MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Is that what is being proposed?

No, it’s not. If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback. I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.

Yes. Two-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones; three-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and four-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District. The Priority Housing District is areas within a one mile straight line distance from Metrorail’s Red Line, the Purple Line light rail, and MARC rail stations, plus 500 feet from a Thrive Montgomery 2050 identified Growth Corridor.

If you think that's destruction, I don't know what to say.

DP. No, the YIMBY strawman/hyperbole used wss duplexes destroying SFH neighborhoods.

We've regularly been calling out such logically fallacious argumenta, but that really is all that the YIMBYs seem to employ. Arguments by concerned residents about need for imfrastructure, schools, etc., the deficit in those already in the areas most likely impacted, and the unlikely addressing of such without direct tie/funding with any development at increased density go without substantive answer from those pushing for increased densities.

Thanks for pointing out part of the picture beyond duplexes. But anyone looking at the map woupd see that very large areas inside and near the Beltway are in play for the greatest densities.
And anyone following knows the stacking effect of that with newly enacted state law (and other efforts, such as PHDs) then allows for even greater than 4-plex densities (6-plex, small apartments, etc.).

The approach has been to enact several smaller changes that stack this way -- this keeps folks unaware until the coup de grace, which they are trying now. Pretty sick for what is supposed to be a representative government with minority protections.

So is this an accurate summary of your position?

Duplexes won't destroy the neighborhood, duplexes are fine.
Triplexes and fourplexes aren't fine but won't destroy the neighborhood.
Sixplexes will destroy the neighborhood.
We can't allow triplexes and fourplexes because if we do, sixplexes come next.

Also, what specifically is the coup de grace? Fourplexes? Sixplexes? (Both of which I would consider small apartment buildings, by the way.) And who or what is being killed by them?

The point this person is making is that this zoning change is deceptive because of state laws recently passed allowing by-right density bonuses that preempt local zoning laws. So, allowing quadplexes greenlights a density 50% higher than what is being discussed. This very dishonest zoning change effectively upzones SFH neighborhoods to 12X density (due to lot subdivisions). You are entirely ignoring the infrastructure and school concerns. Even if the county decides to build new schools, it will still take around 10 years to build new schools. So, you cannot upzone most of the county and assume that school capacity will magically materialize. It won't occur as quickly as the developers build new houses, and it will be almost impossible for the schools to catch up with this amount of growth. Also, allowing increases in density everywhere (at the same time) will require the county to make very expensive capacity upgrades to the entire infrastructure network. It is not economically efficient to expand capacity to the entire network to make room for density increases. It would be much smarter to upzone targeted geographic areas for transit-oriented growth and make substantial upgrades to these specific areas.

Wait, what's the deceptive, dishonest part, exactly? How about destructive, is that in there too?

The proposed zoning change is specifically targeting geographic areas for transit-oriented growth, so you should be happy about that.

DP but one deceptive part is talking about duplexes when everyone knows those don’t pencil (according to planning). But transit-oriented growth is also deceptive. We’ve seen developers put car-oriented growth close to metro stations and planning does nothing to prevent that even when it’s contrary to master plans. We also know that the YIMBYs will NIMBY the road and school expansions that the new development will require.

The proposed zoning changes that are being discussed literally include duplexes but it's deceptive to talk about the duplexes which are literally included in the proposed zoning changes that are being discussed?

You are assuming that new development requires road expansion. It doesn't.

12:03, here. Your rhetorical responses that consistently ignore the elements of other posts is just what we've come to expect from those pushing density.

You ignore schools (and sewer, and parkland, and all the other infrastructure to which those concerned have alluded) as though it is all about cars. The PP mentioned cars in the context of an example of developers meeting demand that didn't pan out for planning as advertised when prior density increases were approved, but then brought it back to the more holistic infrastructure concern (and how those don't naturally follow unless tied & funded in advance/in conjunction) by mentioning that with schools.

