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.

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.

What a fortunate person you are, to have everything you need within walking/biking distance. Wouldn't it be great if more people could have that?

[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.

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?

More to the point: how will zoning reform simultaneously encourage gentrification AND transient renters who don't care?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a fortunate person you are, to have everything you need within walking/biking distance. Wouldn't it be great if more people could have that?

If they can afford it at market rates, great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a fortunate person you are, to have everything you need within walking/biking distance. Wouldn't it be great if more people could have that?

I hear Buffalo has that. Cleveland & Detroit, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a fortunate person you are, to have everything you need within walking/biking distance. Wouldn't it be great if more people could have that?

I hear Buffalo has that. Cleveland & Detroit, too.

And Montgomery County can have it too. Hooray!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a fortunate person you are, to have everything you need within walking/biking distance. Wouldn't it be great if more people could have that?

I hear Buffalo has that. Cleveland & Detroit, too.

And Montgomery County can have it too. Hooray!

Keep wishing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a fortunate person you are, to have everything you need within walking/biking distance. Wouldn't it be great if more people could have that?

I hear Buffalo has that. Cleveland & Detroit, too.

And Montgomery County can have it too. Hooray!

Move to Wheaton

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a fortunate person you are, to have everything you need within walking/biking distance. Wouldn't it be great if more people could have that?

I didn’t say they shouldn’t. If there were more jobs around here they could.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a fortunate person you are, to have everything you need within walking/biking distance. Wouldn't it be great if more people could have that?

Personally, I have no interest in having everything within walking distance. Why would anyone want to be so limiting!

[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.

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

More to the point: how will zoning reform simultaneously encourage gentrification AND transient renters who don't care?

Gentrification and upzoning are the mirror opposites, and both are opposed by the local residents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

What a fortunate person you are, to have everything you need within walking/biking distance. Wouldn't it be great if more people could have that?

Personally, I have no interest in having everything within walking distance. Why would anyone want to be so limiting!

Evidently you are not the PP who says they walk and bike everywhere? Take it up with that person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

More to the point: how will zoning reform simultaneously encourage gentrification AND transient renters who don't care?

Gentrification and upzoning are the mirror opposites, and both are opposed by the local residents.

Upzoning, which will lead to both gentrification AND trashing of the neighborhood, both somehow at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Friendly reminder that the suburbs DO generate economic activity. Every house in my neighborhood regularly hires tutors, cleaners, maintenance people (pool/yard/indoors), cooks, sports instructors and babysitters. People are constantly getting deliveries. Additionally, many people operate businesses operate businesses out of their homes, such as remote consulting firms and in-home daycares. We have restaurants & big box stores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Friendly reminder that the suburbs DO generate economic activity. Every house in my neighborhood regularly hires tutors, cleaners, maintenance people (pool/yard/indoors), cooks, sports instructors and babysitters. People are constantly getting deliveries. Additionally, many people operate businesses operate businesses out of their homes, such as remote consulting firms and in-home daycares. We have restaurants & big box stores.

More people could operate businesses out of their homes if the zoning codes allowed it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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

More to the point: how will zoning reform simultaneously encourage gentrification AND transient renters who don't care?

Gentrification and upzoning are the mirror opposites, and both are opposed by the local residents.

That really depends on how developers take advantage of upcoming. They underutilize the density they have. Our tax code should punish that so allowing more housing results in more housing.