Removal of development cap in downtown Bethesda

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, who is "we"?

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

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

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least you admit that the plans are contrary to the best interests of the homeowners.

It’s a start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, who is "we"?

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

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

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least you admit that the plans are contrary to the best interests of the homeowners.

It’s a start.

The phrase was "own narrow self interest" not "best interests".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have, again, an entirely misrepresentative restatement of another's position. As mentioned, the position is that any development should not come at the cost of lesser/more overtaxed services/infrastructure for area residents. There has been more than one respondent noting that position in one way or another.

Development of multi-unit housing in a way that does not degrade levels of service or infrastructure for existing residents would be a considerably different proposition. It seems that, for some reason, there is an objection by those pushing density to such reasonable conditions.

However, those objections are illustrated not with a clear position, critiquable reasoning or evidence to support the vague allusion to the "other preferences" mentioned, but with logical fallacies of rhetoric such as these strawman mischaracterizations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First of all, who is "we"?

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

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

Also, do you know anybody who rents?

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

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

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

The developers who are building housing? Those developers?

Definitely not the ones seeking plan validity extensions because they think there’s not enough demand to build right now.

[Anonymous]

In the least surprising development since Trump actually implemented tariffs, the County Council has adopted the plan amendment to remove the development caps.

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MDMONTGOMERY/bulletins/3daf2f0

The development caps were always a bad idea but they were sold to people to convince them the planning board wasn’t going to turn downtown Bethesda into skyscraper canyons and it was a total bait and switch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have, again, an entirely misrepresentative restatement of another's position. As mentioned, the position is that any development should not come at the cost of lesser/more overtaxed services/infrastructure for area residents. There has been more than one respondent noting that position in one way or another.

Development of multi-unit housing in a way that does not degrade levels of service or infrastructure for existing residents would be a considerably different proposition. It seems that, for some reason, there is an objection by those pushing density to such reasonable conditions.

However, those objections are illustrated not with a clear position, critiquable reasoning or evidence to support the vague allusion to the "other preferences" mentioned, but with logical fallacies of rhetoric such as these strawman mischaracterizations.

Hey guess what? This is 2025 and we live in America. We actually know how to build sewers and roads and infrastructure. Believe it or not. You pay some company, they come out and build stuff. Then it's done. And it works.

You NIMBYs seem to think companies or the state can't do that. Why? Do you know how the world works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have, again, an entirely misrepresentative restatement of another's position. As mentioned, the position is that any development should not come at the cost of lesser/more overtaxed services/infrastructure for area residents. There has been more than one respondent noting that position in one way or another.

Development of multi-unit housing in a way that does not degrade levels of service or infrastructure for existing residents would be a considerably different proposition. It seems that, for some reason, there is an objection by those pushing density to such reasonable conditions.

However, those objections are illustrated not with a clear position, critiquable reasoning or evidence to support the vague allusion to the "other preferences" mentioned, but with logical fallacies of rhetoric such as these strawman mischaracterizations.

Hey guess what? This is 2025 and we live in America. We actually know how to build sewers and roads and infrastructure. Believe it or not. You pay some company, they come out and build stuff. Then it's done. And it works.

You NIMBYs seem to think companies or the state can't do that. Why? Do you know how the world works?

But they don't. Look at development that leads to overcrowded schools and suddenly there's no money to increase school staffing let alone expand the actual schools or build more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have, again, an entirely misrepresentative restatement of another's position. As mentioned, the position is that any development should not come at the cost of lesser/more overtaxed services/infrastructure for area residents. There has been more than one respondent noting that position in one way or another.

Development of multi-unit housing in a way that does not degrade levels of service or infrastructure for existing residents would be a considerably different proposition. It seems that, for some reason, there is an objection by those pushing density to such reasonable conditions.

However, those objections are illustrated not with a clear position, critiquable reasoning or evidence to support the vague allusion to the "other preferences" mentioned, but with logical fallacies of rhetoric such as these strawman mischaracterizations.

