Thrive Montgomery 2050

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

[Anonymous]

G'burg council approved plan for development at site of Lake Forest Mall with some "affordable" housing. What will happen to this area with more housing? Will crime go down?

[Anonymous]

I’m glad that someone bumped this throwback thread. Some people knew exactly what was going to happen, even thought the county sold it as no big deal.

Now the corridor plans and AH plans are here without any details or guardrails yet again, and we are supposed to trust planning and the council?

Maybe the lawsuit shouldn’t be about attainable housing initiative, it should be about Thrive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad that someone bumped this throwback thread. Some people knew exactly what was going to happen, even thought the county sold it as no big deal.

Now the corridor plans and AH plans are here without any details or guardrails yet again, and we are supposed to trust planning and the council?

Maybe the lawsuit shouldn’t be about attainable housing initiative, it should be about Thrive.

Probably too late for that. Usually, there is a short statute of limitations where people can sue for stuff like this after it is passed. Please someone else with a legal background comment on this and confirm whether it is still possible to sue over Thrive 2050?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m glad that someone bumped this throwback thread. Some people knew exactly what was going to happen, even thought the county sold it as no big deal.

Now the corridor plans and AH plans are here without any details or guardrails yet again, and we are supposed to trust planning and the council?

Maybe the lawsuit shouldn’t be about attainable housing initiative, it should be about Thrive.

I will admit to being of those people who thought ThriveMontgomery was reasonable. So I will admit that I was wrong and you were right.

[Anonymous]

Should be renamed “Developers Thrive 2050.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:G'burg council approved plan for development at site of Lake Forest Mall with some "affordable" housing. What will happen to this area with more housing? Will crime go down?

Crime goes down when more people have legitimate options for a life relatively free of desperation.

Stable affordable/attainable housing can be a part of expanding those options, but would need to be part of a more holistic solution set, including food security, employment, education and healthcare. This doesn't mean the housing needs to be a particular type or in particular locations (the great debate in the current moment), but sufficiency of the one and accessibility of the other (either current or coincident with housing availability) to those items in the set of needs would be necessary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:G'burg council approved plan for development at site of Lake Forest Mall with some "affordable" housing. What will happen to this area with more housing? Will crime go down?

Crime goes down when more people have legitimate options for a life relatively free of desperation.

Stable affordable/attainable housing can be a part of expanding those options, but would need to be part of a more holistic solution set, including food security, employment, education and healthcare. This doesn't mean the housing needs to be a particular type or in particular locations (the great debate in the current moment), but sufficiency of the one and accessibility of the other (either current or coincident with housing availability) to those items in the set of needs would be necessary.

I am not a fan at all of the current attainable housing plan, but I do agree.

There are sites, for example the White
Flint Mall site, that could be nearly self contained mini cities. You could have a mix of nearly every housing type with a small tower of residential in the center, and that tower would have grocery/commercial. You could build in transit options. You could have a small Montgomery College satellite campus, maybe even an elementary school. Definitely a daycare or preschool. Maybe even a couple of turf fields for sports. Sport field reservations are insanely hard to get in MOCO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:G'burg council approved plan for development at site of Lake Forest Mall with some "affordable" housing. What will happen to this area with more housing? Will crime go down?

Crime goes down when more people have legitimate options for a life relatively free of desperation.

Stable affordable/attainable housing can be a part of expanding those options, but would need to be part of a more holistic solution set, including food security, employment, education and healthcare. This doesn't mean the housing needs to be a particular type or in particular locations (the great debate in the current moment), but sufficiency of the one and accessibility of the other (either current or coincident with housing availability) to those items in the set of needs would be necessary.

It the development were 100% affordable it would pre practically guaranteed to go up. Only 15% of the unit are affordable so it might average out to have no impact relative the current crime rate for gaithersburg.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

Move out of the city if you don't want city density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

Move out of the city if you don't want city density.

That doesn't explain why the new batch of "urban engineers" have seemingly read every exception to the rule paper but none of the multiude of rule papers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

Move out of the city if you don't want city density.

I don't live in a city. I live in an area with a bunch of farms, but YIMBYs are trying to rezone and pave over the entire county that I live in. There is not a single upzoning proposal that these people don't like. I don't buy their BS about moving people, this is a ridiculous flippant comment telling me to move because you want to change the area other people live in (where you don't live). You have no right to change the community for everyone else because you don't like it. If you don't like the place you can move somewhere else. Oh right I forgot, you already don't live here and you are trying to force this on other people when no one that lives in my rural community actually wants it. That is circular reasoning, there will be no where to move to if YIMBYs have their way and destroy everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

Move out of the city if you don't want city density.

I don’t live in a city. I live - intentionally - in a suburb. I bought here because it was lower density. Stop trying to undermine my community of middle and working class people who, like me, all worked hard for our homes and to live in an area where we can have a yard. Thrive was and always been about developers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

All good points. CSG and GGW are highly reliant on large grants from foundations. I am curious how much of that is pass through to obscure corporate giving. I bet a lot of it is.

They (CSG and GGW) get a ton of money from the Urban Land Institute, which provides substantial funds and support to the American Planning Association. The whole process has been rigged by moneyed interests groups to tilt the deck in favor of large developers. So basically everything comes back to money. The large developers and real estate companies have substantial sway over the college curriculum and training for people working planning departments. They make sure the schools are training planners to be supportive of the mindless pro-density propaganda that benefits their profit margins.

Move out of the city if you don't want city density.

I don't live in a city. I live in an area with a bunch of farms, but YIMBYs are trying to rezone and pave over the entire county that I live in. There is not a single upzoning proposal that these people don't like. I don't buy their BS about moving people, this is a ridiculous flippant comment telling me to move because you want to change the area other people live in (where you don't live). You have no right to change the community for everyone else because you don't like it. If you don't like the place you can move somewhere else. Oh right I forgot, you already don't live here and you are trying to force this on other people when no one that lives in my rural community actually wants it. That is circular reasoning, there will be no where to move to if YIMBYs have their way and destroy everything.

What you don’t seem to understand is that increasing allowable density in existing SFH neighborhoods is the ONLY way to stop more farms from being bulldozed in the exurbs to create the necessary housing for a growing area. You don’t even understand the most basic facts about housing policy yet you are afraid of change.