Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.
It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.
Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.
Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.
Sounds good.
I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.
Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.
Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.
I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.
You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?
And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.
DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.
It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.
How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?
Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?
Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.
I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.
Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.
You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.
Your post is so gross and awful.
How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?
I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.
None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.
Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.
So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.
Some anonymous rando makes an insulting comment about Cape Cod houses - whose property values will most likely increase, not decrease, with the zoning changes - and you conclude that it's developers trying to get the zoning changes passed by calling middle class and working class people racist?
Your home value will most likely increase with the zoning changes.
The nature of your neighborhood will change with or without the zoning changes. Your neighborhood was changing before you moved in, it is changing right now, and it will continue to change even if the current zoning is engraved on stone tablets.
It is very possible that the property values decrease if the neighborhood becomes less desirable most buyers in the market. Then the developers swoop in like vultures and buy the properties at lower prices which hastens the decline and this causes the cycle to accelerate. It is not guaranteed to increase the value and it can actually lower it if the rezoning decreases the desirability for most buyers.
Generally, when developers swoop in, prices go up, not down.
Or maybe people will take advantage of the lower prices to buy homes to live in. Unless they're outbid by developers? But again, that would make prices go up, not down.
There is no evidence that home prices go up when developers swoop in, especially when we’re talking the results of this development can include over capacity schools (already an issue in the county), streets with no parking for residents (already an issue for my neighborhood), and overtaxed infrastructure.
You’re giving entitled YIMBY and developer talking points, and dismissing and disparaging the current owners of homes in these areas - middle class, working class, black, and brown - as racists simply because want to preserve the neighborhood they bought into.
There is lots of evidence.
Not to mention, here is your scenario: Lots of people/companies (developers) arrive who have money to buy property and want to buy property in a given area; as a result of this, prices decline. It's an extraordinary claim, and it needs extraordinary evidence to support it.
Provide the specific evidence - citations included - of reputable studies that show that when apartment building are squeezed into neighborhoods with SFH homes on SFH plots, overtaxing should, infrastructure, and eradicating the quiet feel of the neighborhood that home prices go up.
Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?
It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.
For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.
No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.
Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?
Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.
So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.
You are assuming that people in these areas in Silver Spring are white. They are not universally white. This is where your “good intentions” have bad outcomes. My neighborhood is heavily Latino, Ethiopian, and black American. We are middle class and working class families. We are being told by YIMBYs we need to put up with the dismantling of racism and access to affordable housing …. We got affordable housing which we saved for. We are not all white - this is an incredibly diverse area. And this proposal will undercut our neighborhoods and the value of our homes.
Why is the inequity of this so hard for you understand?
It won't undercut the value of your home, though.
Maybe you can explain what you mean by "the proposal will undercut our neighborhood"? What are the specific concerns?
Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.
It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.
Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.
Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.
Sounds good.
I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.
Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.
Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.
I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.
You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?
And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.
DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.
It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.
How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?
Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?
Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.
I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.
Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.
You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.
Your post is so gross and awful.
How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?
I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.
None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.
Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.
So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.
Some anonymous rando makes an insulting comment about Cape Cod houses - whose property values will most likely increase, not decrease, with the zoning changes - and you conclude that it's developers trying to get the zoning changes passed by calling middle class and working class people racist?
Your home value will most likely increase with the zoning changes.
The nature of your neighborhood will change with or without the zoning changes. Your neighborhood was changing before you moved in, it is changing right now, and it will continue to change even if the current zoning is engraved on stone tablets.
It is very possible that the property values decrease if the neighborhood becomes less desirable most buyers in the market. Then the developers swoop in like vultures and buy the properties at lower prices which hastens the decline and this causes the cycle to accelerate. It is not guaranteed to increase the value and it can actually lower it if the rezoning decreases the desirability for most buyers.
Generally, when developers swoop in, prices go up, not down.
Or maybe people will take advantage of the lower prices to buy homes to live in. Unless they're outbid by developers? But again, that would make prices go up, not down.
There is no evidence that home prices go up when developers swoop in, especially when we’re talking the results of this development can include over capacity schools (already an issue in the county), streets with no parking for residents (already an issue for my neighborhood), and overtaxed infrastructure.
You’re giving entitled YIMBY and developer talking points, and dismissing and disparaging the current owners of homes in these areas - middle class, working class, black, and brown - as racists simply because want to preserve the neighborhood they bought into.
There is lots of evidence.
Not to mention, here is your scenario: Lots of people/companies (developers) arrive who have money to buy property and want to buy property in a given area; as a result of this, prices decline. It's an extraordinary claim, and it needs extraordinary evidence to support it.
Provide the specific evidence - citations included - of reputable studies that show that when apartment building are squeezed into neighborhoods with SFH homes on SFH plots, overtaxing should, infrastructure, and eradicating the quiet feel of the neighborhood that home prices go up.
Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?
It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.
For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.
No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.
Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?
Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.
So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.
You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.
YES! Thank you.
-a POC who is a homeowner in MoCo and does NOT want to see upzoning in my middle class neighborhood
What are your specific concerns, and also where in MoCo is your middle class neighborhood located?
Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?
It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.
For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.
No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.
Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?
Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.
So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.
You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.
It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.
Sure they are. Large apartments squeezed into small plots, adjacent to modest SFHs, trees cut, street parking overcrowded, schools already overcrowded through the county now have even more students …. That’s destroying a neighborhood. And doing it on the backs of the middle class and working class homeowners because that’s the only group in this county that will be hurt. Half of the county is exempt from this proposal given municipalities and wealthier areas won’t be hurt. Just those in Silver Spring, Wheaton, etc.
Anonymous wrote:EXCLUSIVE single family zoning. Everywhere where it is currently allowed to build single family housing, it will still be allowed to build single family housing.
It just won’t be commercially viable unless you can get more than $2 million for it.
Ok, so for new buildings, there will be (for example) two units on the piece of land instead of one? That seems like a win. More housing units for people to live in.
Duplexes don’t pencil. It’s a waste of time to talk about duplexes. They’ll need to build triples or quads to make it work. It’s great except for people who want to buy a townhouse or detached SFH. You know, the people who planning says we need to keep in the county by having cheaper housing. Most of them aren’t leaving for apartments.
Sounds good.
I live in a neighborhood that would be upzoned (by the way! Not everywhere! Just within a mile of transit, yes?). I am very in support of this. We have some duplexes and triplexes grandfathered in already and…the world hasn’t ended. We even have some low rise apartment buildings that date from before…across the street from my house. Again, the world has not ended. We have more neighbors on our street, it’s vibrant, and good people can live here. Walking distance to the elementary and middle schools - some restaurants scattered around - it is a diverse neighborhood, a great place to live. I’m here to report that the world doesn’t end when there are duplexes, triplexes, townhomes or even apartments in amongst detached houses.
Do let us know where the people in duplexes and triplexes are going to park in your neighborhood (in mine, I can barely get a parking space on the street, even in a neighborhood with single-family homes) or how your local school is going to accommodate the increased population of kids--because my kids are at MCPS and I can tell you that a class with 27 kids in lower elementary school, and 34 kids in middle school does not result in an optimal educational environment.
Great point. It’s time we start permit parking (2 passes per residence) and school vouchers as well (2 vouchers per residence). Tell me how this works out for the multiple families with 3 and 4 kids in our CC neighborhood.
I’d rather have a retired couple in a townhome with a garage than a neighbor with 6 cars when their teens start driving. Not to mention the bikes and scooters currently cluttering their yard.
You should move to a townhome in an area zoned for townhomes. See how easy that was?
And you should move to a rural area if you only want SFHs around you.
DP. Why should I have to move if I don’t want an apartment building built right next to my modest cape cod? The one I bought when this absurd proposal wasn’t developed and before developers started manipulating the county leadership to undermine the integrity and quality of life of middle class / working class neighborhoods like mine so they could make $$$$ with the faux promise of “affordable” housing.
It’s also the epitome of privilege to tell people “just move”, btw. So obnoxious.
How does living next to an apartment building "undermine the integrity and quality" of your life?
Are you really just saying you don't want to live next to black and brown people, or anyone that might be lower income?
Because don't worry, those new apartments and townhomes will probably cost more than your crappy cape cod.
I am the poster you’re responding to. We moved to our neighborhood because there were many families here who are black and brown, which was important to us. I have close family that are POC.
Our “crappy cape cod”, as you put it, was what we saved 10 years to buy - a decade - and no, having an apartment building next door will not help our home value. You know this which is why you have to resort to degrading me and my home to try and make your point.
You just proved that the whole “YIMBY” movements is driven by developers who want to humiliate people like me to believe that unless I comply where their exploitation of middle and working class neighborhoods, I am an elitist/racist.
Your post is so gross and awful.
How are you being humiliated? Because an anonymous poster is insulting an architectural style of housing, which - I guess? - is the style of housing you own and live in?
I am not that poster, and I actually don't have anything against cape cods. The architectural style of housing I have an animus for is split levels, especially split foyers.
None of that has anything to do with the proposed zoning changes, though.
Suggesting people are racist and degrading the quality of the home they saved for and bought as “crappy” simply because they want to preserve their home value and the nature of their neighborhood seems pretty mean spirited with the intent of humiliation to me.
So interesting the people who want to tell middle class and working class people who bought homes in middle class and working class neighborhoods that they need to be more open to developers otherwise they are racists is master maniputiom.
Some anonymous rando makes an insulting comment about Cape Cod houses - whose property values will most likely increase, not decrease, with the zoning changes - and you conclude that it's developers trying to get the zoning changes passed by calling middle class and working class people racist?
Your home value will most likely increase with the zoning changes.
The nature of your neighborhood will change with or without the zoning changes. Your neighborhood was changing before you moved in, it is changing right now, and it will continue to change even if the current zoning is engraved on stone tablets.
