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:

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

Since PG County is seems to be your model, I would suggest moving there and leaving the rest of us alone. Otherwise yes, people will move and you will get your wish. Last I checked, all that affordable housing in PG County is not helping them to pay for the liberal paradise that you crave.

[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.

How does what you posted have anything to do with what PP posted? Oh … checks notes … it’s just another Thrive advocate trying to change the subject because someone mentioned an inconvenient truth.