Removal of development cap in downtown Bethesda

[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'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

Multiunit housing is entirely different from removing the development cap because multiunit housing isn’t going to turn our streetscapes into unpleasant canyons.

So you support the zoning proposals? That's good news.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

[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'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

First of all, who is "we"?

Second of all, housing is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes housing.

Third of all, the issue is not whether renters need infrastructure. It's whether renters have different priorities from current homeowners, with respect to the relative importance of housing vs parks vs schools. For example, there are current homeowners who are stating that additional housing should not be allowed unless there are also, simultaneously, additional parks and additional schools and additional [what-have-you]. People who are not current homeowners might have different opinions about the priority of additional housing compared to additional [what-have-you]. Yes?

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

[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'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

First of all, who is "we"?

Second of all, housing is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes housing.

Third of all, the issue is not whether renters need infrastructure. It's whether renters have different priorities from current homeowners, with respect to the relative importance of housing vs parks vs schools. For example, there are current homeowners who are stating that additional housing should not be allowed unless there are also, simultaneously, additional parks and additional schools and additional [what-have-you]. People who are not current homeowners might have different opinions about the priority of additional housing compared to additional [what-have-you]. Yes?

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

You think renters do not want access to quality parks and schools? Wow. That is a pretty shameful way to think about people who happen to rent.

[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'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

First of all, who is "we"?

Second of all, housing is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes housing.

Third of all, the issue is not whether renters need infrastructure. It's whether renters have different priorities from current homeowners, with respect to the relative importance of housing vs parks vs schools. For example, there are current homeowners who are stating that additional housing should not be allowed unless there are also, simultaneously, additional parks and additional schools and additional [what-have-you]. People who are not current homeowners might have different opinions about the priority of additional housing compared to additional [what-have-you]. Yes?

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

You think renters do not want access to quality parks and schools? Wow. That is a pretty shameful way to think about people who happen to rent.

I think it's possible that renters might place a higher priority on having housing, compared to access to quality parks and schools, than current homeowners.

[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'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

First of all, who is "we"?

Second of all, housing is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes housing.

Third of all, the issue is not whether renters need infrastructure. It's whether renters have different priorities from current homeowners, with respect to the relative importance of housing vs parks vs schools. For example, there are current homeowners who are stating that additional housing should not be allowed unless there are also, simultaneously, additional parks and additional schools and additional [what-have-you]. People who are not current homeowners might have different opinions about the priority of additional housing compared to additional [what-have-you]. Yes?

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

I do know people who rent and I rented for a long time. Honestly I think your post is pretty racist. You’re stereotyping renters. It’s a much more diverse group than you think. You should get out and meet some renters. At least some of them will tell you that they moved here for the parks and the schools.

[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'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

First of all, who is "we"?

Second of all, housing is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes housing.

Third of all, the issue is not whether renters need infrastructure. It's whether renters have different priorities from current homeowners, with respect to the relative importance of housing vs parks vs schools. For example, there are current homeowners who are stating that additional housing should not be allowed unless there are also, simultaneously, additional parks and additional schools and additional [what-have-you]. People who are not current homeowners might have different opinions about the priority of additional housing compared to additional [what-have-you]. Yes?

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

I do know people who rent and I rented for a long time. Honestly I think your post is pretty racist. You’re stereotyping renters. It’s a much more diverse group than you think. You should get out and meet some renters. At least some of them will tell you that they moved here for the parks and the schools.

It's stereotyping renters, and it's racist, to say that renters might have different priorities from homeowners? How about that.

That's good that you know people who rent, though. A lot of posters on DCUM apparently don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Build baby build.

That said, who would want to live in a mega skyrise in Bethesda of all places.

Sad to think it will look more like Rosslyn in the future.

Why is it sad to think this?

Roslyn has become hideous, at least to me. No sense of any architectural integrity.

[Anonymous]

They should rezone old Georgetown Road for commercial and multifamily. And then leave the detached neighborhoods as is. Connect the dense development between DT Bethesda and pike and rose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They should rezone old Georgetown Road for commercial and multifamily. And then leave the detached neighborhoods as is. Connect the dense development between DT Bethesda and pike and rose.