Why are you so afraid of requiring the infrastructure bit? Would it make development too expensive? If so, why should the residents currently in the community bear the infrastructure burden (either the cost or the resulting inadequacy if not funded/built) of the additional density? Why shouldn't the growth be in greenfield areas where that infrastructure, including BRT/public transit can be built at lower cost? Or in areas of existing high density allocation, where high-capacity infrastructure either exists or makes much greater sense to expand?

As for your first paragraph, it's an even greater distortion, trying desperately to pull back on the what?!-duplexes-will-kill-SFH-neighborhoods strawman that was so easily identified as erroneous, and pretty much doubling down on it. It's deceptive to talk about duplexes as the boogeyman for "scared" detached SFH neighbors when that is the lowest increased-density option on the table and when the stacked zoning/legislation approach introduces many times that density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Is that what is being proposed?

No, it’s not. If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback. I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.

Yes. Two-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones; three-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and four-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District. The Priority Housing District is areas within a one mile straight line distance from Metrorail’s Red Line, the Purple Line light rail, and MARC rail stations, plus 500 feet from a Thrive Montgomery 2050 identified Growth Corridor.

If you think that's destruction, I don't know what to say.

DP. No, the YIMBY strawman/hyperbole used wss duplexes destroying SFH neighborhoods.

We've regularly been calling out such logically fallacious argumenta, but that really is all that the YIMBYs seem to employ. Arguments by concerned residents about need for imfrastructure, schools, etc., the deficit in those already in the areas most likely impacted, and the unlikely addressing of such without direct tie/funding with any development at increased density go without substantive answer from those pushing for increased densities.

Thanks for pointing out part of the picture beyond duplexes. But anyone looking at the map woupd see that very large areas inside and near the Beltway are in play for the greatest densities.
And anyone following knows the stacking effect of that with newly enacted state law (and other efforts, such as PHDs) then allows for even greater than 4-plex densities (6-plex, small apartments, etc.).

The approach has been to enact several smaller changes that stack this way -- this keeps folks unaware until the coup de grace, which they are trying now. Pretty sick for what is supposed to be a representative government with minority protections.

So is this an accurate summary of your position?

Duplexes won't destroy the neighborhood, duplexes are fine.
Triplexes and fourplexes aren't fine but won't destroy the neighborhood.
Sixplexes will destroy the neighborhood.
We can't allow triplexes and fourplexes because if we do, sixplexes come next.

Also, what specifically is the coup de grace? Fourplexes? Sixplexes? (Both of which I would consider small apartment buildings, by the way.) And who or what is being killed by them?

The point this person is making is that this zoning change is deceptive because of state laws recently passed allowing by-right density bonuses that preempt local zoning laws. So, allowing quadplexes greenlights a density 50% higher than what is being discussed. This very dishonest zoning change effectively upzones SFH neighborhoods to 12X density (due to lot subdivisions). You are entirely ignoring the infrastructure and school concerns. Even if the county decides to build new schools, it will still take around 10 years to build new schools. So, you cannot upzone most of the county and assume that school capacity will magically materialize. It won't occur as quickly as the developers build new houses, and it will be almost impossible for the schools to catch up with this amount of growth. Also, allowing increases in density everywhere (at the same time) will require the county to make very expensive capacity upgrades to the entire infrastructure network. It is not economically efficient to expand capacity to the entire network to make room for density increases. It would be much smarter to upzone targeted geographic areas for transit-oriented growth and make substantial upgrades to these specific areas.

Wait, what's the deceptive, dishonest part, exactly? How about destructive, is that in there too?

The proposed zoning change is specifically targeting geographic areas for transit-oriented growth, so you should be happy about that.

DP but one deceptive part is talking about duplexes when everyone knows those don’t pencil (according to planning). But transit-oriented growth is also deceptive. We’ve seen developers put car-oriented growth close to metro stations and planning does nothing to prevent that even when it’s contrary to master plans. We also know that the YIMBYs will NIMBY the road and school expansions that the new development will require.

The proposed zoning changes that are being discussed literally include duplexes but it's deceptive to talk about the duplexes which are literally included in the proposed zoning changes that are being discussed?

You are assuming that new development requires road expansion. It doesn't.

