MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?

NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?

NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?

And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Do you know how one would begin adding covenants?

You need to step up a consult with a land use attorney and talk to your neighbors to see if they are interested in doing it. Even if not everyone in the neighborhood wants to do it, it can still be effective and shielding your house from the impacts of this zoning change. First talk to your neighbors and see how many are interested in doing it. Explain to them the benefits of the policy that it will protect their property values by preventing overly dense development and ensuring the quiet enjoyment of our neighborhood. Tell them that MOCO is planning on making zoning changes that will be detrimental to environment and faulty of life in your community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Do you know how one would begin adding covenants?

You need to step up a consult with a land use attorney and talk to your neighbors to see if they are interested in doing it. Even if not everyone in the neighborhood wants to do it, it can still be effective and shielding your house from the impacts of this zoning change. First talk to your neighbors and see how many are interested in doing it. Explain to them the benefits of the policy that it will protect their property values by preventing overly dense development and ensuring the quiet enjoyment of our neighborhood. Tell them that MOCO is planning on making zoning changes that will be detrimental to environment and faulty of life in your community.

IMO, covenants would be worthwhile as long as you can get the neighbors directly adjacent to your property to agree to it, but more is better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?

NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?

And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.

My point in asking the question is that people see to not realize that NOW is the time to speak out if you don't like the proposal at all. Or, probably more likely to be effective- advocate for the changes to it that you want to see. For example, yes Friedson is an advocate of adding density/housing, but in the most recent meeting he expressed concern and asked questions about certain aspects.

I for example am very much in favor of most of this proposal. I would NOT include such dramatic property tax breaks and impact fee exceptions. I would also want setback requirements retained. I'm writing letters advocating for that.

As with ALL legislation, there will be a compromise between now and signed legislation. EX: the rent stabilization legislation. This is how local policy works. Engage it in to influence the changes you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?

NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?

And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.

My point in asking the question is that people see to not realize that NOW is the time to speak out if you don't like the proposal at all. Or, probably more likely to be effective- advocate for the changes to it that you want to see. For example, yes Friedson is an advocate of adding density/housing, but in the most recent meeting he expressed concern and asked questions about certain aspects.

I for example am very much in favor of most of this proposal. I would NOT include such dramatic property tax breaks and impact fee exceptions. I would also want setback requirements retained. I'm writing letters advocating for that.

As with ALL legislation, there will be a compromise between now and signed legislation. EX: the rent stabilization legislation. This is how local policy works. Engage it in to influence the changes you want.

Yes, I understand. Trust me, the YIMBYs are not out thinking anyone. But that’s not what you said or even clearly alluded to.

By refusing to accept it at all we stand the best chance of forcing the deepest concessions. The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game. If we fight less, they get more, and it might the finest parts of a dumb plan.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?

NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?

And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.

My point in asking the question is that people see to not realize that NOW is the time to speak out if you don't like the proposal at all. Or, probably more likely to be effective- advocate for the changes to it that you want to see. For example, yes Friedson is an advocate of adding density/housing, but in the most recent meeting he expressed concern and asked questions about certain aspects.

I for example am very much in favor of most of this proposal. I would NOT include such dramatic property tax breaks and impact fee exceptions. I would also want setback requirements retained. I'm writing letters advocating for that.

As with ALL legislation, there will be a compromise between now and signed legislation. EX: the rent stabilization legislation. This is how local policy works. Engage it in to influence the changes you want.

Yes, I understand. Trust me, the YIMBYs are not out thinking anyone. But that’s not what you said or even clearly alluded to.

By refusing to accept it at all we stand the best chance of forcing the deepest concessions. The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game. If we fight less, they get more, and it might the finest parts of a dumb plan.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded?

I was referring to a poster that said that they felt betrayed by the council and would tell people not to vote for them. Seems to me that is a premature, and ineffective, plan. It assumes that this proposal as currently written will be passed and then just be mad about it and no reelect the people who passed it? How does that help?

Now, if you are saying that the strategy is to object to ANY change, that doesn't seem like a possibility. No changes at all to make it easier to build housing somewhere in the county is not a viable or realistic option. So advocate for something, even dramatically scaled back (ex: changes only to property directly on major roadways, or something). And even if you want to say no to anything at all, are you actually DOING that? Writing letters, attending meetings, etc? I hope so.

