all these affordable housing do gooders are doing the billionaires' work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they are doing billionaires work. Ezra Klein and Peter Thiel are buddies. It’s all part of the plan. The YIMBYs are just the useful idiots of the left, the analog of the MAGAs on the right.

LOL let me know when advocating for housing people can afford to buy or rent is a bad thing- and equating that with Christian Nationalism is quite a stretch.

To be fair, Christian Nationalists would actually take care of the homeless. We didn't really have a homeless problem until we had a Godless problem.

We didn't have a homeless problem until Ronald Reagan closed all of the federal mental facilities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

Wrong. Taking away traffic lanes to put in bike lanes hardly anyone uses is the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. And it is isn’t even close.

Scientific studies contradict your false assertion.

Lol, no, they don’t. There is no “scientific study” that shows that a bike lane with very few users is a better use of the space for transporting people than the heavily used car/bus lane it displaced. You don’t even need a “scientific study” to understand that. This is the kind of weird propaganda the gullible urbanists buy into though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

Wrong. Taking away traffic lanes to put in bike lanes hardly anyone uses is the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. And it is isn’t even close.

Now they are Amazon delivery lanes, so you should be happy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

Wrong. Taking away traffic lanes to put in bike lanes hardly anyone uses is the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. And it is isn’t even close.

Scientific studies contradict your false assertion.

Lol, no, they don’t. There is no “scientific study” that shows that a bike lane with very few users is a better use of the space for transporting people than the heavily used car/bus lane it displaced. You don’t even need a “scientific study” to understand that. This is the kind of weird propaganda the gullible urbanists buy into though.

you could use google.

We had a 100+ page thread in this forum you could search for the data as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they are doing billionaires work. Ezra Klein and Peter Thiel are buddies. It’s all part of the plan. The YIMBYs are just the useful idiots of the left, the analog of the MAGAs on the right.

LOL let me know when advocating for housing people can afford to buy or rent is a bad thing- and equating that with Christian Nationalism is quite a stretch.

Rents never go down because they continue to flood the nation with undocumented and documented migrants, plus the gov subsidized rent vouchers keep increasing. Bottom line, this build, build, build crap solves absolutely nothing. It merely enriches uni-party billionaires and millions who laugh at all the red/NIMBY vs. blue/YIMBY theater.

The whole premise of modern economy is based on growth, so they have to import people because birth rates just don’t cut it. Plus who knows if those born here are going to be more economically productive?
My theory is that to balance population growth with a satisfactory standard of living, developed countries will have to eventually adopt some principles of eugenics. It will be hush hush but it will be there. Strict immigration criteria and disincentivizing childbirth in those at or below poverty level

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

Wrong. Taking away traffic lanes to put in bike lanes hardly anyone uses is the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. And it is isn’t even close.

Now they are Amazon delivery lanes, so you should be happy.

Better use of them tbh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

Wrong. Taking away traffic lanes to put in bike lanes hardly anyone uses is the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. And it is isn’t even close.

Scientific studies contradict your false assertion.

Lol, no, they don’t. There is no “scientific study” that shows that a bike lane with very few users is a better use of the space for transporting people than the heavily used car/bus lane it displaced. You don’t even need a “scientific study” to understand that. This is the kind of weird propaganda the gullible urbanists buy into though.

you could use google.

We had a 100+ page thread in this forum you could search for the data as well.

There is…no data that contradicts this point. An unused bike lane can never be a better use of space than a lane that moves lots of people in another way. This is just basic reasoning.

A heavily used bike lane might be a different story but we are not talking about that (and overwhelmingly they are not heavily used anyway).

This is why people end up railing against unchecked development. You can’t trust people to use their brains when it comes to dealing with the challenges it brings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

Wrong. Taking away traffic lanes to put in bike lanes hardly anyone uses is the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. And it is isn’t even close.

Scientific studies contradict your false assertion.

Lol, no, they don’t. There is no “scientific study” that shows that a bike lane with very few users is a better use of the space for transporting people than the heavily used car/bus lane it displaced. You don’t even need a “scientific study” to understand that. This is the kind of weird propaganda the gullible urbanists buy into though.

you could use google.

We had a 100+ page thread in this forum you could search for the data as well.

A 100+ page thread in which people repeatedly proved you to not only be wrong but also a shameless liar.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they are doing billionaires work. Ezra Klein and Peter Thiel are buddies. It’s all part of the plan. The YIMBYs are just the useful idiots of the left, the analog of the MAGAs on the right.

