David Blair for MoCo executive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sounds like a Gen Z progressive with limited life experience

Or a clueless resident of TP.

Actually it's my neighbor's opinion. He was born in 1940, a life-long Montgomery County native, and a white property-owning man who believes the country went wrong when it expanded voting rights beyond white property-owning men. His opinion is, if you want a say-so over property you don't own, then you need to buy it from the owner. It's one of the few political ideas we agree on.

That's BS. Do you think anyone and everyone should be able to build a 100 story building on their property without providing parking or expanding the roads? Or operate a disco? Or build a polluting factory? Not a world I want to live in. Many zoning rules are awful but the framework exists for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sounds like a Gen Z progressive with limited life experience

Or a clueless resident of TP.

Actually it's my neighbor's opinion. He was born in 1940, a life-long Montgomery County native, and a white property-owning man who believes the country went wrong when it expanded voting rights beyond white property-owning men. His opinion is, if you want a say-so over property you don't own, then you need to buy it from the owner. It's one of the few political ideas we agree on.

That's BS. Do you think anyone and everyone should be able to build a 100 story building on their property without providing parking or expanding the roads? Or operate a disco? Or build a polluting factory? Not a world I want to live in. Many zoning rules are awful but the framework exists for a reason.

The proposal the PPs are getting upset about are not about allowing 100-story buildings, or discos, or factories (polluting or otherwise), but rather

1. allowing owners of R-60 zoned property located within one mile of a Metrorail station to construct duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family structures as a standard method development within the current R-60 lot coverage, building height, setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum parking requirements.
2. allowing more flexibility for projects constructed on R-60 zoned sites located within ½ mile of a Metrorail Station, by also excluding them from infill lot coverage limits and the minimum parking requirements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sounds like a Gen Z progressive with limited life experience

Or a clueless resident of TP.

Actually it's my neighbor's opinion. He was born in 1940, a life-long Montgomery County native, and a white property-owning man who believes the country went wrong when it expanded voting rights beyond white property-owning men. His opinion is, if you want a say-so over property you don't own, then you need to buy it from the owner. It's one of the few political ideas we agree on.

That's BS. Do you think anyone and everyone should be able to build a 100 story building on their property without providing parking or expanding the roads? Or operate a disco? Or build a polluting factory? Not a world I want to live in. Many zoning rules are awful but the framework exists for a reason.

The proposal the PPs are getting upset about are not about allowing 100-story buildings, or discos, or factories (polluting or otherwise), but rather

1. allowing owners of R-60 zoned property located within one mile of a Metrorail station to construct duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family structures as a standard method development within the current R-60 lot coverage, building height, setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum parking requirements.
2. allowing more flexibility for projects constructed on R-60 zoned sites located within ½ mile of a Metrorail Station, by also excluding them from infill lot coverage limits and the minimum parking requirements.

Okay, well it sounds like you like some rules and you don't like others. Not that you actually don't think society (yes, your neighbors) should make rules about your property. Okay. You sound like a little child, honestly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sounds like a Gen Z progressive with limited life experience

Or a clueless resident of TP.

Actually it's my neighbor's opinion. He was born in 1940, a life-long Montgomery County native, and a white property-owning man who believes the country went wrong when it expanded voting rights beyond white property-owning men. His opinion is, if you want a say-so over property you don't own, then you need to buy it from the owner. It's one of the few political ideas we agree on.

That's BS. Do you think anyone and everyone should be able to build a 100 story building on their property without providing parking or expanding the roads? Or operate a disco? Or build a polluting factory? Not a world I want to live in. Many zoning rules are awful but the framework exists for a reason.

The proposal the PPs are getting upset about are not about allowing 100-story buildings, or discos, or factories (polluting or otherwise), but rather

1. allowing owners of R-60 zoned property located within one mile of a Metrorail station to construct duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family structures as a standard method development within the current R-60 lot coverage, building height, setbacks, minimum lot size, and minimum parking requirements.
2. allowing more flexibility for projects constructed on R-60 zoned sites located within ½ mile of a Metrorail Station, by also excluding them from infill lot coverage limits and the minimum parking requirements.

So, why doesn't MoCo rezone commercial property to allow for more residential housing. Attaching current neighborhoods will only drive people away. Buying a house is as much about the particular neighborhood as about the particular house itself. In fact, it is more, because you can always remodel your house. You can't remodel your neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sure is. Please answer it.

DP. They get the idea from the fact that people can and do lobby their elected officials against zoning changes and from their HOAs which have rules about how you can modify your property. It's not likely you'll find a property in MoCo that doesn't have restrictions on how you can use/modify it. And that's not inherently a bad thing - we don't want our neighborhoods to become unlivable, for example through more housing than can be supported by existing roads/transit, or by activities that cause pollution/noise - the problem is these processes are the reason why housing supply is way too low and those of us who aren't yet homeowners have a really tough time buying, why our schools are so segregated and why we have a massive affordable housing crisis driving homelessness and that's a total disgrace.

But you mostly answered a different question, namely, Why does government regulate land use?

Whereas the question I'm hoping people will answer is, Why do people believe that people who live in a particular neighborhood should have regulatory power over land use in that particular neighborhood? They live in the neighborhood, they don't like duplexes, so duplexes should be forbidden????