It’s deceptive (maliciously so at this point) to literally only talk about duplexes when planning literally found that they are economically viable literally almost no where.

If you’re going to NIMBY the roads, then where are you going to put the 2x cars?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Is that what is being proposed?

No, it’s not. If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback. I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.

Yes. Two-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones; three-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and four-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District. The Priority Housing District is areas within a one mile straight line distance from Metrorail’s Red Line, the Purple Line light rail, and MARC rail stations, plus 500 feet from a Thrive Montgomery 2050 identified Growth Corridor.

If you think that's destruction, I don't know what to say.

DP. No, the YIMBY strawman/hyperbole used wss duplexes destroying SFH neighborhoods.

We've regularly been calling out such logically fallacious argumenta, but that really is all that the YIMBYs seem to employ. Arguments by concerned residents about need for imfrastructure, schools, etc., the deficit in those already in the areas most likely impacted, and the unlikely addressing of such without direct tie/funding with any development at increased density go without substantive answer from those pushing for increased densities.

Thanks for pointing out part of the picture beyond duplexes. But anyone looking at the map woupd see that very large areas inside and near the Beltway are in play for the greatest densities.
And anyone following knows the stacking effect of that with newly enacted state law (and other efforts, such as PHDs) then allows for even greater than 4-plex densities (6-plex, small apartments, etc.).

The approach has been to enact several smaller changes that stack this way -- this keeps folks unaware until the coup de grace, which they are trying now. Pretty sick for what is supposed to be a representative government with minority protections.

So is this an accurate summary of your position?

Duplexes won't destroy the neighborhood, duplexes are fine.
Triplexes and fourplexes aren't fine but won't destroy the neighborhood.
Sixplexes will destroy the neighborhood.
We can't allow triplexes and fourplexes because if we do, sixplexes come next.

Also, what specifically is the coup de grace? Fourplexes? Sixplexes? (Both of which I would consider small apartment buildings, by the way.) And who or what is being killed by them?

The point this person is making is that this zoning change is deceptive because of state laws recently passed allowing by-right density bonuses that preempt local zoning laws. So, allowing quadplexes greenlights a density 50% higher than what is being discussed. This very dishonest zoning change effectively upzones SFH neighborhoods to 12X density (due to lot subdivisions). You are entirely ignoring the infrastructure and school concerns. Even if the county decides to build new schools, it will still take around 10 years to build new schools. So, you cannot upzone most of the county and assume that school capacity will magically materialize. It won't occur as quickly as the developers build new houses, and it will be almost impossible for the schools to catch up with this amount of growth. Also, allowing increases in density everywhere (at the same time) will require the county to make very expensive capacity upgrades to the entire infrastructure network. It is not economically efficient to expand capacity to the entire network to make room for density increases. It would be much smarter to upzone targeted geographic areas for transit-oriented growth and make substantial upgrades to these specific areas.

This whole idea that we can't build (schools/sewer/traffic lights/insert some other random thing here) is just an obvious silly distraction. Surprise surprise, local governments and school districts actually think about this stuff and have planned and executed these sorts of things before.

Believe it or not, but the leaders of the school system are more intelligent in this area and better equipped to address the issue than you are. Like, 1000x.

They clearly don't plan this well and anyone with kids that has a brain knows this. 25% of HS are projected to be at 120+% of capacity by 2025. Another 32% of HS's are projected to be between 100-120% of capacity in 2025. Clearly, they are not planning things well or do not have the financial capability to expand at the current growth rates. More than half of high schools will be over enrollment capacity next year. Infrastructure is a similar issue; Arlington has problems with sewer systems being significantly over capacity to the point that the sewer line pumps are failing. My friend's house in Arlington was flooded with raw sewage last year due to a sewer line pump failure. Arlington has failed to expand infrastructure to match population growth, and the MM zoning changes will worsen this. It is much cheaper and easier to expand infrastructure for greenfield development because there is nothing in the way. Once an area is already developed, it becomes very costly to make significant infrastructure upgrades.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Is that what is being proposed?

No, it’s not. If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback. I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.

