MoCo Council Vote Today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of us who want to preserve our SFM neighborhoods -- I was encouraged to hear a story on NPR this morning about how Arlington tried this expanded zoning thing two years ago (they call it "missing middle"). Residents sued to prevent the change and the county lost. It's now on appeal.

I expect MoCo will face similar litigation to defend action.

And they will lose, just like Arlington did.

You people need to stop using the tactics of Trump to sue anyone or anything you don't like. There's nothing, nothing illegal or unconstitutional with these housing reforms. Of course lawyers will take your money, and you'll probably delay it a year or so, but you will lose.

Pathetic.

Locking it up in a legal battle is a win. The council needs checks and balances. Clearly they don't listen to the residents actually impacted by these plans.

The Moco Council is only interested in hypothetical residents rather than their constituents who fund the county.

They don't listen? Dude, you are outnumbered by like 3-1. You all lost the elections to pro-housing candidates. Your platform is not popular.

Just because you scream the loudest doesn't mean you have the most support. Another page out of the Trump playbook you take, I guess.

Lmao, you bandaids cries about Elrich every day. Was he not elected?

They are crying about elected official Elrich right now! Hurt feelings because he tells the truth. Sad.

They have to shut down scrutiny of their proposals because their proposals are so bad. If their facts or analysis were any good then they would welcome the conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of us who want to preserve our SFM neighborhoods -- I was encouraged to hear a story on NPR this morning about how Arlington tried this expanded zoning thing two years ago (they call it "missing middle"). Residents sued to prevent the change and the county lost. It's now on appeal.

I expect MoCo will face similar litigation to defend action.

And they will lose, just like Arlington did.

You people need to stop using the tactics of Trump to sue anyone or anything you don't like. There's nothing, nothing illegal or unconstitutional with these housing reforms. Of course lawyers will take your money, and you'll probably delay it a year or so, but you will lose.

Pathetic.

Locking it up in a legal battle is a win. The council needs checks and balances. Clearly they don't listen to the residents actually impacted by these plans.

The Moco Council is only interested in hypothetical residents rather than their constituents who fund the county.

They don't listen? Dude, you are outnumbered by like 3-1. You all lost the elections to pro-housing candidates. Your platform is not popular.

Just because you scream the loudest doesn't mean you have the most support. Another page out of the Trump playbook you take, I guess.

I am not outnumbered. The neighborhoods surrounding these areas (irrespective of political ideology) do not agree with this. The council does this repeatedly - Little Falls Parkway as an example. The loudest people are those that live nowhere near the areas impacted.

It's the county vs the close in part of the county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of us who want to preserve our SFM neighborhoods -- I was encouraged to hear a story on NPR this morning about how Arlington tried this expanded zoning thing two years ago (they call it "missing middle"). Residents sued to prevent the change and the county lost. It's now on appeal.

I expect MoCo will face similar litigation to defend action.

And they will lose, just like Arlington did.

You people need to stop using the tactics of Trump to sue anyone or anything you don't like. There's nothing, nothing illegal or unconstitutional with these housing reforms. Of course lawyers will take your money, and you'll probably delay it a year or so, but you will lose.

Pathetic.

Locking it up in a legal battle is a win. The council needs checks and balances. Clearly they don't listen to the residents actually impacted by these plans.

The Moco Council is only interested in hypothetical residents rather than their constituents who fund the county.

They don't listen? Dude, you are outnumbered by like 3-1. You all lost the elections to pro-housing candidates. Your platform is not popular.

Just because you scream the loudest doesn't mean you have the most support. Another page out of the Trump playbook you take, I guess.

I am not outnumbered. The neighborhoods surrounding these areas (irrespective of political ideology) do not agree with this. The council does this repeatedly - Little Falls Parkway as an example. The loudest people are those that live nowhere near the areas impacted.

It's the county vs the close in part of the county.

Well you all should have voted in the last election. Sorry not sorry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of us who want to preserve our SFM neighborhoods -- I was encouraged to hear a story on NPR this morning about how Arlington tried this expanded zoning thing two years ago (they call it "missing middle"). Residents sued to prevent the change and the county lost. It's now on appeal.

I expect MoCo will face similar litigation to defend action.

And they will lose, just like Arlington did.

You people need to stop using the tactics of Trump to sue anyone or anything you don't like. There's nothing, nothing illegal or unconstitutional with these housing reforms. Of course lawyers will take your money, and you'll probably delay it a year or so, but you will lose.

Pathetic.

Locking it up in a legal battle is a win. The council needs checks and balances. Clearly they don't listen to the residents actually impacted by these plans.

The Moco Council is only interested in hypothetical residents rather than their constituents who fund the county.

They don't listen? Dude, you are outnumbered by like 3-1. You all lost the elections to pro-housing candidates. Your platform is not popular.

Just because you scream the loudest doesn't mean you have the most support. Another page out of the Trump playbook you take, I guess.

