily subsidized) but you don't want other people to come close to having the lifestyle you are living.

Got it.

I will happily give up my mortgage deductions as soon as developers lose their tax breaks.

Also, I walk and bike everywhere so I’m not sure what you mean about my gas being subsidized.

No bus? No Metro?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

Presumably, you favor gentrification even in face of opposition from residents of those areas. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want those types of neighborhoods. Pretty simple. And there is no economic or policy reason to change that.

DP, but why oppose gentrification? How is lowering household income a good policy? Isn’t it better to add wealth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

So in other words, you have your single family hime, based on subsidies in housing (your mortgage deduction) and transportation (gas etc heavily subsidized) but you don't want other people to come close to having the lifestyle you are living.

Got it.

I will happily give up my mortgage deductions as soon as developers lose their tax breaks.

Also, I walk and bike everywhere so I’m not sure what you mean about my gas being subsidized.

No bus? No Metro?

Not in three years.