Schools near metro will get more housing without overcrowding relief

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

+1 Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

DP. The leaders the majority elect may, on a majority of issues (or at least those deemed most important), align with the desires of the majority of the electorate, but, at the same time, act against other interests of that electorate, whether because of their own personal aims or by being beholden to minority interests on those issues. The spurned electorate might attempt to dissuade those elected from this, of course, including efforts to publicize the unpopular acts.

Unpacking can be a mess, especially on an anonymous forum. Politics is a messy business. We can, at least, try to keep ourselves informed, hopefully from multiple sources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

DP. The leaders the majority elect may, on a majority of issues (or at least those deemed most important), align with the desires of the majority of the electorate, but, at the same time, act against other interests of that electorate, whether because of their own personal aims or by being beholden to minority interests on those issues. The spurned electorate might attempt to dissuade those elected from this, of course, including efforts to publicize the unpopular acts.

Unpacking can be a mess, especially on an anonymous forum. Politics is a messy business. We can, at least, try to keep ourselves informed, hopefully from multiple sources.

Being informed is great, for everyone. But in election after election after election, Montgomery County voters elect people who, to a greater or lesser degree, favor policies for increasing housing and public transportation. So, are the anonymous posters on DCUM correct when they claim that the majority of Montgomery County residents oppose policies for increasing housing and public transportation? Seems unlikely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

DP. The leaders the majority elect may, on a majority of issues (or at least those deemed most important), align with the desires of the majority of the electorate, but, at the same time, act against other interests of that electorate, whether because of their own personal aims or by being beholden to minority interests on those issues. The spurned electorate might attempt to dissuade those elected from this, of course, including efforts to publicize the unpopular acts.

Unpacking can be a mess, especially on an anonymous forum. Politics is a messy business. We can, at least, try to keep ourselves informed, hopefully from multiple sources.

Being informed is great, for everyone. But in election after election after election, Montgomery County voters elect people who, to a greater or lesser degree, favor policies for increasing housing and public transportation. So, are the anonymous posters on DCUM correct when they claim that the majority of Montgomery County residents oppose policies for increasing housing and public transportation? Seems unlikely.

There's also the tyrrany of the majority to consider. In this case, the majority of MoCo may:

Not live in the areas directly affected by this legislation,

Have no kids who would be impacted by school overcrowding,

Benefit from the legialation directly as a development interest, and/or

Be social crusaders,

Among other possibilities.

The majority of those directly affected may still oppose legislation that is to their great detriment.

Of course, this is MD legislation, not MoCo, though there's been plenty of such initiatives taken up by the latter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

DP. The leaders the majority elect may, on a majority of issues (or at least those deemed most important), align with the desires of the majority of the electorate, but, at the same time, act against other interests of that electorate, whether because of their own personal aims or by being beholden to minority interests on those issues. The spurned electorate might attempt to dissuade those elected from this, of course, including efforts to publicize the unpopular acts.

Unpacking can be a mess, especially on an anonymous forum. Politics is a messy business. We can, at least, try to keep ourselves informed, hopefully from multiple sources.

Being informed is great, for everyone. But in election after election after election, Montgomery County voters elect people who, to a greater or lesser degree, favor policies for increasing housing and public transportation. So, are the anonymous posters on DCUM correct when they claim that the majority of Montgomery County residents oppose policies for increasing housing and public transportation? Seems unlikely.

There's also the tyrrany of the majority to consider. In this case, the majority of MoCo may:

Not live in the areas directly affected by this legislation,

Have no kids who would be impacted by school overcrowding,

Benefit from the legialation directly as a development interest, and/or

Be social crusaders,

Among other possibilities.

The majority of those directly affected may still oppose legislation that is to their great detriment.

Of course, this is MD legislation, not MoCo, though there's been plenty of such initiatives taken up by the latter.

The tyranny of the majority in loosening restrictions on property owners about the types of housing they are allowed to build on the property they own!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

DP. The leaders the majority elect may, on a majority of issues (or at least those deemed most important), align with the desires of the majority of the electorate, but, at the same time, act against other interests of that electorate, whether because of their own personal aims or by being beholden to minority interests on those issues. The spurned electorate might attempt to dissuade those elected from this, of course, including efforts to publicize the unpopular acts.

Unpacking can be a mess, especially on an anonymous forum. Politics is a messy business. We can, at least, try to keep ourselves informed, hopefully from multiple sources.

