MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thank for posting that link. It specifically states that Zero Open/Green space is required for R60.

If you think summers are hot now, just wait until they remove all the streets and pave everything over.

This is exactly what our local political leaders want to do. And they ignore the complications - just look at how much more easily some of our roads flood. It will just get worse once they over-develop every available plot of land.

[Anonymous]

Moco needs to liberalize land use so we can compete against NoVa. Moco is becoming a backwater very fast and we need more dynamic land use policy and better tax structure to attract businesses

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

It's so hard to tell which posters are being serious. This is a troll, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moco needs to liberalize land use so we can compete against NoVa. Moco is becoming a backwater very fast and we need more dynamic land use policy and better tax structure to attract businesses

So, more like there, keep detached SFH zoning for existing neighborhoods, allow regional public transportation expansion/regional development in jurisdictions with greenfield opportunity to address the need for housing at lower SFH cost than that available closer in, concentrate on immediate-rail-vicinity (like a quarter to half mile) high density to address the proximate need for less-than-detached-SFH-cost housing, refocus on attracting higher-end employment, and better ensure school capacity/infrastructure where development is anticipated.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Moco needs to liberalize land use so we can compete against NoVa. Moco is becoming a backwater very fast and we need more dynamic land use policy and better tax structure to attract businesses

Lmao, but on a more serious note…

Are things being built in NoVA, or is most everything on hold pending the outcome of lawsuits? I think that builders are pretty worried that they will have to reverse any work that they would be doing, so the number of builds is low.

Also, at least in some of the areas, they had the good sense to pilot it by issuing a certain number of permits per year with an assessment to be performed at the end of five years. At least this limits it in scope until they have collected some data and see some outcomes.

Here in MOCO they seem ready to just give up on any kind of planning or goals or reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moco needs to liberalize land use so we can compete against NoVa. Moco is becoming a backwater very fast and we need more dynamic land use policy and better tax structure to attract businesses

Lmao, but on a more serious note…

Are things being built in NoVA, or is most everything on hold pending the outcome of lawsuits? I think that builders are pretty worried that they will have to reverse any work that they would be doing, so the number of builds is low.

Also, at least in some of the areas, they had the good sense to pilot it by issuing a certain number of permits per year with an assessment to be performed at the end of five years. At least this limits it in scope until they have collected some data and see some outcomes.

Here in MOCO they seem ready to just give up on any kind of planning or goals or reality.

Funny because currently right here on this forum there are three? four? active threads about MoCo planning/goals/reality. I wonder how active threads there would be if they weren't giving up on it!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

Many Germans don't own because they have been turned into a nation of renters. Despite all the rainbows progressives thinks Germans piss, they have a huge housing crisis because they own nothing and rent everything.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-housing-is-almost-unaffordable/a-66432276

https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/housing-crisis-german-rents-see-record-increase-first-months-2023


This is exactly what the elites in the USA want. They want to smash and grab as much property and real estate out of the hands of the middle class so they can turn us all into a nation of renters for life like Germany. Democrats think they are doing good work by upzoning, because it will bring 'affordable housing'. Ha! All of it will be owned by investors and Blackrock. Once they've turned the entire country into permanent renters for life, they will have wiped out the last remaining leg for the middle class to build any wealth. They will be able to raise rents whenever they want, and by whatever they want. You will have no say because you don't own and can't own anymore.

What progressives always overlook is how ownership of SFH enables affordable housing for millions of middle class Americans because they're able to lock in stable housing payments for thirty years. Meanwhile, all the SFH they're tearing down and turning into rental units just end up having unstable rent increases. Just look at Germany.

MoCo has rent stabilization already. What you depict could not happen.

