MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[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:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

Yes, you're a housing denialist.

Also, one third of households in Montgomery County rent.

Alright if you say so. YIMBYism is your religion and you are making very wide teaching statements with no evidence to support them. Anytime people point out a reasonable concern or disagreement you just ignore them or attempt to change the topic.

Wide reaching*

[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:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

Yes, you're a housing denialist.

Also, one third of households in Montgomery County rent.

Alright if you say so. YIMBYism is your religion and you are making very wide teaching statements with no evidence to support them. Anytime people point out a reasonable concern or disagreement you just ignore them or attempt to change the topic.

Nonsense. I don't even think of myself as a YIMBY.

The US Census 2018-2022 owner-occupied housing unit rate in Montgomery County is 65.5%. One-third of housing units in Montgomery County are not occupied by their owners.

[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:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

Yes, you're a housing denialist.

Also, one third of households in Montgomery County rent.

Alright if you say so. YIMBYism is your religion and you are making very wide teaching statements with no evidence to support them. Anytime people point out a reasonable concern or disagreement you just ignore them or attempt to change the topic.

Nonsense. I don't even think of myself as a YIMBY.

The US Census 2018-2022 owner-occupied housing unit rate in Montgomery County is 65.5%. One-third of housing units in Montgomery County are not occupied by their owners.

Why do you keep citing this statistic? Are you going out of your way to prove their point?

[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:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

Yes, you're a housing denialist.

Also, one third of households in Montgomery County rent.

Alright if you say so. YIMBYism is your religion and you are making very wide teaching statements with no evidence to support them. Anytime people point out a reasonable concern or disagreement you just ignore them or attempt to change the topic.

Nonsense. I don't even think of myself as a YIMBY.

The US Census 2018-2022 owner-occupied housing unit rate in Montgomery County is 65.5%. One-third of housing units in Montgomery County are not occupied by their owners.

Why do you keep citing this statistic? Are you going out of your way to prove their point?

Because if you purport to be talking about housing in Montgomery County, but you don't include rental housing and the people who live in rental housing, then you're not actually talking about housing in Montgomery County.

Who are they and what is their point?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

The PP was making a point about how disingenuous YIMBY talking points are. If you’re rejecting the idea that projects that don’t pencil don’t get built, then you should retake Econ 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

+1. The housing market is complex because it’s not functioning properly in most places, because every metro is different, and because the relationship among various types of housing is fluid.

As to whether there’s a housing crisis in MoCo, the for sale market is tight, while the rental market is roughly balanced. Median prices for homes for sale have increased much more quickly than rents in the past five years. If there is a housing crisis, the problem is in the for sale market. In the apartment market, rent increases have had two main drivers. The first was the catch-up year when landlords raised rents more than they historically after rent control. The second was (and remains) unmet demand in the for sale market filtering into the rental market. The unmet demand in the for sale market increases demand for rentals (from more people being priced out of ownership) and creates risk for new projects because an increased supply of homes for purchase would reduce demand for rentals and cause rents to fall. That’s a tough risk to price for a variety of reasons. When risk is difficult to price, builders can’t get financing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

+1. The housing market is complex because it’s not functioning properly in most places, because every metro is different, and because the relationship among various types of housing is fluid.

As to whether there’s a housing crisis in MoCo, the for sale market is tight, while the rental market is roughly balanced. Median prices for homes for sale have increased much more quickly than rents in the past five years. If there is a housing crisis, the problem is in the for sale market. In the apartment market, rent increases have had two main drivers. The first was the catch-up year when landlords raised rents more than they historically after rent control. The second was (and remains) unmet demand in the for sale market filtering into the rental market. The unmet demand in the for sale market increases demand for rentals (from more people being priced out of ownership) and creates risk for new projects because an increased supply of homes for purchase would reduce demand for rentals and cause rents to fall. That’s a tough risk to price for a variety of reasons. When risk is difficult to price, builders can’t get financing.

Another housing denialist, or maybe the same one.

[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:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

+1. The housing market is complex because it’s not functioning properly in most places, because every metro is different, and because the relationship among various types of housing is fluid.

As to whether there’s a housing crisis in MoCo, the for sale market is tight, while the rental market is roughly balanced. Median prices for homes for sale have increased much more quickly than rents in the past five years. If there is a housing crisis, the problem is in the for sale market. In the apartment market, rent increases have had two main drivers. The first was the catch-up year when landlords raised rents more than they historically after rent control. The second was (and remains) unmet demand in the for sale market filtering into the rental market. The unmet demand in the for sale market increases demand for rentals (from more people being priced out of ownership) and creates risk for new projects because an increased supply of homes for purchase would reduce demand for rentals and cause rents to fall. That’s a tough risk to price for a variety of reasons. When risk is difficult to price, builders can’t get financing.