Complaining to other people on a message board about something that hasn't even happened does nothing. Not saying you can't/shouldn't ALSO do that, but hopefully more as well.

[Anonymous]

You will be upzoned and you will tolerate it. It will suck and probably cause all sorts of shitty effects in your neighborhood.

But the wealthy people who make the rules decide what is good for society. And since the current federal admin is big on importing poverty (and his hopeful successor even more-so) there needs to be housing for them. You want them to sleep on the street or have the government put them in shelters in already-poverty stricken areas?! Nooo! According to researchers zipcodes affect success and are the best predictors of success or lack-there-of…………..because some land is magical?…. So we need to put as much affordable/low-income housing there as possible! Gotta give developers oodles of taxcredits to make it profitable for them too!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?

NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?

And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.

My point in asking the question is that people see to not realize that NOW is the time to speak out if you don't like the proposal at all. Or, probably more likely to be effective- advocate for the changes to it that you want to see. For example, yes Friedson is an advocate of adding density/housing, but in the most recent meeting he expressed concern and asked questions about certain aspects.

I for example am very much in favor of most of this proposal. I would NOT include such dramatic property tax breaks and impact fee exceptions. I would also want setback requirements retained. I'm writing letters advocating for that.

As with ALL legislation, there will be a compromise between now and signed legislation. EX: the rent stabilization legislation. This is how local policy works. Engage it in to influence the changes you want.

Yes, I understand. Trust me, the YIMBYs are not out thinking anyone. But that’s not what you said or even clearly alluded to.

By refusing to accept it at all we stand the best chance of forcing the deepest concessions. The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game. If we fight less, they get more, and it might the finest parts of a dumb plan.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded?

I was referring to a poster that said that they felt betrayed by the council and would tell people not to vote for them. Seems to me that is a premature, and ineffective, plan. It assumes that this proposal as currently written will be passed and then just be mad about it and no reelect the people who passed it? How does that help?

Now, if you are saying that the strategy is to object to ANY change, that doesn't seem like a possibility. No changes at all to make it easier to build housing somewhere in the county is not a viable or realistic option. So advocate for something, even dramatically scaled back (ex: changes only to property directly on major roadways, or something). And even if you want to say no to anything at all, are you actually DOING that? Writing letters, attending meetings, etc? I hope so.

Complaining to other people on a message board about something that hasn't even happened does nothing. Not saying you can't/shouldn't ALSO do that, but hopefully more as well.

DP. While I expect that they were saying that because of the general content/tenor of the YIMBY posts, I agree that there wasn't anything in your post, specifically, that would jive. At the same time, the PP properly calls out the politicized posturing that corrupts the Hegelian dialectic, seeking maximal possible shift rather than a moderated synthesis across reasoned viewpoints.

In keeping with this, routinely misrepresenting opposition/criticism, such as painting any resistance as no-to-any-change, is how YIMBYs, including the Council and Planning, have operated thus far. Again, as the PP suggested, the natural reaction would be to adopt that no-change stance, not because it represents the desired state, but because the over-politicized rhetoric leaves no room for more rational discourse to hold. Taking that posture may be distasteful to those with well reasoned criticisms, but more strident resistance in large numbers appears to be the only option when treated so/when the foreseen effect of the faux synthesis would be greatly objectionable itself.

Here, we have a YIMBY responding to that stridence with the suggestion of more moderate NIMBY positioning and operation within the context of Council processes that, in all likelihood, merely will be Kabuki theater (based on the "Surprise! Now that we're presenting a plan, it's much more than we ever told you!" Planning approach that made a mockery of any community involvement and the Council Staff's/PHP Committee's clear/well-prepped support of nearly all plan aspects). Though engaging would be essential, as well, constraining activism to such pro forma processes and bringing only meek viewpoints to the table simply would be likely to result in one's interests being squelched.

Of course, this is the kind of approach that has become ever more common in America's body politic. A very sad state of affairs.

If the Council/Planning wants this to be seen as socially legitimate (and they may not care so much about that) and not just legal within their purview, they should be putting forth a position, themselves, far less likely to cause disruption in the lives of the residents they represent, and ensuring the engagement of the enormous portion of the population the plan now jumps to affect, whether via referendum or similarly broad means of providing agency.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?

NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?

And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.