Hey guess what? This is 2025 and we live in America. We actually know how to build sewers and roads and infrastructure. Believe it or not. You pay some company, they come out and build stuff. Then it's done. And it works.

You NIMBYs seem to think companies or the state can't do that. Why? Do you know how the world works?

But they don't. Look at development that leads to overcrowded schools and suddenly there's no money to increase school staffing let alone expand the actual schools or build more.

There are numerous schools under construction/modernization/expansion right now.

NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have, again, an entirely misrepresentative restatement of another's position. As mentioned, the position is that any development should not come at the cost of lesser/more overtaxed services/infrastructure for area residents. There has been more than one respondent noting that position in one way or another.

Development of multi-unit housing in a way that does not degrade levels of service or infrastructure for existing residents would be a considerably different proposition. It seems that, for some reason, there is an objection by those pushing density to such reasonable conditions.

However, those objections are illustrated not with a clear position, critiquable reasoning or evidence to support the vague allusion to the "other preferences" mentioned, but with logical fallacies of rhetoric such as these strawman mischaracterizations.

Hey guess what? This is 2025 and we live in America. We actually know how to build sewers and roads and infrastructure. Believe it or not. You pay some company, they come out and build stuff. Then it's done. And it works.

You NIMBYs seem to think companies or the state can't do that. Why? Do you know how the world works?

But they don't. Look at development that leads to overcrowded schools and suddenly there's no money to increase school staffing let alone expand the actual schools or build more.

There are numerous schools under construction/modernization/expansion right now.

NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Expecting the county to responsibly manage school enrollment and county finances is not being a “NIMBY” that is just common sense. It costs the county - a minimum of $55,500 per student to build new school capacity. The impact fee per high rise “infill” development unit is only $3,739. But high rise developments generate .an average of .168 students, so they cost the county a minimum of $9,324 units when additional school capacity is needed. Development impact fees are only covering 40% of this amount.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Build baby build.

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

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

I would rather have this then property tax increase and other tax increases

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Build baby build.

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

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

I would rather have this then property tax increase and other tax increases

I think that most people would rather absorb a property tax increase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have, again, an entirely misrepresentative restatement of another's position. As mentioned, the position is that any development should not come at the cost of lesser/more overtaxed services/infrastructure for area residents. There has been more than one respondent noting that position in one way or another.

Development of multi-unit housing in a way that does not degrade levels of service or infrastructure for existing residents would be a considerably different proposition. It seems that, for some reason, there is an objection by those pushing density to such reasonable conditions.

However, those objections are illustrated not with a clear position, critiquable reasoning or evidence to support the vague allusion to the "other preferences" mentioned, but with logical fallacies of rhetoric such as these strawman mischaracterizations.

Hey guess what? This is 2025 and we live in America. We actually know how to build sewers and roads and infrastructure. Believe it or not. You pay some company, they come out and build stuff. Then it's done. And it works.

You NIMBYs seem to think companies or the state can't do that. Why? Do you know how the world works?

But they don't. Look at development that leads to overcrowded schools and suddenly there's no money to increase school staffing let alone expand the actual schools or build more.

There are numerous schools under construction/modernization/expansion right now.

NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Uh oh, big hurt feelings.

Btw, no one is insulted by being called a NIMBY, because your definition seems to just be people that care about where they live. Oh no!

You should concern yourself with what a joke being a YIMBY is. As soon as you say it everyone pictures some pasty white dork on a bike, madly pedaling around and powered by whining, sniveling about how their privilege doesn’t allow them to have their little pet projects wherever they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have, again, an entirely misrepresentative restatement of another's position. As mentioned, the position is that any development should not come at the cost of lesser/more overtaxed services/infrastructure for area residents. There has been more than one respondent noting that position in one way or another.

Development of multi-unit housing in a way that does not degrade levels of service or infrastructure for existing residents would be a considerably different proposition. It seems that, for some reason, there is an objection by those pushing density to such reasonable conditions.