Being informed is great, for everyone. But in election after election after election, Montgomery County voters elect people who, to a greater or lesser degree, favor policies for increasing housing and public transportation. So, are the anonymous posters on DCUM correct when they claim that the majority of Montgomery County residents oppose policies for increasing housing and public transportation? Seems unlikely.

There's also the tyrrany of the majority to consider. In this case, the majority of MoCo may:

Not live in the areas directly affected by this legislation,

Have no kids who would be impacted by school overcrowding,

Benefit from the legialation directly as a development interest, and/or

Be social crusaders,

Among other possibilities.

The majority of those directly affected may still oppose legislation that is to their great detriment.

Of course, this is MD legislation, not MoCo, though there's been plenty of such initiatives taken up by the latter.

The tyranny of the majority in loosening restrictions on property owners about the types of housing they are allowed to build on the property they own!!!!!

Funny how libertarians turn out for developer interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

DP. The leaders the majority elect may, on a majority of issues (or at least those deemed most important), align with the desires of the majority of the electorate, but, at the same time, act against other interests of that electorate, whether because of their own personal aims or by being beholden to minority interests on those issues. The spurned electorate might attempt to dissuade those elected from this, of course, including efforts to publicize the unpopular acts.

Unpacking can be a mess, especially on an anonymous forum. Politics is a messy business. We can, at least, try to keep ourselves informed, hopefully from multiple sources.

Being informed is great, for everyone. But in election after election after election, Montgomery County voters elect people who, to a greater or lesser degree, favor policies for increasing housing and public transportation. So, are the anonymous posters on DCUM correct when they claim that the majority of Montgomery County residents oppose policies for increasing housing and public transportation? Seems unlikely.

There's also the tyrrany of the majority to consider. In this case, the majority of MoCo may:

Not live in the areas directly affected by this legislation,

Have no kids who would be impacted by school overcrowding,

Benefit from the legialation directly as a development interest, and/or

Be social crusaders,

Among other possibilities.

The majority of those directly affected may still oppose legislation that is to their great detriment.

Of course, this is MD legislation, not MoCo, though there's been plenty of such initiatives taken up by the latter.

The tyranny of the majority in loosening restrictions on property owners about the types of housing they are allowed to build on the property they own!!!!!

Funny how libertarians turn out for developer interests.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I'm not a libertarian. I'm just pointing out what your "tyranny of the majority" consists of, in this case. It consists of allowing more people to have more choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

Yes, they are free to do so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

DP. The leaders the majority elect may, on a majority of issues (or at least those deemed most important), align with the desires of the majority of the electorate, but, at the same time, act against other interests of that electorate, whether because of their own personal aims or by being beholden to minority interests on those issues. The spurned electorate might attempt to dissuade those elected from this, of course, including efforts to publicize the unpopular acts.

Unpacking can be a mess, especially on an anonymous forum. Politics is a messy business. We can, at least, try to keep ourselves informed, hopefully from multiple sources.

Being informed is great, for everyone. But in election after election after election, Montgomery County voters elect people who, to a greater or lesser degree, favor policies for increasing housing and public transportation. So, are the anonymous posters on DCUM correct when they claim that the majority of Montgomery County residents oppose policies for increasing housing and public transportation? Seems unlikely.

There's also the tyrrany of the majority to consider. In this case, the majority of MoCo may:

Not live in the areas directly affected by this legislation,

Have no kids who would be impacted by school overcrowding,

Benefit from the legialation directly as a development interest, and/or

Be social crusaders,

Among other possibilities.

The majority of those directly affected may still oppose legislation that is to their great detriment.

Of course, this is MD legislation, not MoCo, though there's been plenty of such initiatives taken up by the latter.

The tyranny of the majority in loosening restrictions on property owners about the types of housing they are allowed to build on the property they own!!!!!

Funny how libertarians turn out for developer interests.

I'm pretty sure none of these posters even live here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county needs more housing without more traffic; this is a win. MCPS needs to better use the capacity they have; that's on the BOE. Or something like that.

This is either a troll response or someone with no kids in MCPS. First of all, there is a baked-in assumption that mixed-income and low-income housing residents don't own cars if they are walking distance to public transportation. As a result, new buildings often have far fewer parking spaces than they do units. However, the assumptions here are not actually true, particularly post-covid. All of the amenities that make it possible for white collar professionals to comfortably work from home and have their take-out, groceries, and office supplies delivered to their door? Those are all brought by residents of multi-family dwellings using their own personal vehicles. In the gig economy, a working class family needs a car, and needs somewhere to park it.