Yes. Two-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones; three-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and four-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District. The Priority Housing District is areas within a one mile straight line distance from Metrorail’s Red Line, the Purple Line light rail, and MARC rail stations, plus 500 feet from a Thrive Montgomery 2050 identified Growth Corridor.

If you think that's destruction, I don't know what to say.

DP. No, the YIMBY strawman/hyperbole used wss duplexes destroying SFH neighborhoods.

We've regularly been calling out such logically fallacious argumenta, but that really is all that the YIMBYs seem to employ. Arguments by concerned residents about need for imfrastructure, schools, etc., the deficit in those already in the areas most likely impacted, and the unlikely addressing of such without direct tie/funding with any development at increased density go without substantive answer from those pushing for increased densities.

Thanks for pointing out part of the picture beyond duplexes. But anyone looking at the map woupd see that very large areas inside and near the Beltway are in play for the greatest densities.
And anyone following knows the stacking effect of that with newly enacted state law (and other efforts, such as PHDs) then allows for even greater than 4-plex densities (6-plex, small apartments, etc.).

The approach has been to enact several smaller changes that stack this way -- this keeps folks unaware until the coup de grace, which they are trying now. Pretty sick for what is supposed to be a representative government with minority protections.

So is this an accurate summary of your position?

Duplexes won't destroy the neighborhood, duplexes are fine.
Triplexes and fourplexes aren't fine but won't destroy the neighborhood.
Sixplexes will destroy the neighborhood.
We can't allow triplexes and fourplexes because if we do, sixplexes come next.

Also, what specifically is the coup de grace? Fourplexes? Sixplexes? (Both of which I would consider small apartment buildings, by the way.) And who or what is being killed by them?

The point this person is making is that this zoning change is deceptive because of state laws recently passed allowing by-right density bonuses that preempt local zoning laws. So, allowing quadplexes greenlights a density 50% higher than what is being discussed. This very dishonest zoning change effectively upzones SFH neighborhoods to 12X density (due to lot subdivisions). You are entirely ignoring the infrastructure and school concerns. Even if the county decides to build new schools, it will still take around 10 years to build new schools. So, you cannot upzone most of the county and assume that school capacity will magically materialize. It won't occur as quickly as the developers build new houses, and it will be almost impossible for the schools to catch up with this amount of growth. Also, allowing increases in density everywhere (at the same time) will require the county to make very expensive capacity upgrades to the entire infrastructure network. It is not economically efficient to expand capacity to the entire network to make room for density increases. It would be much smarter to upzone targeted geographic areas for transit-oriented growth and make substantial upgrades to these specific areas.

This whole idea that we can't build (schools/sewer/traffic lights/insert some other random thing here) is just an obvious silly distraction. Surprise surprise, local governments and school districts actually think about this stuff and have planned and executed these sorts of things before.

Believe it or not, but the leaders of the school system are more intelligent in this area and better equipped to address the issue than you are. Like, 1000x.

12:03, again. Your characterization as a "silly distraction" is another bankrupt rhetorical ploy in the face of something for which you seem not to have a proper response. It"s of considerable importance, both to current residents and to prospective ones.

Local governments have not even kept up with existing infrastructure needs. Given that, intimating that they will take care of it independently is a joke. Why don't these super-intelligent planners just make that infrastructure funding/build-out tied to and coincident with the increased densities?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Is that what is being proposed?

No, it’s not. If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback. I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.

Yes. Two-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones; three-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and four-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District. The Priority Housing District is areas within a one mile straight line distance from Metrorail’s Red Line, the Purple Line light rail, and MARC rail stations, plus 500 feet from a Thrive Montgomery 2050 identified Growth Corridor.

If you think that's destruction, I don't know what to say.

DP. No, the YIMBY strawman/hyperbole used wss duplexes destroying SFH neighborhoods.

We've regularly been calling out such logically fallacious argumenta, but that really is all that the YIMBYs seem to employ. Arguments by concerned residents about need for imfrastructure, schools, etc., the deficit in those already in the areas most likely impacted, and the unlikely addressing of such without direct tie/funding with any development at increased density go without substantive answer from those pushing for increased densities.