My point in asking the question is that people see to not realize that NOW is the time to speak out if you don't like the proposal at all. Or, probably more likely to be effective- advocate for the changes to it that you want to see. For example, yes Friedson is an advocate of adding density/housing, but in the most recent meeting he expressed concern and asked questions about certain aspects.

I for example am very much in favor of most of this proposal. I would NOT include such dramatic property tax breaks and impact fee exceptions. I would also want setback requirements retained. I'm writing letters advocating for that.

As with ALL legislation, there will be a compromise between now and signed legislation. EX: the rent stabilization legislation. This is how local policy works. Engage it in to influence the changes you want.

Yes, I understand. Trust me, the YIMBYs are not out thinking anyone. But that’s not what you said or even clearly alluded to.

By refusing to accept it at all we stand the best chance of forcing the deepest concessions. The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game. If we fight less, they get more, and it might the finest parts of a dumb plan.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded?

I was referring to a poster that said that they felt betrayed by the council and would tell people not to vote for them. Seems to me that is a premature, and ineffective, plan. It assumes that this proposal as currently written will be passed and then just be mad about it and no reelect the people who passed it? How does that help?

Now, if you are saying that the strategy is to object to ANY change, that doesn't seem like a possibility. No changes at all to make it easier to build housing somewhere in the county is not a viable or realistic option. So advocate for something, even dramatically scaled back (ex: changes only to property directly on major roadways, or something). And even if you want to say no to anything at all, are you actually DOING that? Writing letters, attending meetings, etc? I hope so.

Complaining to other people on a message board about something that hasn't even happened does nothing. Not saying you can't/shouldn't ALSO do that, but hopefully more as well.

DP. While I expect that they were saying that because of the general content/tenor of the YIMBY posts, I agree that there wasn't anything in your post, specifically, that would jive. At the same time, the PP properly calls out the politicized posturing that corrupts the Hegelian dialectic, seeking maximal possible shift rather than a moderated synthesis across reasoned viewpoints.

In keeping with this, routinely misrepresenting opposition/criticism, such as painting any resistance as no-to-any-change, is how YIMBYs, including the Council and Planning, have operated thus far. Again, as the PP suggested, the natural reaction would be to adopt that no-change stance, not because it represents the desired state, but because the over-politicized rhetoric leaves no room for more rational discourse to hold. Taking that posture may be distasteful to those with well reasoned criticisms, but more strident resistance in large numbers appears to be the only option when treated so/when the foreseen effect of the faux synthesis would be greatly objectionable itself.

Here, we have a YIMBY responding to that stridence with the suggestion of more moderate NIMBY positioning and operation within the context of Council processes that, in all likelihood, merely will be Kabuki theater (based on the "Surprise! Now that we're presenting a plan, it's much more than we ever told you!" Planning approach that made a mockery of any community involvement and the Council Staff's/PHP Committee's clear/well-prepped support of nearly all plan aspects). Though engaging would be essential, as well, constraining activism to such pro forma processes and bringing only meek viewpoints to the table simply would be likely to result in one's interests being squelched.

Of course, this is the kind of approach that has become ever more common in America's body politic. A very sad state of affairs.

If the Council/Planning wants this to be seen as socially legitimate (and they may not care so much about that) and not just legal within their purview, they should be putting forth a position, themselves, far less likely to cause disruption in the lives of the residents they represent, and ensuring the engagement of the enormous portion of the population the plan now jumps to affect, whether via referendum or similarly broad means of providing agency.

PP here. This is difficult to follow.

I was responding to a poster who actually said "no to any change." I was not "repeatedly characterizing" anything.
"Rational discourse" is and will happen as a proposal moves to legislation. I would bet my entire savings that this proposal gets scaled back significantly prior to enactment.
I never suggested "constraining activism". If fact, I was encouraging engaging in significant activism to effect change.
The "position the Council will put forth" is the actual legislation, which is forthcoming. That is the process. And now is the time to influence it.

[Anonymous]

Upzone R-60 and R-90 and leave everywhere else alone. R-60 and R-90 crowded already anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?

NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?

And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.

My point in asking the question is that people see to not realize that NOW is the time to speak out if you don't like the proposal at all. Or, probably more likely to be effective- advocate for the changes to it that you want to see. For example, yes Friedson is an advocate of adding density/housing, but in the most recent meeting he expressed concern and asked questions about certain aspects.