However, those objections are illustrated not with a clear position, critiquable reasoning or evidence to support the vague allusion to the "other preferences" mentioned, but with logical fallacies of rhetoric such as these strawman mischaracterizations.

Hey guess what? This is 2025 and we live in America. We actually know how to build sewers and roads and infrastructure. Believe it or not. You pay some company, they come out and build stuff. Then it's done. And it works.

You NIMBYs seem to think companies or the state can't do that. Why? Do you know how the world works?

The state/MoCo could make sure they had enough to pay those companies to do those things. They could tie desired development to such adequacy.

This is not what they do, though. The gaps we see in infrastructure & services are the result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have, again, an entirely misrepresentative restatement of another's position. As mentioned, the position is that any development should not come at the cost of lesser/more overtaxed services/infrastructure for area residents. There has been more than one respondent noting that position in one way or another.

Development of multi-unit housing in a way that does not degrade levels of service or infrastructure for existing residents would be a considerably different proposition. It seems that, for some reason, there is an objection by those pushing density to such reasonable conditions.

However, those objections are illustrated not with a clear position, critiquable reasoning or evidence to support the vague allusion to the "other preferences" mentioned, but with logical fallacies of rhetoric such as these strawman mischaracterizations.

Hey guess what? This is 2025 and we live in America. We actually know how to build sewers and roads and infrastructure. Believe it or not. You pay some company, they come out and build stuff. Then it's done. And it works.

You NIMBYs seem to think companies or the state can't do that. Why? Do you know how the world works?

But they don't. Look at development that leads to overcrowded schools and suddenly there's no money to increase school staffing let alone expand the actual schools or build more.

There are numerous schools under construction/modernization/expansion right now.

NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Expecting the county to responsibly manage school enrollment and county finances is not being a “NIMBY” that is just common sense. It costs the county - a minimum of $55,500 per student to build new school capacity. The impact fee per high rise “infill” development unit is only $3,739. But high rise developments generate .an average of .168 students, so they cost the county a minimum of $9,324 units when additional school capacity is needed. Development impact fees are only covering 40% of this amount.

We literally have built this entire state and have been able to figure it out. "Impact" fees are not supposed to cover literally everything. If they were, we'd be doing similar things for SFHs or additions to homes.

No argument. Honestly I think you are a parody account due to your tenuous grasp of basic econ and development.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question is, what are renters' priorities?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here we have, again, an entirely misrepresentative restatement of another's position. As mentioned, the position is that any development should not come at the cost of lesser/more overtaxed services/infrastructure for area residents. There has been more than one respondent noting that position in one way or another.

Development of multi-unit housing in a way that does not degrade levels of service or infrastructure for existing residents would be a considerably different proposition. It seems that, for some reason, there is an objection by those pushing density to such reasonable conditions.

However, those objections are illustrated not with a clear position, critiquable reasoning or evidence to support the vague allusion to the "other preferences" mentioned, but with logical fallacies of rhetoric such as these strawman mischaracterizations.

Hey guess what? This is 2025 and we live in America. We actually know how to build sewers and roads and infrastructure. Believe it or not. You pay some company, they come out and build stuff. Then it's done. And it works.

You NIMBYs seem to think companies or the state can't do that. Why? Do you know how the world works?

But they don't. Look at development that leads to overcrowded schools and suddenly there's no money to increase school staffing let alone expand the actual schools or build more.

There are numerous schools under construction/modernization/expansion right now.

NIMBYs gonna NIMBY

Uh oh, big hurt feelings.

Btw, no one is insulted by being called a NIMBY, because your definition seems to just be people that care about where they live. Oh no!

You should concern yourself with what a joke being a YIMBY is. As soon as you say it everyone pictures some pasty white dork on a bike, madly pedaling around and powered by whining, sniveling about how their privilege doesn’t allow them to have their little pet projects wherever they want.

You do realize you all just lost, right? The caps are lifted.

Sorry, not sorry. lololol