Thanks for pointing out part of the picture beyond duplexes. But anyone looking at the map woupd see that very large areas inside and near the Beltway are in play for the greatest densities.
And anyone following knows the stacking effect of that with newly enacted state law (and other efforts, such as PHDs) then allows for even greater than 4-plex densities (6-plex, small apartments, etc.).

The approach has been to enact several smaller changes that stack this way -- this keeps folks unaware until the coup de grace, which they are trying now. Pretty sick for what is supposed to be a representative government with minority protections.

So is this an accurate summary of your position?

Duplexes won't destroy the neighborhood, duplexes are fine.
Triplexes and fourplexes aren't fine but won't destroy the neighborhood.
Sixplexes will destroy the neighborhood.
We can't allow triplexes and fourplexes because if we do, sixplexes come next.

Also, what specifically is the coup de grace? Fourplexes? Sixplexes? (Both of which I would consider small apartment buildings, by the way.) And who or what is being killed by them?

The point this person is making is that this zoning change is deceptive because of state laws recently passed allowing by-right density bonuses that preempt local zoning laws. So, allowing quadplexes greenlights a density 50% higher than what is being discussed. This very dishonest zoning change effectively upzones SFH neighborhoods to 12X density (due to lot subdivisions). You are entirely ignoring the infrastructure and school concerns. Even if the county decides to build new schools, it will still take around 10 years to build new schools. So, you cannot upzone most of the county and assume that school capacity will magically materialize. It won't occur as quickly as the developers build new houses, and it will be almost impossible for the schools to catch up with this amount of growth. Also, allowing increases in density everywhere (at the same time) will require the county to make very expensive capacity upgrades to the entire infrastructure network. It is not economically efficient to expand capacity to the entire network to make room for density increases. It would be much smarter to upzone targeted geographic areas for transit-oriented growth and make substantial upgrades to these specific areas.

12:03 again. This reasonably explained the thought. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

Certainly less desirable than a SFH that is owner occupied. If you don’t understand this then we are just wasting time.

9 times out of 10 an owner takes better care of the property. so yes, I don't want renters in my neighborhood. There is one home that rents on my street and their yard looks terrible. Sure. blame the landlord, but the renter could also take pride.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Is that what is being proposed?

No, it’s not. If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback. I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.

Yes. Two-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones; three-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and four-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District. The Priority Housing District is areas within a one mile straight line distance from Metrorail’s Red Line, the Purple Line light rail, and MARC rail stations, plus 500 feet from a Thrive Montgomery 2050 identified Growth Corridor.

If you think that's destruction, I don't know what to say.

DP. No, the YIMBY strawman/hyperbole used wss duplexes destroying SFH neighborhoods.

We've regularly been calling out such logically fallacious argumenta, but that really is all that the YIMBYs seem to employ. Arguments by concerned residents about need for imfrastructure, schools, etc., the deficit in those already in the areas most likely impacted, and the unlikely addressing of such without direct tie/funding with any development at increased density go without substantive answer from those pushing for increased densities.

Thanks for pointing out part of the picture beyond duplexes. But anyone looking at the map woupd see that very large areas inside and near the Beltway are in play for the greatest densities.
And anyone following knows the stacking effect of that with newly enacted state law (and other efforts, such as PHDs) then allows for even greater than 4-plex densities (6-plex, small apartments, etc.).

The approach has been to enact several smaller changes that stack this way -- this keeps folks unaware until the coup de grace, which they are trying now. Pretty sick for what is supposed to be a representative government with minority protections.

So is this an accurate summary of your position?

Duplexes won't destroy the neighborhood, duplexes are fine.
Triplexes and fourplexes aren't fine but won't destroy the neighborhood.
Sixplexes will destroy the neighborhood.
We can't allow triplexes and fourplexes because if we do, sixplexes come next.

Also, what specifically is the coup de grace? Fourplexes? Sixplexes? (Both of which I would consider small apartment buildings, by the way.) And who or what is being killed by them?