Because when I buy a house, I buy the neighborhood. Very simple. Direct connection.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

If you buy in a neighorhood where your street is zoned single family and the council changes it so the density increases exponentially, wealthier taxpayers get tired and leave and your tax base declines.

Top 50% in income pays 97% of all federal income tax revenues. Bottom 50% pay just 3% of all federal income tax revenues. Top 1% pay 38% of such revenues. One might suggest that MoCo needs more residents from, say, the top 25%. Driving them out of MoCo is stupid. If one understands the budgets of CA and NY, one understands that those jurisdictions rely heavily on the top 1% for their state income tax revenues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you mostly answered a different question, namely, Why does government regulate land use?

Whereas the question I'm hoping people will answer is, Why do people believe that people who live in a particular neighborhood should have regulatory power over land use in that particular neighborhood? They live in the neighborhood, they don't like duplexes, so duplexes should be forbidden????

Because when I buy a house, I buy the neighborhood. Very simple. Direct connection.

You don't, though. You may believe you're buying the neighborhood (or the school) but you're not. You're feeling ownership in something you don't own.

[Anonymous]

Y’all got some antiquated laws in moco

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you mostly answered a different question, namely, Why does government regulate land use?

Whereas the question I'm hoping people will answer is, Why do people believe that people who live in a particular neighborhood should have regulatory power over land use in that particular neighborhood? They live in the neighborhood, they don't like duplexes, so duplexes should be forbidden????

Because when I buy a house, I buy the neighborhood. Very simple. Direct connection.

You don't, though. You may believe you're buying the neighborhood (or the school) but you're not. You're feeling ownership in something you don't own.

If I buy into a n-hood because I like the n-hood, and if that n-hood changes, then I move out. And, if I am a substantial taxpayer, then I have options, and I move, meaning the County loses tax dollars. The County is already losing taxpayers. As noted elsewhere, top 50% pay 97% of all federal income taxes. In DMV, the County is the least friendly place to live for upper income taxpayers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you mostly answered a different question, namely, Why does government regulate land use?

Whereas the question I'm hoping people will answer is, Why do people believe that people who live in a particular neighborhood should have regulatory power over land use in that particular neighborhood? They live in the neighborhood, they don't like duplexes, so duplexes should be forbidden????

Because when I buy a house, I buy the neighborhood. Very simple. Direct connection.

You don't, though. You may believe you're buying the neighborhood (or the school) but you're not. You're feeling ownership in something you don't own.

You clearly are not a real estate person. Real estate is all about location. A house can be refurbished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you mostly answered a different question, namely, Why does government regulate land use?

Whereas the question I'm hoping people will answer is, Why do people believe that people who live in a particular neighborhood should have regulatory power over land use in that particular neighborhood? They live in the neighborhood, they don't like duplexes, so duplexes should be forbidden????

Because when I buy a house, I buy the neighborhood. Very simple. Direct connection.

You don't, though. You may believe you're buying the neighborhood (or the school) but you're not. You're feeling ownership in something you don't own.

If I buy into a n-hood because I like the n-hood, and if that n-hood changes, then I move out. And, if I am a substantial taxpayer, then I have options, and I move, meaning the County loses tax dollars. The County is already losing taxpayers. As noted elsewhere, top 50% pay 97% of all federal income taxes. In DMV, the County is the least friendly place to live for upper income taxpayers.

Tell that to the people trying to buy a house in Bethesda right now LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you mostly answered a different question, namely, Why does government regulate land use?

Whereas the question I'm hoping people will answer is, Why do people believe that people who live in a particular neighborhood should have regulatory power over land use in that particular neighborhood? They live in the neighborhood, they don't like duplexes, so duplexes should be forbidden????

Because when I buy a house, I buy the neighborhood. Very simple. Direct connection.

You don't, though. You may believe you're buying the neighborhood (or the school) but you're not. You're feeling ownership in something you don't own.

You clearly are not a real estate person. Real estate is all about location. A house can be refurbished.

Yes, you're paying for the location. But no, you're not buying the neighborhood. You're buying the property, that's all. The property is what you own. You don't own the neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

But you mostly answered a different question, namely, Why does government regulate land use?

Whereas the question I'm hoping people will answer is, Why do people believe that people who live in a particular neighborhood should have regulatory power over land use in that particular neighborhood? They live in the neighborhood, they don't like duplexes, so duplexes should be forbidden????

Because when I buy a house, I buy the neighborhood. Very simple. Direct connection.

You don't, though. You may believe you're buying the neighborhood (or the school) but you're not. You're feeling ownership in something you don't own.

If I buy into a n-hood because I like the n-hood, and if that n-hood changes, then I move out. And, if I am a substantial taxpayer, then I have options, and I move, meaning the County loses tax dollars. The County is already losing taxpayers. As noted elsewhere, top 50% pay 97% of all federal income taxes. In DMV, the County is the least friendly place to live for upper income taxpayers.

If people were doing that in meaningful numbers, then housing prices in Bethesda would be going down. Are housing prices in Bethesda going down?

Also, I'm really not interested in catering to the desires of the rich people who threaten to take their ball and go elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Is Blair a Republican in disguise? I won’t vote for any Republican ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is Blair a Republican in disguise? I won’t vote for any Republican ever.

No. He's a regular liberal. Not an AOC/Takoma Park liberal.