It is very possible that the property values decrease if the neighborhood becomes less desirable most buyers in the market. Then the developers swoop in like vultures and buy the properties at lower prices which hastens the decline and this causes the cycle to accelerate. It is not guaranteed to increase the value and it can actually lower it if the rezoning decreases the desirability for most buyers.
Generally, when developers swoop in, prices go up, not down.
Or maybe people will take advantage of the lower prices to buy homes to live in. Unless they're outbid by developers? But again, that would make prices go up, not down.
There is no evidence that home prices go up when developers swoop in, especially when we’re talking the results of this development can include over capacity schools (already an issue in the county), streets with no parking for residents (already an issue for my neighborhood), and overtaxed infrastructure.
You’re giving entitled YIMBY and developer talking points, and dismissing and disparaging the current owners of homes in these areas - middle class, working class, black, and brown - as racists simply because want to preserve the neighborhood they bought into.
There is lots of evidence.
Not to mention, here is your scenario: Lots of people/companies (developers) arrive who have money to buy property and want to buy property in a given area; as a result of this, prices decline. It's an extraordinary claim, and it needs extraordinary evidence to support it.
Provide the specific evidence - citations included - of reputable studies that show that when apartment building are squeezed into neighborhoods with SFH homes on SFH plots, overtaxing should, infrastructure, and eradicating the quiet feel of the neighborhood that home prices go up.
I’ll wait.
Your post says a lot about your assumptions.
Your post says you have no evidence. Still waiting ….
Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?
It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.
For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.
No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.
Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?
Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.
So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.
You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.
YES! Thank you.
-a POC who is a homeowner in MoCo and does NOT want to see upzoning in my middle class neighborhood
What are your specific concerns, and also where in MoCo is your middle class neighborhood located?
Read the thread. Plenty of specific and reasonable concerns shared. Zero substantive evidence to suggest that this proposal won’t be a disaster.
Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?
It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.
For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.
No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.
Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?
Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.
So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.
You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.
It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.
Yes they are if you upzone the population density to 8x
We must have different ideas about what destruction means.
Turning a farmland into suburban neighborhood necessarily destroys the farmland, Same thing for upzoning single family neighborhoods to high density housing. By definition it destroys what previously existed because the place has change so much that it no longer bears any meaningful resembles to its previous form.
Well, no. Building houses on farmland does destroy the farmland. Allowing property owners to build two-to-four-unit housing in a neighborhood where previously only one-unit housing was allowed does not destroy the neighborhood. In fact, I don't think it destroys the neighborhood even if property owners actually build two-to-four-unit housing in it. It changes the neighborhood, certainly, but it doesn't destroy the neighborhood.
It will be great if you are white and are looking for an area to get more white, which I guess is a YIMBY goal from what I can tell. Just leisurely bike rides to the local cafe to work “from home.”
Not sure why the YImBYs chose to live in such a diverse area…maybe cheaper to gentrify?
Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?
It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.
For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.
No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.
Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?
Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.
So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.
You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.
YES! Thank you.
-a POC who is a homeowner in MoCo and does NOT want to see upzoning in my middle class neighborhood
What are your specific concerns, and also where in MoCo is your middle class neighborhood located?
Read the thread. Plenty of specific and reasonable concerns shared. Zero substantive evidence to suggest that this proposal won’t be a disaster.
Are you the "POC who is a homeowner in MoCo and does NOT want to see upzoning in my middle class neighborhood"?
If not, why are you speaking for this person?
If you are, that still doesn't answer my question, which is ok, you don't have to answer my question, but just referring to "plenty of specific and reasonable concerns shared" in a 15-page thread doesn't provide a lot of information.
Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?
It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.
For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.
No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.
Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?
Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.
So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.
You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.
It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.
Sure they are. Large apartments squeezed into small plots, adjacent to modest SFHs, trees cut, street parking overcrowded, schools already overcrowded through the county now have even more students …. That’s destroying a neighborhood. And doing it on the backs of the middle class and working class homeowners because that’s the only group in this county that will be hurt. Half of the county is exempt from this proposal given municipalities and wealthier areas won’t be hurt. Just those in Silver Spring, Wheaton, etc.
The hypocrisy is staggering.
So there are already neighborhoods like that, right here in Montgomery County. They don't seem destroyed to me.
Anonymous wrote:I wonder how the aging pipes and water mains and sewage treatment facilities, etc. are equipped to deal with such things?
My guess is they are not.
I encourage everyone to drive around some of the neighborhoods where families are quadrupled up and count the cars parked on the streets…and the yards. Ever been to Aspen Hill?
I’d rather the county take leadership on developing or incentivizing the development of intentional communities instead of just letting flippers throw together poorly constructed duplexes and triplexes. So, so, so very stupid.
Specifically, our neighbors in Bethesda and Chevy Chase.
Yes, we are in Bethesda. As you will see in the petition, we are sharing broadly as we know it impacts all of the county.
That is why it notes:
“Please take a minute or two to spread the word to folks beyond the Westbrook listserv footprint. Here's an easy link for sharing:
https://www.change.org/ProtectSingleFamilyZoning”
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}