The point this person is making is that this zoning change is deceptive because of state laws recently passed allowing by-right density bonuses that preempt local zoning laws. So, allowing quadplexes greenlights a density 50% higher than what is being discussed. This very dishonest zoning change effectively upzones SFH neighborhoods to 12X density (due to lot subdivisions). You are entirely ignoring the infrastructure and school concerns. Even if the county decides to build new schools, it will still take around 10 years to build new schools. So, you cannot upzone most of the county and assume that school capacity will magically materialize. It won't occur as quickly as the developers build new houses, and it will be almost impossible for the schools to catch up with this amount of growth. Also, allowing increases in density everywhere (at the same time) will require the county to make very expensive capacity upgrades to the entire infrastructure network. It is not economically efficient to expand capacity to the entire network to make room for density increases. It would be much smarter to upzone targeted geographic areas for transit-oriented growth and make substantial upgrades to these specific areas.

This whole idea that we can't build (schools/sewer/traffic lights/insert some other random thing here) is just an obvious silly distraction. Surprise surprise, local governments and school districts actually think about this stuff and have planned and executed these sorts of things before.

Believe it or not, but the leaders of the school system are more intelligent in this area and better equipped to address the issue than you are. Like, 1000x.

12:03, again. Your characterization as a "silly distraction" is another bankrupt rhetorical ploy in the face of something for which you seem not to have a proper response. It"s of considerable importance, both to current residents and to prospective ones.

Local governments have not even kept up with existing infrastructure needs. Given that, intimating that they will take care of it independently is a joke. Why don't these super-intelligent planners just make that infrastructure funding/build-out tied to and coincident with the increased densities?

This. None of the localities in the DMV keep up their infrastructure to match their growth, yet local governments can’t add more fast enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.

Are you a parody account?

Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.

Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think we maybe need to get some facts straight.

This proposal would allow up to four residences to be built on a lot where just one residence is allowed. This would mean that an individual or a developer could purchase a SFH lot when it becomes available and build what amounts to a small set of townhomes. This ASSUMES that all existing setback and other lot coverage rules are maintained.

It is ALREADY allowed to have accessory dwelling units on a SFH property, either detached or attached. So already you can have multiple families on a lot.

These individual buildings will be relatively expensive. We are not talking about large apartment blocks with rent-capped units...but townhomes. Taxes will be paid.


The valid issues to be addressed are parking and school capacity. Everything else is catastrophizing.

There is a lot here that is false or intentionally misleading. Which is typical for you folks.

First, can we have a discussion without talking about "you folks" and slinging insults?

Second, I'm happy to be corrected on anything wrong, or for anybody to add needed nuance to the statements. You know....have a conversation.

DP but they’re getting rid of setback requirements.

Where have you seen this? I haven't. Genuinely curious.

I think it’s in the attainable housing strategy.

Some of it is in prior MoCo and state initiatives. Remember, this is a long-planned multi-prong approach, intentionally making it difficult for resudents to understand the full effect of all of the combined changes until it is too late.

The assertion is that existing setback requirements are "gotten rid of".

The Attainable Housing Strategy makes multiple references to RETAINING existing setbacks as well as adding a design book to ensure that multi-unit structures are on the same scale as existing SF homes. One example: "Furthermore, the Planning Board recommends establishing zoning development standards (setbacks, height, lot size, etc.) for structures with these new housing types that are consistent with the existing standards for single-family detached homes." (p. 60).

Does anybody have an actual citation to anything that indicates a reduction in setback requirements?

Not today. But it will come.

Just as initial docs did not impact SFH lots. Now, this will. It's a trickle of changes until they all occur bit by bit overtime.

Actually, a just-enacted state law discussed here earlier:

https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2024RS/Chapters_noln/CH_122_hb0538e.pdf

includes language in section 7-505 that limits restrictions based on setbacks. It applies to some of the properties now under ZTA consideration by MoCo, and the conditions would stack, there.

That's one example. There are others. Priority Housing Districts that MoCo created along the corridors stripped those detached SFH properties from the neighborhoods of which they previously were a part, making several higher-density adjustments. It's layer upon layer of recent actions that will, together, have the sweeping effects that developer-friendly YIMBYs try to hide by approaching it as a patchwork.