Wrong. All it will do over time is encourage landlords to run slums. Just don’t improve buildings and make life in them miserable so people with lower rents move out and you can jack rents up on new tenants. Every single time the govt tries to get deeper and deeper into markets it makes things worse, because the law of unintended consequences always takes over. Everything the council is doing is going to encourage an entire county of renters for life who will be holden to corporate slumlords. It’s truly amazing how shortsighted liberals running the county are. They cannot see that the elites are pushing for this so we will rent everything, and own nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moco needs to liberalize land use so we can compete against NoVa. Moco is becoming a backwater very fast and we need more dynamic land use policy and better tax structure to attract businesses

Lmao, but on a more serious note…

Are things being built in NoVA, or is most everything on hold pending the outcome of lawsuits? I think that builders are pretty worried that they will have to reverse any work that they would be doing, so the number of builds is low.

Also, at least in some of the areas, they had the good sense to pilot it by issuing a certain number of permits per year with an assessment to be performed at the end of five years. At least this limits it in scope until they have collected some data and see some outcomes.

Here in MOCO they seem ready to just give up on any kind of planning or goals or reality.

Funny because currently right here on this forum there are three? four? active threads about MoCo planning/goals/reality. I wonder how active threads there would be if they weren't giving up on it!

How does the existence of threads prove that the council has a plan or specific goals or that anything they’ve mentioned is based in reality?

We could have 6 threads about antivaxxers, would it legitimize the viewpoints of antivaxxers?

Or would it stem from people’s fears that the less educated would buy into their disinformation?

[Anonymous]

Good news!

The Bethesda-Chevy Chase attainable housing session was sold out, but they are moving it to a larger venue.

Sign up!

https://mcgmd.wufoo.com/forms/z1x6zubk1qub83c/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR0-n9oU7z_mHLNoskV2aVPfltqFy8XtQS1gNoKTFC9zNbDwQJztnl1fFj8_aem_Y5K-6QuOM6Ktcs9uxUm8Uw

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Moco needs to liberalize land use so we can compete against NoVa. Moco is becoming a backwater very fast and we need more dynamic land use policy and better tax structure to attract businesses

Lmao, but on a more serious note…

Are things being built in NoVA, or is most everything on hold pending the outcome of lawsuits? I think that builders are pretty worried that they will have to reverse any work that they would be doing, so the number of builds is low.

Also, at least in some of the areas, they had the good sense to pilot it by issuing a certain number of permits per year with an assessment to be performed at the end of five years. At least this limits it in scope until they have collected some data and see some outcomes.

Here in MOCO they seem ready to just give up on any kind of planning or goals or reality.

Funny because currently right here on this forum there are three? four? active threads about MoCo planning/goals/reality. I wonder how active threads there would be if they weren't giving up on it!

How does the existence of threads prove that the council has a plan or specific goals or that anything they’ve mentioned is based in reality?

We could have 6 threads about antivaxxers, would it legitimize the viewpoints of antivaxxers?

Or would it stem from people’s fears that the less educated would buy into their disinformation?

It would suggest that there is such a thing as vaccines.

It's like the joke about airline meals. MoCo plans! So destructive! And also they don't exist!

[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:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

Many Germans don't own because they have been turned into a nation of renters. Despite all the rainbows progressives thinks Germans piss, they have a huge housing crisis because they own nothing and rent everything.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-housing-is-almost-unaffordable/a-66432276

https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/housing-crisis-german-rents-see-record-increase-first-months-2023


This is exactly what the elites in the USA want. They want to smash and grab as much property and real estate out of the hands of the middle class so they can turn us all into a nation of renters for life like Germany. Democrats think they are doing good work by upzoning, because it will bring 'affordable housing'. Ha! All of it will be owned by investors and Blackrock. Once they've turned the entire country into permanent renters for life, they will have wiped out the last remaining leg for the middle class to build any wealth. They will be able to raise rents whenever they want, and by whatever they want. You will have no say because you don't own and can't own anymore.

What progressives always overlook is how ownership of SFH enables affordable housing for millions of middle class Americans because they're able to lock in stable housing payments for thirty years. Meanwhile, all the SFH they're tearing down and turning into rental units just end up having unstable rent increases. Just look at Germany.