I for example am very much in favor of most of this proposal. I would NOT include such dramatic property tax breaks and impact fee exceptions. I would also want setback requirements retained. I'm writing letters advocating for that.

As with ALL legislation, there will be a compromise between now and signed legislation. EX: the rent stabilization legislation. This is how local policy works. Engage it in to influence the changes you want.

Yes, I understand. Trust me, the YIMBYs are not out thinking anyone. But that’s not what you said or even clearly alluded to.

By refusing to accept it at all we stand the best chance of forcing the deepest concessions. The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game. If we fight less, they get more, and it might the finest parts of a dumb plan.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded?

I was referring to a poster that said that they felt betrayed by the council and would tell people not to vote for them. Seems to me that is a premature, and ineffective, plan. It assumes that this proposal as currently written will be passed and then just be mad about it and no reelect the people who passed it? How does that help?

Now, if you are saying that the strategy is to object to ANY change, that doesn't seem like a possibility. No changes at all to make it easier to build housing somewhere in the county is not a viable or realistic option. So advocate for something, even dramatically scaled back (ex: changes only to property directly on major roadways, or something). And even if you want to say no to anything at all, are you actually DOING that? Writing letters, attending meetings, etc? I hope so.

Complaining to other people on a message board about something that hasn't even happened does nothing. Not saying you can't/shouldn't ALSO do that, but hopefully more as well.

DP. While I expect that they were saying that because of the general content/tenor of the YIMBY posts, I agree that there wasn't anything in your post, specifically, that would jive. At the same time, the PP properly calls out the politicized posturing that corrupts the Hegelian dialectic, seeking maximal possible shift rather than a moderated synthesis across reasoned viewpoints.

In keeping with this, routinely misrepresenting opposition/criticism, such as painting any resistance as no-to-any-change, is how YIMBYs, including the Council and Planning, have operated thus far. Again, as the PP suggested, the natural reaction would be to adopt that no-change stance, not because it represents the desired state, but because the over-politicized rhetoric leaves no room for more rational discourse to hold. Taking that posture may be distasteful to those with well reasoned criticisms, but more strident resistance in large numbers appears to be the only option when treated so/when the foreseen effect of the faux synthesis would be greatly objectionable itself.

Here, we have a YIMBY responding to that stridence with the suggestion of more moderate NIMBY positioning and operation within the context of Council processes that, in all likelihood, merely will be Kabuki theater (based on the "Surprise! Now that we're presenting a plan, it's much more than we ever told you!" Planning approach that made a mockery of any community involvement and the Council Staff's/PHP Committee's clear/well-prepped support of nearly all plan aspects). Though engaging would be essential, as well, constraining activism to such pro forma processes and bringing only meek viewpoints to the table simply would be likely to result in one's interests being squelched.

Of course, this is the kind of approach that has become ever more common in America's body politic. A very sad state of affairs.

If the Council/Planning wants this to be seen as socially legitimate (and they may not care so much about that) and not just legal within their purview, they should be putting forth a position, themselves, far less likely to cause disruption in the lives of the residents they represent, and ensuring the engagement of the enormous portion of the population the plan now jumps to affect, whether via referendum or similarly broad means of providing agency.

PP here. This is difficult to follow.

I was responding to a poster who actually said "no to any change." I was not "repeatedly characterizing" anything.
"Rational discourse" is and will happen as a proposal moves to legislation. I would bet my entire savings that this proposal gets scaled back significantly prior to enactment.
I never suggested "constraining activism". If fact, I was encouraging engaging in significant activism to effect change.
The "position the Council will put forth" is the actual legislation, which is forthcoming. That is the process. And now is the time to influence it.

I got as far as "the PP properly calls out the politicized posturing that corrupts the Hegelian dialectic," in the previous post and stopped reading.

[Anonymous]

In this thread: angry old NIMBYs arguing for 106 pages. Gotta love to see it. Please, spend more energy fighting this! It's hilarious. (and won't work )

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:In this thread: angry old NIMBYs arguing for 106 pages. Gotta love to see it. Please, spend more energy fighting this! It's hilarious. (and won't work )

Awww…show us on the doll where the mean ol’ NIMBYs touched you.

The YIMBY tears are delicious.

