Why is "growth" good? I'd like fewer people in the area

[Anonymous]

Take a visit to a stagnant or depressed area and then report back. Also, apply for a job there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Bethesda and work in DC. I don't understand why we need ever greater density and more homes and more companies to come to the area. The congestion is terrible and the strain on schools and public services is annoying.

Personally, I would be happier if we stayed flat or, better yet, some people moved away!

Specieis in general, barring an external threat, tend to grow in population. Humans in particular, once we moved away from a hunter-gatherer society to a barter=> cash society, locate to places where one can earn money to purchase things like food. The DC Capital Region is a place where many companies have located because of its proximity to the heart of the federal government, the clean Potomac drinking water and easy access to other metropolitan areas as well as mountains, bay and beach. In order to accommodate the demand for humans to live in this area, we have two choices: either keep digging up farmland and build car-based cul de sac developments, or increase density in areas that already have infrastructure and provide transportation choices.

Does that begin to answer your question in a simplistic manner?

This!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you got your's, screw everyone else?

Don't know which post you are responding to but the additional growth means more, not fewer, people can enjoy the various opportunities this region offers. If the growth is done correctly (mixed use neighborhoods anchored by high quality transit) it doesn't necessarily make traffic worse.

yeah but you know this won't happen. so, worse traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:WVa is calling you OP.

Wyoming, too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you got your's, screw everyone else?

Don't know which post you are responding to but the additional growth means more, not fewer, people can enjoy the various opportunities this region offers. If the growth is done correctly (mixed use neighborhoods anchored by high quality transit) it doesn't necessarily make traffic worse.

yeah but you know this won't happen. so, worse traffic.

Actually it has happened in.a bunch of inside the beltway neighborhoods, particularly Arlington but also DC, Silver Spring. Bethesda.

Traffic gets worse because more people drive. I work in a transit friemdly location- virtually everyone I work with could do.some or all of their trip to.work on public transit and a couple of people who drive are close enough to.walk or bike but choose not to.

The choices people make are a bit part of the mess we are in but most people do have choices.

BTW I have two highly programmed kids and relying in ways other than a car has had zero impact on our ability to get to things but that is mostly a reflection of where we chose to live.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you OP.

I like this area the way it is. We don’t need more development, especially when it comes with less green space.

I think that’s the issue for many people. More development, but not better facilities (parks, libraries).

Why does the County want to pave over every speck of green space and cover it with high density housing? People need trees and parks.

Please provide a local example of park space that was converted to development?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So you got your's, screw everyone else?

Don't know which post you are responding to but the additional growth means more, not fewer, people can enjoy the various opportunities this region offers. If the growth is done correctly (mixed use neighborhoods anchored by high quality transit) it doesn't necessarily make traffic worse.

yeah but you know this won't happen. so, worse traffic.

Actually it has happened in.a bunch of inside the beltway neighborhoods, particularly Arlington but also DC, Silver Spring. Bethesda.

Traffic gets worse because more people drive. I work in a transit friemdly location- virtually everyone I work with could do.some or all of their trip to.work on public transit and a couple of people who drive are close enough to.walk or bike but choose not to.

The choices people make are a bit part of the mess we are in but most people do have choices.

BTW I have two highly programmed kids and relying in ways other than a car has had zero impact on our ability to get to things but that is mostly a reflection of where we chose to live.

Yup. I know people who live very close to transit, work very close to transit (in downtown Bethesda, even), drive to work (because transit, ew), and complain non-stop about the traffic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you OP.

I like this area the way it is. We don’t need more development, especially when it comes with less green space.

I think that’s the issue for many people. More development, but not better facilities (parks, libraries).

Why does the County want to pave over every speck of green space and cover it with high density housing? People need trees and parks.

Please provide a local example of park space that was converted to development?

DP. Silver Creek MS at Rock Creek Hills Local Park, I suppose? But often when people complain about this, the development in question is replacing surface parking lots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lol. Well lead the way OP! Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!

+1
When I read the OP's post, this was my literal thought. People move to where the jobs are and they need housing. If the OP doesn't want to live in an area with jobs and the subsequent inflow of people, OP should leave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you OP.

I like this area the way it is. We don’t need more development, especially when it comes with less green space.

I think that’s the issue for many people. More development, but not better facilities (parks, libraries).

Why does the County want to pave over every speck of green space and cover it with high density housing? People need trees and parks.

Please provide a local example of park space that was converted to development?

DP. Silver Creek MS at Rock Creek Hills Local Park, I suppose? But often when people complain about this, the development in question is replacing surface parking lots.

That was the argument in Arlington - they wanted to use a parking lot owned by the parks dept for housing (or was it a school?) and the NIMBYs were all "they are taking away parks"

[Anonymous]

OP

I would be happy to see the federal govt take steps to improve economic development in declining rust belt cities, which desperately need growth, have surplus housing and often under utilized infrastructure.

I fear though that limiting growth in places like DC, SF, etc will just mean more people moving to sprawl in the sunbelt.

Locally something we can do is try to encourage more jobs in PG County. That would shorten commutes for residents of PG and Charles Cos, and reduce congestion in other areas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I work in Bethesda, live in DC. DW works downtown.

We often don't use our car at all during the week and aside from a$$hole aggressive drivers (almost all of whom are from MD) cutting through our neighborhood could care less about the congestion and the growth has improved our property values while giving us many more things we can easily reach from where we live.

But we'd be miserable too if we needed to drive everywhere but we made different choices.

Northwest DC needs the kind of aggressive traffic calming measures of the type that protect the residential streets of many Maryland drivers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you OP.

I like this area the way it is. We don’t need more development, especially when it comes with less green space.

I think that’s the issue for many people. More development, but not better facilities (parks, libraries).

Why does the County want to pave over every speck of green space and cover it with high density housing? People need trees and parks.

Please provide a local example of park space that was converted to development?

A community garden area in NW DC near McLean Gardens was reduced to build an ugly parking garage, after DC converted the police parking lot to a seven-floor homeless shelter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP

I would be happy to see the federal govt take steps to improve economic development in declining rust belt cities, which desperately need growth, have surplus housing and often under utilized infrastructure.

I fear though that limiting growth in places like DC, SF, etc will just mean more people moving to sprawl in the sunbelt.

Locally something we can do is try to encourage more jobs in PG County. That would shorten commutes for residents of PG and Charles Cos, and reduce congestion in other areas.

The only thing that reduced congestion is more mass transit with better headways. Anything short of that, there will be more and more single occupancy cars clogging the roads.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you OP.

I like this area the way it is. We don’t need more development, especially when it comes with less green space.

I think that’s the issue for many people. More development, but not better facilities (parks, libraries).

Why does the County want to pave over every speck of green space and cover it with high density housing? People need trees and parks.

Please provide a local example of park space that was converted to development?

A community garden area in NW DC near McLean Gardens was reduced to build an ugly parking garage, after DC converted the police parking lot to a seven-floor homeless shelter.

If only there were more than 10 community gardens within a mile of the spot you reference.