Why should they do this? I'm all for rezoning old Georgetown Road, which is mostly zoned R60, R90, and R200 right now, with obvious exceptions, but why should multi-unit housing only be allowed along big roads?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

First of all, who is "we"?

Second of all, housing is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes housing.

Third of all, the issue is not whether renters need infrastructure. It's whether renters have different priorities from current homeowners, with respect to the relative importance of housing vs parks vs schools. For example, there are current homeowners who are stating that additional housing should not be allowed unless there are also, simultaneously, additional parks and additional schools and additional [what-have-you]. People who are not current homeowners might have different opinions about the priority of additional housing compared to additional [what-have-you]. Yes?

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

I do know people who rent and I rented for a long time. Honestly I think your post is pretty racist. You’re stereotyping renters. It’s a much more diverse group than you think. You should get out and meet some renters. At least some of them will tell you that they moved here for the parks and the schools.

It's stereotyping renters, and it's racist, to say that renters might have different priorities from homeowners? How about that.

That's good that you know people who rent, though. A lot of posters on DCUM apparently don't.

Yes. Some renters want to live in nice areas with good parks and schools and services just like homeowners. Some renters even are able to look beyond their own narrow self interest and think it would be nice if their neighbors’ kids didn’t have to go to school in a trailer or if their neighbors’ kids had a nice park to play in. Your post fails to acknowledge the diversity of renters so it’s racist.

Also how many households between 100 and 120 percent AMI are going to be unhoused if a new apartment isn’t built? The customers for the new properties have means and choices. You seem to think all renters are poor and that’s just not true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

First of all, who is "we"?

Second of all, housing is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes housing.

Third of all, the issue is not whether renters need infrastructure. It's whether renters have different priorities from current homeowners, with respect to the relative importance of housing vs parks vs schools. For example, there are current homeowners who are stating that additional housing should not be allowed unless there are also, simultaneously, additional parks and additional schools and additional [what-have-you]. People who are not current homeowners might have different opinions about the priority of additional housing compared to additional [what-have-you]. Yes?

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

You think renters do not want access to quality parks and schools? Wow. That is a pretty shameful way to think about people who happen to rent.

I think it's possible that renters might place a higher priority on having housing, compared to access to quality parks and schools, than current homeowners.

You should tell all of those developers that they are wasting tons of money on amenities. I’m sure that they will listen to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

First of all, who is "we"?

Second of all, housing is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes housing.

Third of all, the issue is not whether renters need infrastructure. It's whether renters have different priorities from current homeowners, with respect to the relative importance of housing vs parks vs schools. For example, there are current homeowners who are stating that additional housing should not be allowed unless there are also, simultaneously, additional parks and additional schools and additional [what-have-you]. People who are not current homeowners might have different opinions about the priority of additional housing compared to additional [what-have-you]. Yes?

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

You think renters do not want access to quality parks and schools? Wow. That is a pretty shameful way to think about people who happen to rent.

I think it's possible that renters might place a higher priority on having housing, compared to access to quality parks and schools, than current homeowners.

You should tell all of those developers that they are wasting tons of money on amenities. I’m sure that they will listen to you.

Literally all of the apartments in downtown Bethesda advertise parks and schools as neighborhood amenities. There would be no reason for them to do that if they didn’t think their tenants valued these things. PP arguing otherwise doesn’t know what they’re talking about and clearly thinks very disrespectfully about people who rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

First of all, who is "we"?

Second of all, housing is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes housing.

Third of all, the issue is not whether renters need infrastructure. It's whether renters have different priorities from current homeowners, with respect to the relative importance of housing vs parks vs schools. For example, there are current homeowners who are stating that additional housing should not be allowed unless there are also, simultaneously, additional parks and additional schools and additional [what-have-you]. People who are not current homeowners might have different opinions about the priority of additional housing compared to additional [what-have-you]. Yes?

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

You think renters do not want access to quality parks and schools? Wow. That is a pretty shameful way to think about people who happen to rent.