So much success. SO MANY HOUSES. Aren’t you so proud of all of your big boy successes?

lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have a really dumb question - how, if at all, would this affect houses with covenants?

I live in a basic 1960's-built sfh neighborhood. There's a community association (I guess like an HOA) and when we bought, the lot had a covenant mandating sfh use. Apparently all the lots in the neighborhood have this, and have since they were first built. Can that be overridden by zoning legislation?

Typically, covenants cannot be overridden by zoning legislation. However, you need to pull the covenants for your specific neighborhood to see how they apply and whether there is an expiration date on them. Ideally an attorney should review them and to see if they provide enough protection for the neighborhood. If they don't you can try to get the neighbors to update them.

At the meeting on Monday, staff talked about there being the possibility of state legislation to allow zoning to trump private agreements like covenants. That's questionable, both as to legality and as to whether it would pass at the state level, but MD is left enough to try it. If you really want this thing not to happen in your neighborhood, you'd need to stop the zoning changes they are proposing in the first place.

That will become a federal circuit court or even a SCOTUS case. I'm not sure the state of Maryland will win this one. Covenants still matter, if you establish one now, it creates an another layer of protection. It's probably legal for the state to ban new covenants limiting properties to single family use, but overriding existing covenants that were legal when established is a much higher legal bar that might be unconstitutional. So add the covenants while you still can before MD bans you from using them.

Agree that it might become a Federal case/reviewed at that level if it comes to pass. There are plenty of ways they could attack existing covenants if they were to pursue it -- demonstrating bias against a protected class comes to mind.

Adding covenants before the legislation adds that hurdle to development, whatever the state may do. Getting all on board would be hard -- I don't think a neighborhood will be able to press such a condition on properties where the owner does not sign on. That's versus pre-established covenants set up when a neighborhood is platted out/subdivided/developed by the owner of the land who places the condition on any sale.

The thoughts of incorporation to achieve neighborhood zoning sovereignty or pursuit of historic designation as a means of establishing ubiquitous detached rules where only a majority/supermajority may be required seem far-fetched. I wonder if there are other mechanisms that would do the same.

The zoning change for density, at least as currently construed, would be the thing to challenge, anyway. Council seats are not up for another 2 years. How many are not lame ducks who might listen to constituents in the interim?

I think that some of them actually believe that this effort is much more popular than it is. I also think that some of them believe that it gives them some progressive cred to pin on their chests for other aspirations and when turns out to be a complete mess, they won’t care because they plan to be long gone.

Personally, I feel terribly betrayed by the people I voted for and I spread this information as far and wide as I can to friends and neighbors, and many of them STILL don’t have any idea that it’s happening. Let me tell you, after they get over their disbelief, they feel pretty betrayed, too. I can’t wait for one of these council members to come to my door again to ask for money and support.

You do realize that none of the councilmembers have actually voted in favor of any of this, right?

NP. You do realize that we can predict how council members will vote based on prior history, right?

And there are several which have already spoken in support. Friedson, in particular, is a huge supporter.

My point in asking the question is that people see to not realize that NOW is the time to speak out if you don't like the proposal at all. Or, probably more likely to be effective- advocate for the changes to it that you want to see. For example, yes Friedson is an advocate of adding density/housing, but in the most recent meeting he expressed concern and asked questions about certain aspects.

I for example am very much in favor of most of this proposal. I would NOT include such dramatic property tax breaks and impact fee exceptions. I would also want setback requirements retained. I'm writing letters advocating for that.

As with ALL legislation, there will be a compromise between now and signed legislation. EX: the rent stabilization legislation. This is how local policy works. Engage it in to influence the changes you want.

Yes, I understand. Trust me, the YIMBYs are not out thinking anyone. But that’s not what you said or even clearly alluded to.

By refusing to accept it at all we stand the best chance of forcing the deepest concessions. The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game. If we fight less, they get more, and it might the finest parts of a dumb plan.

I don't know what you mean by the bolded?

I was referring to a poster that said that they felt betrayed by the council and would tell people not to vote for them. Seems to me that is a premature, and ineffective, plan. It assumes that this proposal as currently written will be passed and then just be mad about it and no reelect the people who passed it? How does that help?