Further, in most of these neighborhoods, there is no capacity to use. Schools at all levels are giving up playground and outdoor space to make room for portable classrooms. The failure of our municipal/county leadership to work with MCPS to deal with these issues is not only troubling, but ultimately will damage any nascent YIMBY movement that would have otherwise developed.

Basically, the YIMBY approach in MoCo is one of "heightening the differences." Rather than making things better for everyone by building enough parking or working with the school district to absorb capacity, the approach is to make everyone so miserable that they start riding public transportation because the roads are so gridlocked with InstaCart drivers that regular residents can't get out of the neighborhoods.

Right because no MCPS parent could possibly have a different opinion from your own. Must be a troll.

How old are your kids? We have many neighbors who are very pro-development, partly because they truly are concerned about the lack of affordable housing, partly because they’re desperate to walk to a coffee shop. But I noticed they all have kids that are either in high school or college already. They won’t be affected by the lack of new school infrastructure. My kids are young and our ES is 10 years old and already over capacity. MS is similarly overcrowded, and we all know it’s a problem at most of the DCC high schools. When the new proposed development adjacent to our neighborhood is built, and others like it, where are the kids supposed to go?

They will be affected by their young-adult kids not being able to afford to live in Montgomery County, even if they wanted to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

DP. The leaders the majority elect may, on a majority of issues (or at least those deemed most important), align with the desires of the majority of the electorate, but, at the same time, act against other interests of that electorate, whether because of their own personal aims or by being beholden to minority interests on those issues. The spurned electorate might attempt to dissuade those elected from this, of course, including efforts to publicize the unpopular acts.

Unpacking can be a mess, especially on an anonymous forum. Politics is a messy business. We can, at least, try to keep ourselves informed, hopefully from multiple sources.

Being informed is great, for everyone. But in election after election after election, Montgomery County voters elect people who, to a greater or lesser degree, favor policies for increasing housing and public transportation. So, are the anonymous posters on DCUM correct when they claim that the majority of Montgomery County residents oppose policies for increasing housing and public transportation? Seems unlikely.

There's also the tyrrany of the majority to consider. In this case, the majority of MoCo may:

Not live in the areas directly affected by this legislation,

Have no kids who would be impacted by school overcrowding,

Benefit from the legialation directly as a development interest, and/or

Be social crusaders,

Among other possibilities.

The majority of those directly affected may still oppose legislation that is to their great detriment.

Of course, this is MD legislation, not MoCo, though there's been plenty of such initiatives taken up by the latter.

The tyranny of the majority in loosening restrictions on property owners about the types of housing they are allowed to build on the property they own!!!!!

Funny how libertarians turn out for developer interests.

I'm pretty sure none of these posters even live here.

What makes you think that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

Yes, they are free to do so.

And they have, sending county budget toward crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the questions for residents and voters are somewhat basic -

Will your quality of life improve with this additional development?

Will your kids’ quality of life improve with this additional development?

Some people obviously think that the County will get better with more development and some people do not. You can choose what you think is best and vote accordingly.

Thanks for the rational response.

One thing though, if current SFH owners were only to vote based on impact to their own quality of life, most density changes would not happen. That may be OK, but the premise that you vote only for policy that is best for you personally certainly leads to different outcomes than what a voter thinks is best for the whole...

For the last 30 years, it has been clear that our elected officials care nothing for the quality of life for existing residents. It is always about trying out the latest fad from their urban planning major or engaging in a Ponzi scheme of attracting new residents, who then need new infrastructure. Honestly, why do we need to attract more "affordable" housing to MCPS? Basically, it means we then continue to attract even more high cost residents who never pay their way in taxes. We have enough people in that category. And if we continue to cater to them, all of the housing in the Country will become more "affordable" because other people will move out. The death spiral is painful.

What's clear is that the majority of existing residents (including me) want something different from what you want.

You mean the majority who are left. Those that do not want this life are leaving and taking their tax dollars with them.

Yes, they are free to do so.

And they have, sending county budget toward crisis.

Certainly there is at least one DCUM poster who moved to Urbana, but I'm ok with that.