Oh no! Affordable housing! How scary! I wonder if you honestly believe this or are just trying to stir the pot.

Housing is already affordable. YIMBYs like to conveniently act as though incomes in this area aren’t astronomical. The median HHI in Moco is about $170k. With the high salaries here, people easily fill up all the apartment buildings that they claim are not affordable. And if you’re at the lower end of the income scale, you can live in an older building, live further out, and/or get a roommate. The options are there. We don’t need to give handouts to developers, change zoning, or manipulate the market to make housing more “affordable” (which paradoxically just raises prices for people who don’t qualify for affordable units). So yes, YIMBYs are idiots.

You are f-ing delusional.

DP. The broad statements about housing being unaffordable are misleading. It is true that too many people are rent burdened. Few of the programs implemented help these households because they are aimed at market rate housing. It is also true that the price of homes for purchase has gone up too fast. Here again, the programs implemented don’t help prospective buyers. In fact, some of them will decrease the number of homes available for purchase.

Median rent in Montgomery County is well below 30 percent of median household income, and over the past two decades, rent increases have been lower than broad inflation on an annualized basis. This suggests that the rental market is in balance or slightly loose. More recently, since rent stabilization took effect, rents have fallen year over year.

The two parts that still need to be solved for are low-income, rent-burdened households and stimulating production of homes for purchase, especially townhouses.

So exactly what YIMBYS are pushing for.

YIMBYs push for houses or ADUs, which gets twisted into housing. Invariably, housing comes to mean high density so that the local government can just build one big apartment building. Surprise, lots of housing and no one is happy. Apartments don't attract the high earners for long. And again, apartment renters short change the local property taxes.

Renters don't short-change local property taxes, their landlords do.

The landlords only pay what is due. Apartments are assessed at a much, much lower value for property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they are doing billionaires work. Ezra Klein and Peter Thiel are buddies. It’s all part of the plan. The YIMBYs are just the useful idiots of the left, the analog of the MAGAs on the right.

LOL let me know when advocating for housing people can afford to buy or rent is a bad thing- and equating that with Christian Nationalism is quite a stretch.

To be fair, Christian Nationalists would actually take care of the homeless. We didn't really have a homeless problem until we had a Godless problem.

We didn't have a homeless problem until Ronald Reagan closed all of the federal mental facilities.

The bigger impact was gutting the federal to state public land and building grants. Prior to Reagan, the federal government gave grants to states to acquire land and building affordable housing. The states would often augment it as well. When the grants went away, the states could not fund the building projects on their own.

Closing mental institutions is a big part of the problem but homelessness extends beyond the mentally ill.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they are doing billionaires work. Ezra Klein and Peter Thiel are buddies. It’s all part of the plan. The YIMBYs are just the useful idiots of the left, the analog of the MAGAs on the right.

Oh no! Affordable housing! How scary! I wonder if you honestly believe this or are just trying to stir the pot.

Housing is already affordable. YIMBYs like to conveniently act as though incomes in this area aren’t astronomical. The median HHI in Moco is about $170k. With the high salaries here, people easily fill up all the apartment buildings that they claim are not affordable. And if you’re at the lower end of the income scale, you can live in an older building, live further out, and/or get a roommate. The options are there. We don’t need to give handouts to developers, change zoning, or manipulate the market to make housing more “affordable” (which paradoxically just raises prices for people who don’t qualify for affordable units). So yes, YIMBYs are idiots.

You are f-ing delusional.

DP. The broad statements about housing being unaffordable are misleading. It is true that too many people are rent burdened. Few of the programs implemented help these households because they are aimed at market rate housing. It is also true that the price of homes for purchase has gone up too fast. Here again, the programs implemented don’t help prospective buyers. In fact, some of them will decrease the number of homes available for purchase.

Median rent in Montgomery County is well below 30 percent of median household income, and over the past two decades, rent increases have been lower than broad inflation on an annualized basis. This suggests that the rental market is in balance or slightly loose. More recently, since rent stabilization took effect, rents have fallen year over year.

The two parts that still need to be solved for are low-income, rent-burdened households and stimulating production of homes for purchase, especially townhouses.

So exactly what YIMBYS are pushing for.

YIMBYs push for houses or ADUs, which gets twisted into housing. Invariably, housing comes to mean high density so that the local government can just build one big apartment building. Surprise, lots of housing and no one is happy. Apartments don't attract the high earners for long. And again, apartment renters short change the local property taxes.