Now, if you are saying that the strategy is to object to ANY change, that doesn't seem like a possibility. No changes at all to make it easier to build housing somewhere in the county is not a viable or realistic option. So advocate for something, even dramatically scaled back (ex: changes only to property directly on major roadways, or something). And even if you want to say no to anything at all, are you actually DOING that? Writing letters, attending meetings, etc? I hope so.

Complaining to other people on a message board about something that hasn't even happened does nothing. Not saying you can't/shouldn't ALSO do that, but hopefully more as well.

DP. While I expect that they were saying that because of the general content/tenor of the YIMBY posts, I agree that there wasn't anything in your post, specifically, that would jive. At the same time, the PP properly calls out the politicized posturing that corrupts the Hegelian dialectic, seeking maximal possible shift rather than a moderated synthesis across reasoned viewpoints.

In keeping with this, routinely misrepresenting opposition/criticism, such as painting any resistance as no-to-any-change, is how YIMBYs, including the Council and Planning, have operated thus far. Again, as the PP suggested, the natural reaction would be to adopt that no-change stance, not because it represents the desired state, but because the over-politicized rhetoric leaves no room for more rational discourse to hold. Taking that posture may be distasteful to those with well reasoned criticisms, but more strident resistance in large numbers appears to be the only option when treated so/when the foreseen effect of the faux synthesis would be greatly objectionable itself.

Here, we have a YIMBY responding to that stridence with the suggestion of more moderate NIMBY positioning and operation within the context of Council processes that, in all likelihood, merely will be Kabuki theater (based on the "Surprise! Now that we're presenting a plan, it's much more than we ever told you!" Planning approach that made a mockery of any community involvement and the Council Staff's/PHP Committee's clear/well-prepped support of nearly all plan aspects). Though engaging would be essential, as well, constraining activism to such pro forma processes and bringing only meek viewpoints to the table simply would be likely to result in one's interests being squelched.

Of course, this is the kind of approach that has become ever more common in America's body politic. A very sad state of affairs.

If the Council/Planning wants this to be seen as socially legitimate (and they may not care so much about that) and not just legal within their purview, they should be putting forth a position, themselves, far less likely to cause disruption in the lives of the residents they represent, and ensuring the engagement of the enormous portion of the population the plan now jumps to affect, whether via referendum or similarly broad means of providing agency.

PP here. This is difficult to follow.

I was responding to a poster who actually said "no to any change." I was not "repeatedly characterizing" anything.
"Rational discourse" is and will happen as a proposal moves to legislation. I would bet my entire savings that this proposal gets scaled back significantly prior to enactment.
I never suggested "constraining activism". If fact, I was encouraging engaging in significant activism to effect change.
The "position the Council will put forth" is the actual legislation, which is forthcoming. That is the process. And now is the time to influence it.

As might be assumed, a largely anonymous forum may have many writing similar things. You may not have repeatedly misrepresented prior critics as being no-to-any-change, but there has been enough of such in the 106 pages of this thread. The poster to whom you had replied had adopted that stance after indetifying the Council/Planning Board approach: "The YIMBYs ask for everything, and if some part at some scale is inevitable, then we have to play the same game."

I don't suggest that trying to work towards better legislation now is the wrong thing to do. However, rational discourse at the more appropriate time to ensure resident agency -- that is, during Planning's development of the report -- was completely undercut by Planning's abject failure to make residents broadly aware of the breadth and depth of that which was being considered. Showing a high-quality brick exterior side-by-side duplex in a slide show to a neighborhood group when floating possibilities is a far cry from notifying all properties within 500 feet of a corridor (and any adjoining property those) that the County was thinking about allowing 19-unit apartment structures next door and asking for feedback on that.

Rational discourse then might have been emblematic of an open process. Instead, what we have left of the "process" is a railroad at this point. Any "scaling back" will be either window dressing (like Friedson's largely passing on commentary about the major aspects of the report, but speaking up about relatively inconsequential items, such as the overly prescriptive 10-foot driveway width) or previously conceived as the desired outcome for which the more extreme policy suggestions are now being made -- so that they can claim that outcome as some kind of compromise. So one shouldn't expect those with criticisms to constrain themselves to that process -- actions now likely, at all, to effect meaningful change would need to be a bit more outside the box.

To clear the remaining misinterpretation: a more socially legitimate Council would not be suggesting such an intensely disruptive policy and would be seeking a referendum on anything so sweeping to ensure broad acceptance.