You don’t pay attention much, do you? The past 20 years were shaped by Doug Duncan’s End Gridlock slate and smart growth. The development pattern in the county flipped from sprawl to compact development in CBDs, exactly what the YIMBYs wanted. There have been countless subsidies, especially for market rate housing, plenty of map amendments, Thrive, and now the Friedson ZTA. The YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the Council and Planning for two decades. The problem isn’t NIMBYs. The problem is YIMBY policies that reward rent seeking instead of growth. It’s unfortunate that your ideas have backfired because the county is not growing anymore. Time to admit failure. |
If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers. |
The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line. |
Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win. |
The purple line was tremendously delayed. And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension. There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county. |
But if you're point is that YIMBY's often don't want more roads, then that just emphasizes the problem with your ag reserve sprawl plan. How do you think those projects would get done with both the NIMBYs and the YIMBYs against them? |
None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council. The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’ refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse. |
The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls, and some sprawl mostly up 270. Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes. |
I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth. |
I don't even believe there are YIMBY people who do not have a financial stake in the game. I know a few big real estate developers and they live in big custom homes in upper MoCo, Great Falls, Potomac or even in DC. They aren't sitting next to you at the BCC back to school night. They may own land/homes in your area, but that's for the full purpose of resell and development. It's a cover and a farce. They really do not care about the long term livability of a neighborhood. They have plan B & C. |
Hmm, I'm a YIMBY homeowner. I guess I'm a shill because I want more neighbors to experience our great city? ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Which great city? Bethesda? We are talking about unincorporated Montgomery County development. |
You might come to regret your support for this one day when the MOCOs poorly thought out land use reforms result in a dispensary right next to your house. |
"Let's build a small apartment building in a handful of areas" "YOU ARE TuRnIn MY HoUse INTO A MetH LAB!!!!!" |
Sounds like you do have a financial stake in increasing land values, just like the other rent-seeking YIMBYs. |