Dude bro man, you can’t demonstrate that to be true any more than you can demonstrate that trumps polices are widely popular because he was elected.

Do you love Trump? Do you blindly accept this policies because he was elected? According to you you should just STFU and enjoy it.

NIMBY rage is so entertaining to watch. You lose, lose, lose, lose, and yet still come back for more!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m seriously thinking about running for council in the primary with the sole platform of reversing this vote and ending the political career of whatever at-large member I would replace.

I will serve one term, and not run again. No reelection campaign to accept donations from developers for, no way to buy me.

I just want to help wreck the council as it currently is composed. FIRE THEM ALL.

Please do this. You will get many many votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To those of us who want to preserve our SFM neighborhoods -- I was encouraged to hear a story on NPR this morning about how Arlington tried this expanded zoning thing two years ago (they call it "missing middle"). Residents sued to prevent the change and the county lost. It's now on appeal.

I expect MoCo will face similar litigation to defend action.

And they will lose, just like Arlington did.

You people need to stop using the tactics of Trump to sue anyone or anything you don't like. There's nothing, nothing illegal or unconstitutional with these housing reforms. Of course lawyers will take your money, and you'll probably delay it a year or so, but you will lose.

Pathetic.

Locking it up in a legal battle is a win. The council needs checks and balances. Clearly they don't listen to the residents actually impacted by these plans.

The Moco Council is only interested in hypothetical residents rather than their constituents who fund the county.

They don't listen? Dude, you are outnumbered by like 3-1. You all lost the elections to pro-housing candidates. Your platform is not popular.

Just because you scream the loudest doesn't mean you have the most support. Another page out of the Trump playbook you take, I guess.

I am not outnumbered. The neighborhoods surrounding these areas (irrespective of political ideology) do not agree with this. The council does this repeatedly - Little Falls Parkway as an example. The loudest people are those that live nowhere near the areas impacted.

It's the county vs the close in part of the county.

Well you all should have voted in the last election. Sorry not sorry.

ah yes, tons of great options to vote for. They are all whackos

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I'm not asking anything. I'm pointing out that the cries of "affordable housing" are fake. NIMBYs don't care about affordable housing.

NP, and this is exactly right.

Here's a thought experiment - say that this zoning change was the same in every way, but that it required true affordable housing, or workforce housing. And also assume that the magical revenue fairy was going to underwrite the costs of that affordable/workforce housing. Does anyone think, for one second, that the people complaining "it doesn't *really* provide workforce housing" would support it?

Of course not - because their real objection is that they don;t want to live near people who live in affordable/workforce housing, because they are too poor (if you're being charitable) or too brown (if you're not).

I’m surprised to see an advocate of this proposal admit so quickly that it was based on a lie.

I would have supported this proposal if it had no workforce or affordable housing component instead of the lies. The lies made me skeptical of the proposal because the sponsors never were clear about their real objectives. If you have to lie about something to get support, you’re probably not doing something good.

The crowd that showed up to oppose this had a lot brown people in it. But maybe you don’t really see brown people?

I didn't admit that it was based on a lie, just that the opponents were disingenuous in the reasons for their opposition. And there are plenty of brown people who own SFHs who don't want to live near poor people who live in apartments.

Although I will admit, I am basing my impressions of the race of the opponents, and their motives, on my neighborhood, and the people in it (Westgate/Westmoreland Hills). Very thinly veiled racial animus.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can someone remind me why people are entitled to live in expensive zip codes? Can't they just live 20 min away with plenty of affordable housing?

Careful. You're getting dangerously close to saying the quiet part out loud.

Np...what is the quiet part?

[Anonymous]

I don't really see what all the fuss is about. When you look at the map of eligible properties in the county, there really aren't all that many. People are acting like every single SFH neighborhood is about to be overrun with duplexes. In my neighborhood only two parcels are eligible. I really don't think it would drastically change the makeup of my neighborhood if these turned into two or three unit households. Am I missing something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I'm not asking anything. I'm pointing out that the cries of "affordable housing" are fake. NIMBYs don't care about affordable housing.

NP, and this is exactly right.

Here's a thought experiment - say that this zoning change was the same in every way, but that it required true affordable housing, or workforce housing. And also assume that the magical revenue fairy was going to underwrite the costs of that affordable/workforce housing. Does anyone think, for one second, that the people complaining "it doesn't *really* provide workforce housing" would support it?

Of course not - because their real objection is that they don;t want to live near people who live in affordable/workforce housing, because they are too poor (if you're being charitable) or too brown (if you're not).

I’m surprised to see an advocate of this proposal admit so quickly that it was based on a lie.

I would have supported this proposal if it had no workforce or affordable housing component instead of the lies. The lies made me skeptical of the proposal because the sponsors never were clear about their real objectives. If you have to lie about something to get support, you’re probably not doing something good.