MoCo has rent stabilization already. What you depict could not happen.

Wrong. All it will do over time is encourage landlords to run slums. Just don’t improve buildings and make life in them miserable so people with lower rents move out and you can jack rents up on new tenants. Every single time the govt tries to get deeper and deeper into markets it makes things worse, because the law of unintended consequences always takes over. Everything the council is doing is going to encourage an entire county of renters for life who will be holden to corporate slumlords. It’s truly amazing how shortsighted liberals running the county are. They cannot see that the elites are pushing for this so we will rent everything, and own nothing.

This is an argument for removing zoning restrictions. Let the market decide. You said it, not me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

Many Germans don't own because they have been turned into a nation of renters. Despite all the rainbows progressives thinks Germans piss, they have a huge housing crisis because they own nothing and rent everything.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-housing-is-almost-unaffordable/a-66432276

https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/housing-crisis-german-rents-see-record-increase-first-months-2023


This is exactly what the elites in the USA want. They want to smash and grab as much property and real estate out of the hands of the middle class so they can turn us all into a nation of renters for life like Germany. Democrats think they are doing good work by upzoning, because it will bring 'affordable housing'. Ha! All of it will be owned by investors and Blackrock. Once they've turned the entire country into permanent renters for life, they will have wiped out the last remaining leg for the middle class to build any wealth. They will be able to raise rents whenever they want, and by whatever they want. You will have no say because you don't own and can't own anymore.

What progressives always overlook is how ownership of SFH enables affordable housing for millions of middle class Americans because they're able to lock in stable housing payments for thirty years. Meanwhile, all the SFH they're tearing down and turning into rental units just end up having unstable rent increases. Just look at Germany.

MoCo has rent stabilization already. What you depict could not happen.

Wrong. All it will do over time is encourage landlords to run slums. Just don’t improve buildings and make life in them miserable so people with lower rents move out and you can jack rents up on new tenants. Every single time the govt tries to get deeper and deeper into markets it makes things worse, because the law of unintended consequences always takes over. Everything the council is doing is going to encourage an entire county of renters for life who will be holden to corporate slumlords. It’s truly amazing how shortsighted liberals running the county are. They cannot see that the elites are pushing for this so we will rent everything, and own nothing.

This is an argument for removing zoning restrictions. Let the market decide. You said it, not me.

It’s also an argument for the government to stop subsidizing big developers. Let the market decide. You said it.

[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:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

Many Germans don't own because they have been turned into a nation of renters. Despite all the rainbows progressives thinks Germans piss, they have a huge housing crisis because they own nothing and rent everything.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-housing-is-almost-unaffordable/a-66432276

https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/housing-crisis-german-rents-see-record-increase-first-months-2023


This is exactly what the elites in the USA want. They want to smash and grab as much property and real estate out of the hands of the middle class so they can turn us all into a nation of renters for life like Germany. Democrats think they are doing good work by upzoning, because it will bring 'affordable housing'. Ha! All of it will be owned by investors and Blackrock. Once they've turned the entire country into permanent renters for life, they will have wiped out the last remaining leg for the middle class to build any wealth. They will be able to raise rents whenever they want, and by whatever they want. You will have no say because you don't own and can't own anymore.

What progressives always overlook is how ownership of SFH enables affordable housing for millions of middle class Americans because they're able to lock in stable housing payments for thirty years. Meanwhile, all the SFH they're tearing down and turning into rental units just end up having unstable rent increases. Just look at Germany.

MoCo has rent stabilization already. What you depict could not happen.

Wrong. All it will do over time is encourage landlords to run slums. Just don’t improve buildings and make life in them miserable so people with lower rents move out and you can jack rents up on new tenants. Every single time the govt tries to get deeper and deeper into markets it makes things worse, because the law of unintended consequences always takes over. Everything the council is doing is going to encourage an entire county of renters for life who will be holden to corporate slumlords. It’s truly amazing how shortsighted liberals running the county are. They cannot see that the elites are pushing for this so we will rent everything, and own nothing.

