MoCo seeking feedback on proposal to limit single family zoning

[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: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.

Rent stabilization *encourages* slums.

[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: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.

Rent stabilization *encourages* slums.

Well, you're welcome to provide evidence to support your assertion.

But more generally, are you the PP who said "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.", and if so, do you support abolishing zoning restrictions, which is the government getting into markets? Or, if you support continued highly-restrictive zoning, why is highly-restrictive zoning an exception to your statement that "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."?

[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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

[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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

THIS! I am a Brown person and also live in a ‘crappy Cape Cod’ that we saved hard for because we really wanted a SFH. I feel the same as this PP.

[Anonymous]

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.

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

This is the truth.

[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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?

I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.

None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.

[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.

You are completely naive. They are counting on your lack of deeper knowledge.

[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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?

I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.

None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.

Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.

So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.

[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: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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?

I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.

None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.

Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.

So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.

Some anonymous rando makes an insulting comment about Cape Cod houses - whose property values will most likely increase, not decrease, with the zoning changes - and you conclude that it's developers trying to get the zoning changes passed by calling middle class and working class people racist?

Your home value will most likely increase with the zoning changes.

The nature of your neighborhood will change with or without the zoning changes. Your neighborhood was changing before you moved in, it is changing right now, and it will continue to change even if the current zoning is engraved on stone tablets.

[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: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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?

I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.

None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.

Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.

So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.

Some anonymous rando makes an insulting comment about Cape Cod houses - whose property values will most likely increase, not decrease, with the zoning changes - and you conclude that it's developers trying to get the zoning changes passed by calling middle class and working class people racist?

Your home value will most likely increase with the zoning changes.

The nature of your neighborhood will change with or without the zoning changes. Your neighborhood was changing before you moved in, it is changing right now, and it will continue to change even if the current zoning is engraved on stone tablets.

It is very possible that the property values decrease if the neighborhood becomes less desirable most buyers in the market. Then the developers swoop in like vultures and buy the properties at lower prices which hastens the decline and this causes the cycle to accelerate. It is not guaranteed to increase the value and it can actually lower it if the rezoning decreases the desirability for most buyers.

[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:

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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?

I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.

None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.

Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.

So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.

Some anonymous rando makes an insulting comment about Cape Cod houses - whose property values will most likely increase, not decrease, with the zoning changes - and you conclude that it's developers trying to get the zoning changes passed by calling middle class and working class people racist?

Your home value will most likely increase with the zoning changes.

The nature of your neighborhood will change with or without the zoning changes. Your neighborhood was changing before you moved in, it is changing right now, and it will continue to change even if the current zoning is engraved on stone tablets.

It is very possible that the property values decrease if the neighborhood becomes less desirable most buyers in the market. Then the developers swoop in like vultures and buy the properties at lower prices which hastens the decline and this causes the cycle to accelerate. It is not guaranteed to increase the value and it can actually lower it if the rezoning decreases the desirability for most buyers.

Generally, when developers swoop in, prices go up, not down.

Or maybe people will take advantage of the lower prices to buy homes to live in. Unless they're outbid by developers? But again, that would make prices go up, not down.

[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:

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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?

I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.

None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.

Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.

So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.

Some anonymous rando makes an insulting comment about Cape Cod houses - whose property values will most likely increase, not decrease, with the zoning changes - and you conclude that it's developers trying to get the zoning changes passed by calling middle class and working class people racist?

Your home value will most likely increase with the zoning changes.

The nature of your neighborhood will change with or without the zoning changes. Your neighborhood was changing before you moved in, it is changing right now, and it will continue to change even if the current zoning is engraved on stone tablets.

It is very possible that the property values decrease if the neighborhood becomes less desirable most buyers in the market. Then the developers swoop in like vultures and buy the properties at lower prices which hastens the decline and this causes the cycle to accelerate. It is not guaranteed to increase the value and it can actually lower it if the rezoning decreases the desirability for most buyers.

Generally, when developers swoop in, prices go up, not down.

Or maybe people will take advantage of the lower prices to buy homes to live in. Unless they're outbid by developers? But again, that would make prices go up, not down.

There is no evidence that home prices go up when developers swoop in, especially when we’re talking the results of this development can include over capacity schools (already an issue in the county), streets with no parking for residents (already an issue for my neighborhood), and overtaxed infrastructure.

You’re giving entitled YIMBY and developer talking points, and dismissing and disparaging the current owners of homes in these areas - middle class, working class, black, and brown - as racists simply because want to preserve the neighborhood they bought into.

[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:

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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?

I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.

None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.

Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.

So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.

Some anonymous rando makes an insulting comment about Cape Cod houses - whose property values will most likely increase, not decrease, with the zoning changes - and you conclude that it's developers trying to get the zoning changes passed by calling middle class and working class people racist?

Your home value will most likely increase with the zoning changes.

The nature of your neighborhood will change with or without the zoning changes. Your neighborhood was changing before you moved in, it is changing right now, and it will continue to change even if the current zoning is engraved on stone tablets.

