Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation

[Anonymous]

MoCo voters, are you tired of being suckers yet?

https://moco360.media/2024/03/05/county-council-loosens-parking-requirements-for-developments-near-public-transit/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.

This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.

Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.

That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".

Link? Citation?

If you’re not familiar with the literature you should probably bow out of the conversation and you definitely should refrain from doing any advocacy.

So, it doesn’t exist in any credible format.

It does. It has a fancy cover and everything and is available on the planning website.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.

This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.

Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.

That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".

Link? Citation?

If you’re not familiar with the literature you should probably bow out of the conversation and you definitely should refrain from doing any advocacy.

So, it doesn’t exist in any credible format.

It does. It has a fancy cover and everything and is available on the planning website.

LMAO, again, so nothing credible at all. Well, we can all consider the turd. well polished, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MoCo voters, are you tired of being suckers yet?

https://moco360.media/2024/03/05/county-council-loosens-parking-requirements-for-developments-near-public-transit/

I am so excited this passed!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.

This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.

Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.

That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".

Link? Citation?

If you’re not familiar with the literature you should probably bow out of the conversation and you definitely should refrain from doing any advocacy.

So, it doesn’t exist in any credible format.

It does. It has a fancy cover and everything and is available on the planning website.

LMAO, again, so nothing credible at all. Well, we can all consider the turd. well polished, I guess.

Really, go find it yourself. We’re not your research assistants.

[Anonymous]

Hmm maybe there will be a lawsuit over the parking minimum repeal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MoCo voters, are you tired of being suckers yet?

https://moco360.media/2024/03/05/county-council-loosens-parking-requirements-for-developments-near-public-transit/

Great news! Thank you for posting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MoCo voters, are you tired of being suckers yet?

https://moco360.media/2024/03/05/county-council-loosens-parking-requirements-for-developments-near-public-transit/

Great news! Thank you for posting.

Prediction: YIMBYs will still be blaming parking minimums for high rents three years from now even though parking in most of these areas was already optional because the parking lot district tax was already zero.

[Anonymous]

How are SFHs subsidized? It keeps getting stated as fact with no explanation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.

This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.

Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.

That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".

Link? Citation?

If you’re not familiar with the literature you should probably bow out of the conversation and you definitely should refrain from doing any advocacy.

So, it doesn’t exist in any credible format.

It does. It has a fancy cover and everything and is available on the planning website.

LMAO, again, so nothing credible at all. Well, we can all consider the turd. well polished, I guess.

Really, go find it yourself. We’re not your research assistants.

It’s pretty apparent that you lack the qualifications.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How are SFHs subsidized? It keeps getting stated as fact with no explanation.

It’s the YIMBY way.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand why why density everywhere is a goal? People are fleeing this region! Population is not increasing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why why density everywhere is a goal? People are fleeing this region! Population is not increasing.

You're saying this, based on what?

Density everywhere is not the goal. Density near transit is the goal, for obvious reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How are SFHs subsidized? It keeps getting stated as fact with no explanation.

It’s the YIMBY way.

Waiting for an answer on the subsidies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why why density everywhere is a goal? People are fleeing this region! Population is not increasing.

You're saying this, based on what?

Density everywhere is not the goal. Density near transit is the goal, for obvious reasons.

I don't see the obvious reasons. Things seem fine as they are. Moco does not need to double or triple it's population. doing so would be awful.