This is an argument for removing zoning restrictions. Let the market decide. You said it, not me.

Sure, a homeowner should be allowed to sell to a sewage treatment facility to build in neighborhoods.

[Anonymous]

Libs getting libbed with hardcore lib-sanity is libtastic !!!

[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:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.

It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.

Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.

Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.

If no one wants to buy them, then they're not going to be very profitable.

Great. So a neighborhood will be negatively impacted by greedy developers squeezing triplexes into SFH plots (which in Silver Spring and Wheaton) aren’t that big and then they don’t sell so everyone’s property value goes down. But I guess this is what YIMBYs want? They don’t want to save and scrimp for that house they want to ruin other people’s neighborhoods and get houses dirt cheap.

I am a bit confused about these greedy developers building housing they can't sell. Wouldn't greed motivate them to build housing they can sell? Or is there some secret formula whereby greedy developers make more money building housing they can't sell than housing they can sell?

Because this is exactly how they turn the entire county and nation into permanent renters, dumbass. They rip up and destroy all SFH middle class can buy. Then they just replace with trash hole multiunits they no one wants to buy. Congrats, the available pool for ownership and building wealth for the middle class erodes while the elite buy up land and housing and make everyone a permanent renter for life. Liberals want to turn is into Germany.

What does this mean? No speed limits on highways? A strong apprenticeship program? Paid maternity leave and a minimum of 20 paid vacation days per year? Doner kebab stands and outdoor Christmas markets? A resurgent right-wing party in state elections?

Many Germans don't own because they have been turned into a nation of renters. Despite all the rainbows progressives thinks Germans piss, they have a huge housing crisis because they own nothing and rent everything.

https://www.dw.com/en/germany-housing-is-almost-unaffordable/a-66432276

https://www.iamexpat.de/housing/real-estate-news/housing-crisis-german-rents-see-record-increase-first-months-2023


This is exactly what the elites in the USA want. They want to smash and grab as much property and real estate out of the hands of the middle class so they can turn us all into a nation of renters for life like Germany. Democrats think they are doing good work by upzoning, because it will bring 'affordable housing'. Ha! All of it will be owned by investors and Blackrock. Once they've turned the entire country into permanent renters for life, they will have wiped out the last remaining leg for the middle class to build any wealth. They will be able to raise rents whenever they want, and by whatever they want. You will have no say because you don't own and can't own anymore.

What progressives always overlook is how ownership of SFH enables affordable housing for millions of middle class Americans because they're able to lock in stable housing payments for thirty years. Meanwhile, all the SFH they're tearing down and turning into rental units just end up having unstable rent increases. Just look at Germany.

MoCo has rent stabilization already. What you depict could not happen.

Wrong. All it will do over time is encourage landlords to run slums. Just don’t improve buildings and make life in them miserable so people with lower rents move out and you can jack rents up on new tenants. Every single time the govt tries to get deeper and deeper into markets it makes things worse, because the law of unintended consequences always takes over. Everything the council is doing is going to encourage an entire county of renters for life who will be holden to corporate slumlords. It’s truly amazing how shortsighted liberals running the county are. They cannot see that the elites are pushing for this so we will rent everything, and own nothing.

This is an argument for removing zoning restrictions. Let the market decide. You said it, not me.

Sure, a homeowner should be allowed to sell to a sewage treatment facility to build in neighborhoods.

Yes, presumably the person who opposes rent stabilization would support this. "Every single time the govt tries to get deeper and deeper into markets it makes things worse, because the law of unintended consequences always takes over." So, discuss it with that person. Don't discuss it with me; I support rent stabilization, I support the general concept of zoning, and I support the proposed zoning changes.