They are completely inconsistent with their logic to justify upzoning the entire county. One one hand they want transit oriented and environmentallly friendly development. On the other hand they are wany to allow quadplexes in low sensory suburbs which will promote sprawl and car oriented development. Also, I don't appreciate the political mantra about “housing abundance.” A trendy catch phrase is not a sound basis for county zoning policies. Allow quadpelxes within a 1/2 mile radius of metro stations and duplexes within a mile radius of the metro stations but leave the rest of the county alone. Upzoning the entire county will not promote transit oriented or environmentaly friendly development.
They're completely beholden to the developers, real estate agents and associated special interests who fund their campaigns. With more housing, MoCo would need to ensure that infrastructure, services, schools, etc., are funded commenturately to the additional burden in each area that would experience population growth.
As much as they spend on these things now, failing this match, and failing to constrain growth where that match could not be effected, would diminish services for existing residents and provide substandard services to any new residents. Only the profiteers would benefit.
An "evil developer" built the house you live in, champ.
And, surprise, America knows how to build schools and sewers, believe it or not.
Go touch grass.
Ok, you’re slow, we get it. We know that you think that you have “big thoughts” and all, but can you start by pointing your crayon to the area where someone implied that developers were evil?
Developers have an interest in developing. That’s how they make money. If you let them develop things in ways that are detrimental to the community, that doesn’t make them evil, it makes the body overseeing the development approvals incompetent.
Now, we know that you think that you are big boy and you know best, but those are simply your opinions on the matter, and most of the people in the county think that your opinions are a bit childish and silly.
You’ll m, of course, come back to say that I am wrong, to which I’ll reply that we should vote on it, and you’ll say that that we’ve already voted on it by electing certain people. I’ll say that we didn’t elect the planning board, and you’ll say that we elected the people that chose the planning board. Your argument will get more and more abstract until it’s a complete shell of an argument, and then you’ll put your fingers in your ears and lalalala about how you still think that you are right.
So, whatever.
Get the lawsuits ready, I guess.
Imagine having so little going on in your life that your biggest issue in the world is - gasp - new apartment buildings.
We don't live in a direct democracy - you lost already. Get over it. If you wanna live on a farm, buy a farm.
DP. Now do property tax exemptions for developers. If we’re supposed to let the market decide everything, then why do we need to give out big subsidies?
Rich homeowners get way more in tax benefits. Ok if we remove those too?
Didn't think so.
Most of us in the DCC are not rich. Most homeowners in the area affected by that UBC plan have median incomes below the county median.
So on top of undermining our neighborhoods because apparently middle class families aren’t allowed to enjoy single family homes and must only live in high density areas, according to YIMBYs, the county is foregoing critical revenue from impact taxes that pay for key aspects of infrastructure that make these developments supposedly so great and offset the very negative impact of squeezing in 4,000 new households in a three-mile stretch.
Why is that again? Oh, because the county council and planning board are egregiously in cahoots with each other. Handouts to developers on the backs of middle and working class homeowners. Disgusting.
Man you people love your conspiracy theories about "EvIl GreEdY DevELopERS!"
Hint: a developer built your house. Were they bad? Did they get a "handout" from the city when your plot was zoned?
Didn't think so. Stop being so selflish.
Tired and unresponsive. Typical MoCo insider.
What nonprofit built your house?
I'll wait.
You don't have to wait, you just have to go back to the last dozen times you brought out this red herring and actually digest the response, rather than posting it again without acknowledging those prior responses.
That's because I'm waiting for you NIMBYs to reconcile the dissonance between demanding that new housing be "affordable" or built by "non-greedy" developers while at the same time taking advantage of profit-driven development in your own home.
Nobody has provided a suitable explanation for this.
Just speaking from my own experience, I don’t feel like I “took advantage” of profit-driven development. The developer certainly didn’t pass along any subsidies they got to me or give me any other breaks. I paid what the market would bear. I actually hated my developer because they needed constant monitoring. Whenever you roll out lines like this, I qrelive this experience and it reminds me how cutthroat and dishonest my developer was.
If politicians promise affordable housing (or housing that’s attainable for nurses and teachers), then they should deliver. Affordability concerns aren’t some strawman that people invented. Housing affordability is a leading concern among county residents. Stop promising affordable housing and then complaining that people expect affordable housing.
Just be honest about what you want. You want to build housing only for people who more than $150k a year, and you want subsidies to do it even though publicly traded developers already post some of the highest gross margins on the street. You also want to be able to collude with each other fix prices, eliminate life safety requirements in building codes, and shift the burden of new infrastructure onto everyone except you, even though you’re the one monetizing that public investments. Just be honest and then we can have a discussion about how accommodative public policy should be to your desires.
Another day, another set of NIMBY demands for new housing. It never stops, you all will never give up finding new excuses. It has to be "affordable" it has to "be safe" and "something something infrastructure".
And people wonder why our bridges are falling apart and China has more high speed rail. You all really do think you have the moral high ground here, ignoring the fact that your policies are causing housing prices to continue to raise (and pad your pocket)
I know. These NIMBYs wanting affordable housing to be safe, and affordable, and with planned infrastructure.
Insane!
Will you volunteer your own house to be affordable to a low-income family once you sell it? How about accepting a mandate that you can't sell it for more than inflation?
Didn't think so.
Stop putting the burden of this stuff on young families and reaping all the benefit through lower housing supply and higher prices. It's selfish.
I feel like you might be a NIMBY trying to make YIMBYs look even worse. Either way, keep up the good work.
The latest survey says a lot.
I mean, 73% of DEMOCRATS responded that the speed of development is anything from just right to much too fast. Fifty seven percent (of Democrats) support Elrich, a vocal opponent of the plan.
A majority of people disapprove of zoning changes and/or inclusion of affordable housing in their neighborhood and countywide.
Please note that the respondents were of varying age and income brackets, and it was multiracial.
PLEASE STOP YOUR BS with OMG ITS LIKE TOTALLY OLD RICH WHITE PEOPLE THAT HATE THE POORS AND MINORITIES.
And I never said anything about race or age. You assumed, which says a lot about your motives.
Again, will you volunteer your house to be "affordable"?
Still waiting!
It’s typically implied by YImBYs, so kudos to you if you aren’t using that falsehood. Maybe we are making some progress in having some reality based argument.
No, because that’s stupid. We don’t have to entertain stupid ideas just because you have them anymore that I have to entertain scientific thoughts from people that do their own vaccine research on YouTube. Your wildly unpopular bad ideas aren’t our problem.
Got it, so you admit that these "affordability" mandates are unfair and are just a ruse to stop development. Thanks for the win! My work here is done.
Wait, now I’m laughing harder. You’ve taken the idea that people think that the housing should be affordable and a person’s reticence to be personally financially accountable for that, and you’ve taken this to mean that you’ve achieved some gotcha?
This is awesome.
Please try again.
NIMBYs continue to demand that only new housing, and young people looking for new housing, be responsible for these "affordable" mandates. So there is a cost burden to these folks that NIMBY homeowners do not have to bear. NIMBYs have no skin the the game, yet demand that young folks pay for subsidized housing and few options.
Do you understand or do I need to simplify it for a 3rd grader?
DP. You’re hilarious. You make this out to be young people vs. old people as if young people are the only people who live in apartments.
Still distracting from the question at hand. Too hard, I guess.
No. It’s easy. Inclusive zoning has been part of the county’s housing policy for decades. You want to change that now. Sorry, champ. You provide an essential good and get a lot of government support. You need to own your social responsibility.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}