Yes, this state law completely shreds local zoning authority and allows developers to almost build whatever they want without regard for community impact. It is a complete handout to the real estate and construction industry that steamrolls local communities.

Yup....this is how they take away land from the middle class. They are destroying the last pillar of obtaining wealth for the middle class. Ruin neighborhoods and turn everyone into a permanent renter for life.

Implicit in your argument is that SFH and owners should always get wealthier on the backs of renters, by virtue of ever-increasing house values.

Finally, you NIMBYs admit it. It's about your money, nothing else.

It is 100% about my money and I will shout it from the roofs!

Density bros have an almost religious fanaticism that is really difficult to understand. Most people are not against building houses. They just don’t want to be completely trampled over by developers forced to suffer from the consequences. You cannot increase the zoned density by factor of 4-8x and expect everything to just magically work out our. Zoning is the way that localities can ensure that infrastructure capacity matches development patterns. Without responsible zoning decisions the real estate industry will build anything and everything they want to the detriment of local government services, public health, and environmental resources.

Dude, infrastructure can, believe it or not, be expanded. It's actually possible, believe it or not, to build stuff to support things. What a concept!

You must think you're so witty. So here is one for you: just because something makes sense and CAN be done, it doesn't mean it will be done in MOCO. The MPCS is increasing caps right now on class size. Can they build more schools and hire more teachers? Yes. Will they? No.

The county demographer uses some lame 1960s formula to project enrollment that assumes that very few people in apartment buildings have kids of school age. I happen to leave not far from one of just half a dozen of buildings that are districted to Whitman. EVERYBODY in that building has kids, they rent there because of Whitman specifically.

So you with your humor are cute and all, but so off the mark.

Then tell your government to build more schools. Problem solved!

Tell the developers to pay for the actual cost of building new schools for students generated by their houses. The last time I checked each student cost MOCO around $60,000 for extra space in school facilities. This means that most developments should be paying a minimum of 20k per unit for school impact fees. However, the real estate industry would rather screw over the county by lobbying the state to pass heavy handed zoning reform that allow developers to weasel out of responsibilities for schools through using by-right density bonus loopholes.

Do you charge SFH owners more money when they wanna build a new house? Didn't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.

Hint: the only "socialism" here is the cartel of SFH owners that curtail development to protect their own little honey pot.

Rents only go up as far as demand can, it's not hard to understand. There is a reason why NZ has had dropping rents. They build a ton of housing! But that would diminish the free wealth you SFH people have taken from renters.

You seriously need to take Econ 101.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.

Are you a parody account?

Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.

Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.

It is not an unlimited source of wealth, but it is the primary way that most middle class and working class households accumulate any assets and establish financial stability for their family. Housing does not need to appreciate at all after adjusting for inflation for this to be true. Transforming single family neighborhoods into small apartments units will diminish ownership opportunities and harm the average American.

[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:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Is that what is being proposed?

No, it’s not. If that were the case and they accounted for off street parking and the effects on infrastructure you’d have less pushback. I wouldn’t want it next door, but built within parameters that take into account the character of the neighborhood and with a finite number of permits per X area, we might all come to an agreement.

Yes. Two-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, R-90, and R-200 zones; three-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90 zones, and in the R-200 zone within a Priority Housing District; and four-unit housing by right in the R-40, R-60, and R-90, and R-200 zones within the Priority Housing District. The Priority Housing District is areas within a one mile straight line distance from Metrorail’s Red Line, the Purple Line light rail, and MARC rail stations, plus 500 feet from a Thrive Montgomery 2050 identified Growth Corridor.

If you think that's destruction, I don't know what to say.

DP. No, the YIMBY strawman/hyperbole used wss duplexes destroying SFH neighborhoods.

We've regularly been calling out such logically fallacious argumenta, but that really is all that the YIMBYs seem to employ. Arguments by concerned residents about need for imfrastructure, schools, etc., the deficit in those already in the areas most likely impacted, and the unlikely addressing of such without direct tie/funding with any development at increased density go without substantive answer from those pushing for increased densities.