It is very possible that the property values decrease if the neighborhood becomes less desirable most buyers in the market. Then the developers swoop in like vultures and buy the properties at lower prices which hastens the decline and this causes the cycle to accelerate. It is not guaranteed to increase the value and it can actually lower it if the rezoning decreases the desirability for most buyers.

Generally, when developers swoop in, prices go up, not down.

Or maybe people will take advantage of the lower prices to buy homes to live in. Unless they're outbid by developers? But again, that would make prices go up, not down.

There is no evidence that home prices go up when developers swoop in, especially when we’re talking the results of this development can include over capacity schools (already an issue in the county), streets with no parking for residents (already an issue for my neighborhood), and overtaxed infrastructure.

You’re giving entitled YIMBY and developer talking points, and dismissing and disparaging the current owners of homes in these areas - middle class, working class, black, and brown - as racists simply because want to preserve the neighborhood they bought into.

The complete lack of ability to make any predictions about the outcomes of these actions make is very clear that we shouldn’t be moving forward with them.

Problem is, it’s not about housing, it’s some childish battle over an imagined “exclusionary” zoning policy. It makes them big sad that everyone can’t live everywhere.

We really should be reaching out to the Spanish speaking community to make sure that they aren’t being sold some white libertarian YIMBY version of events.

[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:

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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?

I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.

None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.

Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.

So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.

Some anonymous rando makes an insulting comment about Cape Cod houses - whose property values will most likely increase, not decrease, with the zoning changes - and you conclude that it's developers trying to get the zoning changes passed by calling middle class and working class people racist?

Your home value will most likely increase with the zoning changes.

The nature of your neighborhood will change with or without the zoning changes. Your neighborhood was changing before you moved in, it is changing right now, and it will continue to change even if the current zoning is engraved on stone tablets.

It is very possible that the property values decrease if the neighborhood becomes less desirable most buyers in the market. Then the developers swoop in like vultures and buy the properties at lower prices which hastens the decline and this causes the cycle to accelerate. It is not guaranteed to increase the value and it can actually lower it if the rezoning decreases the desirability for most buyers.

Generally, when developers swoop in, prices go up, not down.

Or maybe people will take advantage of the lower prices to buy homes to live in. Unless they're outbid by developers? But again, that would make prices go up, not down.

There is no evidence that home prices go up when developers swoop in, especially when we’re talking the results of this development can include over capacity schools (already an issue in the county), streets with no parking for residents (already an issue for my neighborhood), and overtaxed infrastructure.

You’re giving entitled YIMBY and developer talking points, and dismissing and disparaging the current owners of homes in these areas - middle class, working class, black, and brown - as racists simply because want to preserve the neighborhood they bought into.

The complete lack of ability to make any predictions about the outcomes of these actions make is very clear that we shouldn’t be moving forward with them.

Problem is, it’s not about housing, it’s some childish battle over an imagined “exclusionary” zoning policy. It makes them big sad that everyone can’t live everywhere.

We really should be reaching out to the Spanish speaking community to make sure that they aren’t being sold some white libertarian YIMBY version of events.

Eh? There are lots of predictions, which indicates that there is an ability to make predictions.

Also it actually is about housing. Can everyone live everywhere? No. The issue is that it's bad housing policy for government to decree that there is only one allowable housing type, in most parts of the county.

[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:

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.

Sounds good.

I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.

Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.

Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.

I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.

You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?

And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.

DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.

It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.

How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?

Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?

Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.

I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.

Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.

You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.

Your post is so gross and awful.

How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?

I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.

None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.

Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.

So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.

Some anonymous rando makes an insulting comment about Cape Cod houses - whose property values will most likely increase, not decrease, with the zoning changes - and you conclude that it's developers trying to get the zoning changes passed by calling middle class and working class people racist?

Your home value will most likely increase with the zoning changes.

The nature of your neighborhood will change with or without the zoning changes. Your neighborhood was changing before you moved in, it is changing right now, and it will continue to change even if the current zoning is engraved on stone tablets.

It is very possible that the property values decrease if the neighborhood becomes less desirable most buyers in the market. Then the developers swoop in like vultures and buy the properties at lower prices which hastens the decline and this causes the cycle to accelerate. It is not guaranteed to increase the value and it can actually lower it if the rezoning decreases the desirability for most buyers.

Generally, when developers swoop in, prices go up, not down.

Or maybe people will take advantage of the lower prices to buy homes to live in. Unless they're outbid by developers? But again, that would make prices go up, not down.

There is no evidence that home prices go up when developers swoop in, especially when we’re talking the results of this development can include over capacity schools (already an issue in the county), streets with no parking for residents (already an issue for my neighborhood), and overtaxed infrastructure.

You’re giving entitled YIMBY and developer talking points, and dismissing and disparaging the current owners of homes in these areas - middle class, working class, black, and brown - as racists simply because want to preserve the neighborhood they bought into.

There is lots of evidence.

Not to mention, here is your scenario: Lots of people/companies (developers) arrive who have money to buy property and want to buy property in a given area; as a result of this, prices decline. It's an extraordinary claim, and it needs extraordinary evidence to support it.