MoCo People’s Counsel

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

Families that live in housing they own should be a greater priority for the county government than families that live in housing they rent.

People who live in housing they own should be a greater priority for the county government than people who live in housing they rent.

Yeah, there's no way to make that sound good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

[Anonymous]

The people’s counsel is a waste of money in and of itself and it causes other people to waste money litigating technicalities instead of just being able to build what they should be allowed to build by right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

Families that live in housing they own should be a greater priority for the county government than families that live in housing they rent.

People who live in housing they own should be a greater priority for the county government than people who live in housing they rent.

Yeah, there's no way to make that sound good.

Don’t care how it sounds. It’s reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

Families that live in housing they own should be a greater priority for the county government than families that live in housing they rent.

People who live in housing they own should be a greater priority for the county government than people who live in housing they rent.

Yeah, there's no way to make that sound good.

Don’t care how it sounds. It’s reality.

No, it's not reality, though it may be what you wish reality were. You may also wish the US government had never granted the vote to people who aren't white property-owning men over 21.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

You know who does have children in schools? Renters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

MoCo doesn't even give priority to US citizens and legal residents. You want them to prioritize homeowners? I mean I'm with you in spiri, but come on...this is MoCo where Crazy Eyes Mink was elected to represent us. Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

You know who does have children in schools? Renters.

I don’t think this is right. Our local urbanists have been claiming that renters don’t have kids in school so developers should get tax breaks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

You know who does have children in schools? Renters.

I don’t think this is right. Our local urbanists have been claiming that renters don’t have kids in school so developers should get tax breaks.

I'm guessing you don't have kids in school, because if you did, you would probably be too busy to post on an anonymous website to refute something nobody said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

You know who does have children in schools? Renters.

I don’t think this is right. Our local urbanists have been claiming that renters don’t have kids in school so developers should get tax breaks.

I'm guessing you don't have kids in school, because if you did, you would probably be too busy to post on an anonymous website to refute something nobody said.

Urbanist disagrees with PP so urbanist seeks to silence PP. How illiberal, unintentionally ironic, and 100 percent on brand.

[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:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

You know who does have children in schools? Renters.

I don’t think this is right. Our local urbanists have been claiming that renters don’t have kids in school so developers should get tax breaks.

I'm guessing you don't have kids in school, because if you did, you would probably be too busy to post on an anonymous website to refute something nobody said.

Urbanist disagrees with PP so urbanist seeks to silence PP. How illiberal, unintentionally ironic, and 100 percent on brand.

You: says something
Me: says something about what you said
You: STOP SILENCING ME!!!!!!!!

[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:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

You know who does have children in schools? Renters.

I don’t think this is right. Our local urbanists have been claiming that renters don’t have kids in school so developers should get tax breaks.

I'm guessing you don't have kids in school, because if you did, you would probably be too busy to post on an anonymous website to refute something nobody said.

Urbanist disagrees with PP so urbanist seeks to silence PP. How illiberal, unintentionally ironic, and 100 percent on brand.

You: says something
Me: says something about what you said
You: STOP SILENCING ME!!!!!!!!

Also you: I’m guessing you don’t have kids in school blah blah blah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

How much further would you splice that? Should somebody in a larger house who pays more in property taxes be a greater priority than someone in a smaller house? If I am a homeowner who benefits from a program that provides me relief from paying full property tax, do I still get priority?

And if we are basing priority on who brings the most revenue to the county, should be be paying more attention to large employers and developers than homeowners?

Businesses don’t vote, nor do they have children in schools, which are the largest line item in the county budget, so I don’t think they have priority over longer-term county residents who tend to live in SFH’s.

As for proportional taxes with regards to homeowners…rich people who are paying more are already better represented by virtue of their relationships and social circles, so there’s no need to split hairs to give them even more influence.

So to be clear, you are saying that it is people who vote and own homes with children in schools who should have the highest priority in county government? And by "highest priority" you mean it is their needs (assuming they even have collective needs) that should be catered to in policy-making? And you're not disputing that rich people are *and should be* a higher priority in county policy?

Just want to make sure I'm understanding you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Email your councilmembers.

Also:

"this whole Thrive 2050" (aka the general plan) already is moving forward, AND

your focus on specifically homeowners is revealing.

DP

What is that supposed to mean? Is owning a home now something to be ashamed of? Does it make you suspicious?

Can you please explain yourself here? Because you sound like a nut otherwise, and I’m trying to give you the benefit of the doubt that you’re not a crazy as you sound.

Not the PP, but I think the point is to question why you think the People's Counsel would be a representative for "homeowners."

The bill in question says that it would: "represent the public interest of county residents in proceedings related to land use planning and ensure fairness to populations that have been traditionally underrepresented in the county land use planning process."

Nearly 40% of households in MoCo are renters. Why leave them out? Why not just say residents?

Renters don’t directly pay property taxes. And they tend to be far more of a transient population.

With those two things in mind, renters should come second to homeowners in terms of priorities and planning.

Everyone is equal, but some are more equal than others.

I never said everyone was equal here. I specifically said homeowners should be a greater priority for the county govt than renters.

I can’t say it any more unambiguously.

Families that live in housing they own should be a greater priority for the county government than families that live in housing they rent.

People who live in housing they own should be a greater priority for the county government than people who live in housing they rent.

Yeah, there's no way to make that sound good.

Don’t care how it sounds. It’s reality.

No, it's not reality, though it may be what you wish reality were. You may also wish the US government had never granted the vote to people who aren't white property-owning men over 21.

DP

That’s quite a lot to infer based on what she said. Would you care to offer any proof or evidence to support such an absurd stretch? Or are you just given to that kind of racist hyperbole?