MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

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.

This thread is about MoCo planning wanting 4-plexes which are small apartments. Keep up.

[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.

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.

Wait, you the one asking OTHER people if they are parody accounts? You are ridiculous.

Hey guys, at least this one comes right out and admits out that lower property values for homeowners is a desired outcome for them, most of the time they try to hide it.

This would make an amusing poll, though.

Economics, finance, accounting, STEM backgrounds…NIMBY versus YIMBY.

[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.

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.

It is a guarantee that the vast majority of the renters in the 2-4 complexes will cost the County money in terms of services, etc., and that the former owners of that SFH will be a net tax benefit to the County. Lets attract more takers (which are roughly 50% of the County), and drive away the payers (which are really the top 25%). Solid business model. Not.

[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.

Actually, the opposite is true. Sorry.

[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: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.

Huh? There is no tension between maintaining or even expanding the stock of SFH and increasing the stock of rental housing. You are so stuck on one specific type of rental housing when large multi family is more economical and provides better density benefits.

There is a tension but the negative effects accrue mostly to big corporate landlords, not homeowners. The big corporate landlords have an interest in limiting the stock of SFH and driving up the prices of SFH because doing so creates more customers for them and increases the rents that they can charge. “Compact growth” is nothing more than a long con that took a lot of land off the table for development and limited housing choice to the small areas experiencing growth. There are some earnest people who thought — and still think — compact growth is the right policy but even many of them now realize that their policy preference drives up housing costs.

For SFH owner occupants, their location alone affords them more than enough price protection against increased supply because there’s almost no chance that there will be a significant increase in SFH in their location (especially if they’re close to the beltway or a metro stop).

Personally, as a detached SFH owner, I am more than happy to see rental apartments and even townhouses break ground because having more people in my neighborhood makes nicer retail and dining more viable, which makes my life nicer and increases demand for SFH in my neighborhood.

Large multi family and townhomes directly adjacent as a buffer to SFH is ideal and I agree that it supports SFH property values. Randomly dumping trash 4 plexes without parking in SFH neighborhoods has the opposite effect. There is more than enough space and ability to promote more large multi family and townhouses without this “missing middle” nonsense which is promoted not because it will appreciably increase housing supply but instead out of spite because it will negatively affect others for no reason other than envy.

That seems like a reasonable approach, probably too reasonable for Montgomery County.

Agree 100%

[Anonymous]

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.

Agree 100%

[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.

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.

Wait, you the one asking OTHER people if they are parody accounts? You are ridiculous.

Hey guys, at least this one comes right out and admits out that lower property values for homeowners is a desired outcome for them, most of the time they try to hide it.

This would make an amusing poll, though.

Economics, finance, accounting, STEM backgrounds…NIMBY versus YIMBY.

Lets see. SFHs has been seen as a means to create generational wealth. So, lets reduce the number of SFHs. The wealth of the middle class is far more dependent on the value of their homes than the rich. So, lets screw the middle class.

[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.

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.

It is forced savings and it locks in most of housing costs. Within 5 years many people are paying less in interest, taxes, and insurance than they would be paying in rent. Of course people can make bad decisions or experience no salary growth and end up no better off but that’s not most people. What YIMBYs really seem to hate is seeing people getting off the rent hamster wheel and getting some protection from inflation.

[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.

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.

DP. I own a house and I own shares in residential and commercial REITs. The only wealth that I am accruing on the backs of renters is from the REIT shares. I know there will always be a housing shortage in the areas where the REITs own apartments because the REITs and the other developers have enlisted a band of useful idiots to advocate for ineffective housing solutions like this one, and if that fails they have a lot of money to spread around during campaign season.

[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.

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.

You might want to take your own advice because housing and rental subsidies are the causes. This is especially true with rental costs because the subsidies create a floor that gets steadily jacked up as the subsidy adjusts upwards.

[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.

Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.

Renters get a place to live.

Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?

[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.

Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.

Renters get a place to live.

Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?

If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.

[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.

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.

Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.

Renters get a place to live.

Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?

If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.

Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.

Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.

[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.

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.

DP. I own a house and I own shares in residential and commercial REITs. The only wealth that I am accruing on the backs of renters is from the REIT shares. I know there will always be a housing shortage in the areas where the REITs own apartments because the REITs and the other developers have enlisted a band of useful idiots to advocate for ineffective housing solutions like this one, and if that fails they have a lot of money to spread around during campaign season.

Do you also think the moon is made of cheese? LMAO. You must be a parody account. So wrong.

[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.

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.

Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.

Renters get a place to live.

Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?

If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.

Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.

Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.

Of course, anyone that isn’t a fool understands that there are a lot factors that have created the housing market.

However, we can play along. Explain to us the “Math 101” fundamental mathematical concepts that can explain the housing market or explain the impossibility of “faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.”

Not that anyone claimed that, I’m just hoping that we can all learn some masterful applied mathematics.