The crowd that showed up to oppose this had a lot brown people in it. But maybe you don’t really see brown people?

I didn't admit that it was based on a lie, just that the opponents were disingenuous in the reasons for their opposition. And there are plenty of brown people who own SFHs who don't want to live near poor people who live in apartments.

Although I will admit, I am basing my impressions of the race of the opponents, and their motives, on my neighborhood, and the people in it (Westgate/Westmoreland Hills). Very thinly veiled racial animus.

A lot of opponents came from Wheaton and Silver Spring too. Maybe you only want to see them whenever you need a prop for whatever you’re trying to argue on their behalf but when they disagree with you they’re invisible.

You said: “Say that this zoning change was the same in every way, but that it required true affordable housing, or workforce housing.” You had the affordability part as a contractual, while Friedson said it was the whole purpose of the bill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I'm not asking anything. I'm pointing out that the cries of "affordable housing" are fake. NIMBYs don't care about affordable housing.

NP, and this is exactly right.

Here's a thought experiment - say that this zoning change was the same in every way, but that it required true affordable housing, or workforce housing. And also assume that the magical revenue fairy was going to underwrite the costs of that affordable/workforce housing. Does anyone think, for one second, that the people complaining "it doesn't *really* provide workforce housing" would support it?

Of course not - because their real objection is that they don;t want to live near people who live in affordable/workforce housing, because they are too poor (if you're being charitable) or too brown (if you're not).

I’m surprised to see an advocate of this proposal admit so quickly that it was based on a lie.

I would have supported this proposal if it had no workforce or affordable housing component instead of the lies. The lies made me skeptical of the proposal because the sponsors never were clear about their real objectives. If you have to lie about something to get support, you’re probably not doing something good.

The crowd that showed up to oppose this had a lot brown people in it. But maybe you don’t really see brown people?

I didn't admit that it was based on a lie, just that the opponents were disingenuous in the reasons for their opposition. And there are plenty of brown people who own SFHs who don't want to live near poor people who live in apartments.

Although I will admit, I am basing my impressions of the race of the opponents, and their motives, on my neighborhood, and the people in it (Westgate/Westmoreland Hills). Very thinly veiled racial animus.

A lot of opponents came from Wheaton and Silver Spring too. Maybe you only want to see them whenever you need a prop for whatever you’re trying to argue on their behalf but when they disagree with you they’re invisible.

You said: “Say that this zoning change was the same in every way, but that it required true affordable housing, or workforce housing.” You had the affordability part as a contractual, while Friedson said it was the whole purpose of the bill.

No, I don't see them because they don't live in my neighborhood, and aren't on the local listserve. Shouldn't that be obvious? And I don't care enough to watch any broader coverage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't really see what all the fuss is about. When you look at the map of eligible properties in the county, there really aren't all that many. People are acting like every single SFH neighborhood is about to be overrun with duplexes. In my neighborhood only two parcels are eligible. I really don't think it would drastically change the makeup of my neighborhood if these turned into two or three unit households. Am I missing something?

This is just the beginning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I'm not asking anything. I'm pointing out that the cries of "affordable housing" are fake. NIMBYs don't care about affordable housing.

NP, and this is exactly right.

Here's a thought experiment - say that this zoning change was the same in every way, but that it required true affordable housing, or workforce housing. And also assume that the magical revenue fairy was going to underwrite the costs of that affordable/workforce housing. Does anyone think, for one second, that the people complaining "it doesn't *really* provide workforce housing" would support it?

Of course not - because their real objection is that they don;t want to live near people who live in affordable/workforce housing, because they are too poor (if you're being charitable) or too brown (if you're not).

Let's turn it around for the proponents then. If their goal is truly affordable housing, why didn't they put that forward instead? This is just a handout to developers, at the expense of people who favored the existing single family home zoning.

[Anonymous]

A lot of people seem to think there is some affordable housing in this bill. There isn’t. The “workforce” requirement replaced the MPDU requirement and the income cap for the workforce housing is 120 percent AMI. That translates to rents well above the average rent and in line with the rents at new high-rise apartment buildings.

If you are doing better than most and still can’t afford housing, this bill will not help you at all. It’s not affordable housing or even more attainable housing.

It’s all a huge win for developers, who have been trying to kill the MPDU program as long as it’s been around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of people seem to think there is some affordable housing in this bill. There isn’t. The “workforce” requirement replaced the MPDU requirement and the income cap for the workforce housing is 120 percent AMI. That translates to rents well above the average rent and in line with the rents at new high-rise apartment buildings.

If you are doing better than most and still can’t afford housing, this bill will not help you at all. It’s not affordable housing or even more attainable housing.

It’s all a huge win for developers, who have been trying to kill the MPDU program as long as it’s been around.

Good, because "affordable" housing rules don't work. Rent control has never, in the history of mankind, worked.

Just. Build. More. Housing.