I think it's possible that renters might place a higher priority on having housing, compared to access to quality parks and schools, than current homeowners.

You should tell all of those developers that they are wasting tons of money on amenities. I’m sure that they will listen to you.

The developers who are building housing? Those developers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm getting the distinct impression here that the person who has the most planning interest/experience on this thread is really out of touch and doesn't seem to have a position other than calling all the other posters' ideas and opinions wrong.

I am starting to come to the conclusion that Planning as a whole is a profession that’s as a whole completely out of touch.

Planning may be a profession that is completely out of touch. I don't know, I am not a planner.

I am a homeowner, though, in fact a longtime homeowner, and I know for certain that longtime homeowners who refuse to acknowledge the existence of a housing crisis are completely out of touch.

“Homeowner” = you own a 1BD condo in downtown Silver Spring.

No, actually, I have owned a detached single family house in Montgomery County for over two decades.

Your response says a lot about your opinions, though. Because a person who owns the one-bedroom condo they live in, whether in downtown Silver Spring or elsewhere, actually is just as much a homeowner as any other homeowner, not more, not less.

When I was a renter I cared about services and infrastructure so I’m not sure why we need to distinguish residents in this way. When I was deciding where to live I also cared about services and infrastructure. I’m not sure how disinvesting in infrastructure benefits current or future residents but it sure does save money for developers so I guess we should roll with it?

The question is not, do renters care about services and infrastructure?

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

The question is, "What are residents' priorities?"

So far, we have a reasonable handle on infrastructure and services being important when considering changes to development.

Well, yes. But all we are hearing about, at least on DCUM, are the priorities of some (not even all) homeowners. And those priorities seem to be: no new housing where I live.

That's a rather unnuanced and strawman-ish way of characterizing:

"I want my community to have good infrastructure and services, and would not want to see additional development in a manner that fails to ensure that these are not degraded."

And yet we still seem to have nothing that supports the phantom narrative of this not being the priority from the bulk of area residents, whether homeowners or renters.

Summary: I am the homeowner of a house, and I prefer not to have multi-unit housing my neighborhood, because I believe multi-unit housing in my neighborhood would degrade my neighborhood.

Which is fine, you get to have the preferences you have. Similarly, other people get to have other preferences. I think it's a basic part of adult cognition to recognize that people who are not you might have preferences that are different from yours.

DP. Your argument seems to be we don’t have provide infrastructure for renters because _______. Please fill in the blank. I’d love to know why you think we don’t need to provide infrastructure for renters.

First of all, who is "we"?

Second of all, housing is infrastructure. Infrastructure includes housing.

Third of all, the issue is not whether renters need infrastructure. It's whether renters have different priorities from current homeowners, with respect to the relative importance of housing vs parks vs schools. For example, there are current homeowners who are stating that additional housing should not be allowed unless there are also, simultaneously, additional parks and additional schools and additional [what-have-you]. People who are not current homeowners might have different opinions about the priority of additional housing compared to additional [what-have-you]. Yes?

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

I do know people who rent and I rented for a long time. Honestly I think your post is pretty racist. You’re stereotyping renters. It’s a much more diverse group than you think. You should get out and meet some renters. At least some of them will tell you that they moved here for the parks and the schools.

It's stereotyping renters, and it's racist, to say that renters might have different priorities from homeowners? How about that.

That's good that you know people who rent, though. A lot of posters on DCUM apparently don't.

Yes. Some renters want to live in nice areas with good parks and schools and services just like homeowners. Some renters even are able to look beyond their own narrow self interest and think it would be nice if their neighbors’ kids didn’t have to go to school in a trailer or if their neighbors’ kids had a nice park to play in. Your post fails to acknowledge the diversity of renters so it’s racist.

Also how many households between 100 and 120 percent AMI are going to be unhoused if a new apartment isn’t built? The customers for the new properties have means and choices. You seem to think all renters are poor and that’s just not true.

That's nice, because many current homeowners in affluent parts of the county seem completely unable to do this. I'm glad that renters are setting such a great example!