Another housing denialist, or maybe the same one.

HUD’s analysis says there isn’t a crisis, and developers have repeatedly told Planning that they think demand is soft, so I guess they’re all denialists too. Should I go with HUD’s housing economists and people who have money on the line or lobbyists?

[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:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

+1. The housing market is complex because it’s not functioning properly in most places, because every metro is different, and because the relationship among various types of housing is fluid.

As to whether there’s a housing crisis in MoCo, the for sale market is tight, while the rental market is roughly balanced. Median prices for homes for sale have increased much more quickly than rents in the past five years. If there is a housing crisis, the problem is in the for sale market. In the apartment market, rent increases have had two main drivers. The first was the catch-up year when landlords raised rents more than they historically after rent control. The second was (and remains) unmet demand in the for sale market filtering into the rental market. The unmet demand in the for sale market increases demand for rentals (from more people being priced out of ownership) and creates risk for new projects because an increased supply of homes for purchase would reduce demand for rentals and cause rents to fall. That’s a tough risk to price for a variety of reasons. When risk is difficult to price, builders can’t get financing.

Another housing denialist, or maybe the same one.

HUD’s analysis says there isn’t a crisis, and developers have repeatedly told Planning that they think demand is soft, so I guess they’re all denialists too. Should I go with HUD’s housing economists and people who have money on the line or lobbyists?

Can you cite to what you are talking about from HUD?

Admittedly I didn’t spend too much time looking, but the WH certainly thinks there is a housing crisis, and the fact sheet on HUD housing main section page certainly indicates there is a problem that needs addressing:

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Housing/documents/Housing_Supply_FHA_FactSheet_07-22.pdf

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/07/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-plan-to-lower-housing-costs-for-working-families/

[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:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

+1. The housing market is complex because it’s not functioning properly in most places, because every metro is different, and because the relationship among various types of housing is fluid.

As to whether there’s a housing crisis in MoCo, the for sale market is tight, while the rental market is roughly balanced. Median prices for homes for sale have increased much more quickly than rents in the past five years. If there is a housing crisis, the problem is in the for sale market. In the apartment market, rent increases have had two main drivers. The first was the catch-up year when landlords raised rents more than they historically after rent control. The second was (and remains) unmet demand in the for sale market filtering into the rental market. The unmet demand in the for sale market increases demand for rentals (from more people being priced out of ownership) and creates risk for new projects because an increased supply of homes for purchase would reduce demand for rentals and cause rents to fall. That’s a tough risk to price for a variety of reasons. When risk is difficult to price, builders can’t get financing.

Another housing denialist, or maybe the same one.

HUD’s analysis says there isn’t a crisis, and developers have repeatedly told Planning that they think demand is soft, so I guess they’re all denialists too. Should I go with HUD’s housing economists and people who have money on the line or lobbyists?

Can you cite to what you are talking about from HUD?

Admittedly I didn’t spend too much time looking, but the WH certainly thinks there is a housing crisis, and the fact sheet on HUD housing main section page certainly indicates there is a problem that needs addressing:

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Housing/documents/Housing_Supply_FHA_FactSheet_07-22.pdf

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/07/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-plan-to-lower-housing-costs-for-working-families/

It’s really bad in some markets. This market isn’t one of them. There’s a housing crisis when developers want subsidies but demand is soft when developers want to shrink projects or get plan extensions approved.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

+1. The housing market is complex because it’s not functioning properly in most places, because every metro is different, and because the relationship among various types of housing is fluid.

As to whether there’s a housing crisis in MoCo, the for sale market is tight, while the rental market is roughly balanced. Median prices for homes for sale have increased much more quickly than rents in the past five years. If there is a housing crisis, the problem is in the for sale market. In the apartment market, rent increases have had two main drivers. The first was the catch-up year when landlords raised rents more than they historically after rent control. The second was (and remains) unmet demand in the for sale market filtering into the rental market. The unmet demand in the for sale market increases demand for rentals (from more people being priced out of ownership) and creates risk for new projects because an increased supply of homes for purchase would reduce demand for rentals and cause rents to fall. That’s a tough risk to price for a variety of reasons. When risk is difficult to price, builders can’t get financing.

Another housing denialist, or maybe the same one.

HUD’s analysis says there isn’t a crisis, and developers have repeatedly told Planning that they think demand is soft, so I guess they’re all denialists too. Should I go with HUD’s housing economists and people who have money on the line or lobbyists?

Can you cite to what you are talking about from HUD?