Thanks for pointing out part of the picture beyond duplexes. But anyone looking at the map woupd see that very large areas inside and near the Beltway are in play for the greatest densities.
And anyone following knows the stacking effect of that with newly enacted state law (and other efforts, such as PHDs) then allows for even greater than 4-plex densities (6-plex, small apartments, etc.).

The approach has been to enact several smaller changes that stack this way -- this keeps folks unaware until the coup de grace, which they are trying now. Pretty sick for what is supposed to be a representative government with minority protections.

So is this an accurate summary of your position?

Duplexes won't destroy the neighborhood, duplexes are fine.
Triplexes and fourplexes aren't fine but won't destroy the neighborhood.
Sixplexes will destroy the neighborhood.
We can't allow triplexes and fourplexes because if we do, sixplexes come next.

Also, what specifically is the coup de grace? Fourplexes? Sixplexes? (Both of which I would consider small apartment buildings, by the way.) And who or what is being killed by them?

The point this person is making is that this zoning change is deceptive because of state laws recently passed allowing by-right density bonuses that preempt local zoning laws. So, allowing quadplexes greenlights a density 50% higher than what is being discussed. This very dishonest zoning change effectively upzones SFH neighborhoods to 12X density (due to lot subdivisions). You are entirely ignoring the infrastructure and school concerns. Even if the county decides to build new schools, it will still take around 10 years to build new schools. So, you cannot upzone most of the county and assume that school capacity will magically materialize. It won't occur as quickly as the developers build new houses, and it will be almost impossible for the schools to catch up with this amount of growth. Also, allowing increases in density everywhere (at the same time) will require the county to make very expensive capacity upgrades to the entire infrastructure network. It is not economically efficient to expand capacity to the entire network to make room for density increases. It would be much smarter to upzone targeted geographic areas for transit-oriented growth and make substantial upgrades to these specific areas.

Wait, what's the deceptive, dishonest part, exactly? How about destructive, is that in there too?

The proposed zoning change is specifically targeting geographic areas for transit-oriented growth, so you should be happy about that.

DP but one deceptive part is talking about duplexes when everyone knows those don’t pencil (according to planning). But transit-oriented growth is also deceptive. We’ve seen developers put car-oriented growth close to metro stations and planning does nothing to prevent that even when it’s contrary to master plans. We also know that the YIMBYs will NIMBY the road and school expansions that the new development will require.

The proposed zoning changes that are being discussed literally include duplexes but it's deceptive to talk about the duplexes which are literally included in the proposed zoning changes that are being discussed?

You are assuming that new development requires road expansion. It doesn't.

Much of it will require road expansion. This is a fact. If population double in a given area with MM zoning patterns and density , vehicle miles traveled will increase by at least 70% (under generous assumptions that assume heavy use of public transit and walking). This will require more road capacity.

What they are keeping secret is that the added road capacity will be current streets designated as arterial but in fully residential neighborhoods. Sorry folks, but this inevitably means that Dale Dr, Piney Branch and similar roads will get expanded to 2X2.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.

Are you a parody account?

Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.

Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.

It is not an unlimited source of wealth, but it is the primary way that most middle class and working class households accumulate any assets and establish financial stability for their family. Housing does not need to appreciate at all after adjusting for inflation for this to be true. Transforming single family neighborhoods into small apartments units will diminish ownership opportunities and harm the average American.

They should encourage redevelopment to build new townhouse communities instead. This will boost affordability without destroying home ownership and wealth building opportunities for minority households.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.

They have run out of land to develop.

BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.

Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.

Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.

Well, I guess you think renters are scary.

Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.

Are you a parody account?

Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.

Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.

It is not an unlimited source of wealth, but it is the primary way that most middle class and working class households accumulate any assets and establish financial stability for their family. Housing does not need to appreciate at all after adjusting for inflation for this to be true. Transforming single family neighborhoods into small apartments units will diminish ownership opportunities and harm the average American.

Exactly. For most people it constitutes forced savings.