Renters don't short-change local property taxes, their landlords do.

The landlords only pay what is due. Apartments are assessed at a much, much lower value for property taxes.

That's the point. Now I wonder how it ended up being that way....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they are doing billionaires work. Ezra Klein and Peter Thiel are buddies. It’s all part of the plan. The YIMBYs are just the useful idiots of the left, the analog of the MAGAs on the right.

LOL let me know when advocating for housing people can afford to buy or rent is a bad thing- and equating that with Christian Nationalism is quite a stretch.

To be fair, Christian Nationalists would actually take care of the homeless. We didn't really have a homeless problem until we had a Godless problem.

We didn't have a homeless problem until Ronald Reagan closed all of the federal mental facilities.

...after the ACLU won a Federal lawsuit saying that no mental patient _ever_ should be hospitalized involuntarily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand these YIMBY do gooder twerps. They want to raze all SFHs to build dense crap. They love standing on their moral pedestals when they're too stupid to realize they're destroying the middle class and doing the bidding of the billionaires for free. Owning a home is pretty much the ONLY wealth vehicle the middle class has left. But the do gooders want to raze your homes and build giant apartment complexes next to them. Absolutely no one wants to live next to that junk. The middle class will flee, and guess what, developers come in taking all the homes and building a whole bunch of rental crap.

In their infinite wisdom, the YIMBYs and affordable housing idiots are sweeping the last leg of wealth out that is left for the middle class. They ate going to turn the entire counry into permarenters for life. And over time the middle class will be far worse off, because no one will be able to own anything, then they'll still jack up your rents on you in the end. The biggest thing elitists want to control now is land and property ownership. And all these clownshow housing morons are obtaining it for them by ruining your neighborhoods with their amazingly stupid zoning plans.

Not sure if this is bait, but no elected officials seriously want to raze all SFHs in Montgomery County. The AHSI (which I assume you’re referring to) only applies to specific areas within the county near transit corridors. There’s a wealth of literature showing that increasing supply (building more housing) brings down prices. NIMBYs on the council are promoting their exclusionary policies in the name of alleviating economic inequality, and I am not falling for it, nor are many people on the council and perhaps our next executive.

Partially Correct. The elected officials don’t want to raze the SFH neighborhoods where they personally reside. All others are fair game.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they are doing billionaires work. Ezra Klein and Peter Thiel are buddies. It’s all part of the plan. The YIMBYs are just the useful idiots of the left, the analog of the MAGAs on the right.

LOL let me know when advocating for housing people can afford to buy or rent is a bad thing- and equating that with Christian Nationalism is quite a stretch.

Rents never go down because they continue to flood the nation with undocumented and documented migrants, plus the gov subsidized rent vouchers keep increasing. Bottom line, this build, build, build crap solves absolutely nothing. It merely enriches uni-party billionaires and millions who laugh at all the red/NIMBY vs. blue/YIMBY theater.

The whole premise of modern economy is based on growth, so they have to import people because birth rates just don’t cut it. Plus who knows if those born here are going to be more economically productive?
My theory is that to balance population growth with a satisfactory standard of living, developed countries will have to eventually adopt some principles of eugenics. It will be hush hush but it will be there. Strict immigration criteria and disincentivizing childbirth in those at or below poverty level

We already have widely implemented some principles of eugenics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course they are doing billionaires work. Ezra Klein and Peter Thiel are buddies. It’s all part of the plan. The YIMBYs are just the useful idiots of the left, the analog of the MAGAs on the right.

LOL let me know when advocating for housing people can afford to buy or rent is a bad thing- and equating that with Christian Nationalism is quite a stretch.

Rents never go down because they continue to flood the nation with undocumented and documented migrants, plus the gov subsidized rent vouchers keep increasing. Bottom line, this build, build, build crap solves absolutely nothing. It merely enriches uni-party billionaires and millions who laugh at all the red/NIMBY vs. blue/YIMBY theater.

The whole premise of modern economy is based on growth, so they have to import people because birth rates just don’t cut it. Plus who knows if those born here are going to be more economically productive?
My theory is that to balance population growth with a satisfactory standard of living, developed countries will have to eventually adopt some principles of eugenics. It will be hush hush but it will be there. Strict immigration criteria and disincentivizing childbirth in those at or below poverty level

We already have widely implemented some principles of eugenics.

I don’t follow