Admittedly I didn’t spend too much time looking, but the WH certainly thinks there is a housing crisis, and the fact sheet on HUD housing main section page certainly indicates there is a problem that needs addressing:

https://www.hud.gov/sites/dfiles/Housing/documents/Housing_Supply_FHA_FactSheet_07-22.pdf

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/03/07/fact-sheet-president-biden-announces-plan-to-lower-housing-costs-for-working-families/

It’s really bad in some markets. This market isn’t one of them. There’s a housing crisis when developers want subsidies but demand is soft when developers want to shrink projects or get plan extensions approved.

Thanks. But are you the PP who mentions HUD research? If so would you mind a link to the cite?

[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:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

+1. The housing market is complex because it’s not functioning properly in most places, because every metro is different, and because the relationship among various types of housing is fluid.

As to whether there’s a housing crisis in MoCo, the for sale market is tight, while the rental market is roughly balanced. Median prices for homes for sale have increased much more quickly than rents in the past five years. If there is a housing crisis, the problem is in the for sale market. In the apartment market, rent increases have had two main drivers. The first was the catch-up year when landlords raised rents more than they historically after rent control. The second was (and remains) unmet demand in the for sale market filtering into the rental market. The unmet demand in the for sale market increases demand for rentals (from more people being priced out of ownership) and creates risk for new projects because an increased supply of homes for purchase would reduce demand for rentals and cause rents to fall. That’s a tough risk to price for a variety of reasons. When risk is difficult to price, builders can’t get financing.

Another housing denialist, or maybe the same one.

HUD’s analysis says there isn’t a crisis, and developers have repeatedly told Planning that they think demand is soft, so I guess they’re all denialists too. Should I go with HUD’s housing economists and people who have money on the line or lobbyists?

Where is this HUD analysis that says there isn't a housing crisis?

Please also explain why "developers have repeatedly told Planning that they think demand is soft" means there isn't a housing shortage for people.

[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:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

+1. The housing market is complex because it’s not functioning properly in most places, because every metro is different, and because the relationship among various types of housing is fluid.

As to whether there’s a housing crisis in MoCo, the for sale market is tight, while the rental market is roughly balanced. Median prices for homes for sale have increased much more quickly than rents in the past five years. If there is a housing crisis, the problem is in the for sale market. In the apartment market, rent increases have had two main drivers. The first was the catch-up year when landlords raised rents more than they historically after rent control. The second was (and remains) unmet demand in the for sale market filtering into the rental market. The unmet demand in the for sale market increases demand for rentals (from more people being priced out of ownership) and creates risk for new projects because an increased supply of homes for purchase would reduce demand for rentals and cause rents to fall. That’s a tough risk to price for a variety of reasons. When risk is difficult to price, builders can’t get financing.

Another housing denialist, or maybe the same one.

HUD’s analysis says there isn’t a crisis, and developers have repeatedly told Planning that they think demand is soft, so I guess they’re all denialists too. Should I go with HUD’s housing economists and people who have money on the line or lobbyists?

Where is this HUD analysis that says there isn't a housing crisis?

Please also explain why "developers have repeatedly told Planning that they think demand is soft" means there isn't a housing shortage for people.

If developers are curtailing construction because they’re worried about oversupply and planning is approving their requests then there must be oversupply. I can’t imagine planning approving things that weren’t in the public interest if there’s a crisis.

[Anonymous]

LATEST:

https://moco360.media/2024/07/26/county-council-may-consider-proposal-to-allow-more-housing-options-in-single-family-home-zones/

Maybe Andrew Friedson isn’t concerned about lawsuits (or so he says), but there could be a chance that he is interested in being reelected.

“While Friedson has been supportive of the proposed initiative, he told council staffers during Monday’s Parks, Housing and Planning Committee work session that they needed to clarify what the Planning Board is actually recommending before legislation could come before the council.

He described some of the proposed language and regulations in the initiative as confusing and “doublespeak.”

“I don’t think we need to wait on obtaining information. Knowledge is power here, so let’s get a handle on what we’re talking about,” Friedson said.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:People move to SFH neighborhoods specifically to have space. They are going to ruin the entire county until it is paved concrete jungle like Tokyo and we all get to live in sh!tty 400 sqft apts.

But hey, at least the crappy chipotle down the street is walkable. I can’t wait until this stupendously backfires and everyone with means (by and large part home owners) flees because all of the upzoning imports tons of poverty and trashy people into the county. Gee, you mean it sucks when your neighborhood street has 30000 cars parked all over because each triplex houses 20 people all with their own cars?

R.I.P. MoCo. Howard and AA Counties looking more attractive by the day.

Ugh. That is EXACTLY what happened to our neighborhood. Used to be a solidly middle-class neighborhood. Now overrun with multiple families crammed into one home, and cars all over. Very frustrating.