MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
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: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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


Friedson too. He and Riemer are cut from the same cloth.


Friedson is the one currently championing this attainable housing movement. He was the very special guest on a growth webinar back in February and was filled with glee about it.
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: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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?


DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
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: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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


I was not aware of this disastrous policy. It almost like the people that run MOCO are trying to destroy it. This will ruin county finances. They cannot raise income taxes, so MOCO will need to raise sales taxes and property taxes to cover the funding shortfall. This is beginning of the end for Montgomery County, it is going to hell.
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: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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


I was not aware of this disastrous policy. It almost like the people that run MOCO are trying to destroy it. This will ruin county finances. They cannot raise income taxes, so MOCO will need to raise sales taxes and property taxes to cover the funding shortfall. This is beginning of the end for Montgomery County, it is going to hell.


Progressives will scream that increases sales taxes are regressive.
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: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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


I was not aware of this disastrous policy. It almost like the people that run MOCO are trying to destroy it. This will ruin county finances. They cannot raise income taxes, so MOCO will need to raise sales taxes and property taxes to cover the funding shortfall. This is beginning of the end for Montgomery County, it is going to hell.


Progressives will scream that increases sales taxes are regressive.


Yes, that is the ironic part of their very short-sighted policy decisions to promote "affordable housing" The property taxes are also regressive too. The wealthiest households have the lowest average % of their net worth in their personal residence. Wealthy households are least impacted by property tax increases and the most likely to have the capability to move to avoid them. Property tax increase will hit renters and middle class households the hardest.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?


DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.


What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?


DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.


What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?


You guys are so annoying. Do you even live in MOCO or have a job anywhere in the DC metro area. The traffic is terrible all over MD, NOVA, and DC. It is so much worse than 20 years ago and it takes twice as long as it used to commute to work for many people. Many of these YIMBYs have no concern for anything other than promoting their religious fervor for endless development and boosting developer profits. The portion of I-495 between Tysons Corner and Bethesda has standstill traffic almost every day now. Even on the weekend, there is usually horrendous traffic.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote: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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?


DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.


What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?


OK.

Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.

Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.

Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.

And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.

Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?


DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.


What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?


OK.

Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.

Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.

Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.

And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.

Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.


+100
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?


DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.


What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?


OK.

Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.

Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.

Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.

And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.

Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.


+100


Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?


DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.


What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?


OK.

Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.

Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.

Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.

And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.

Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.


+100


Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member


People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?


DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.


What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?


OK.

Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.

Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.

Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.

And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.

Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.


+100


Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member


People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.


Northern Virginia also has a penchant for hiring incompetent lunatics from the MOCO planning department, so this fight will be coming to the NOVA suburbs soon.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?


DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.


What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?


OK.

Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.

Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.

Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.

And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.

Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.


Got it. You don't mean the roads are overburdened, you mean there are a lot of cars on the road during rush hour. Yes, there are, that's true. Fortunately, the county is investing in lots of different actions to help people get where they're going without having to be in a car on a road at the same time as lots of other cars are on the road, including sidewalks and bike lanes, buses, Metro, the Purple Line, more housing, and denser housing.

It is true that the county has a big financial burden from just maintaining the current roads (pavement, snow removal, street lights, traffic signals, mowing/vegetation control, stormwater, bridge and culvert replacement, sidewalk retrofits, etc.), not to mention the additional costs of the roads (emergency response, police traffic enforcement, etc.), but that's actually an argument against more roads.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
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.


I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?


It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...


The distractions are endless.

By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:

1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.

2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."

https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2024/06/01/how-montgomery-county-can-reinforce-the-goals.

3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.


This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.

Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.


This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.


Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?


DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.


What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?


OK.

Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.

Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.

Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.

And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.

Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.


+100


Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member


True. They ignore everything that doesn’t align with their worldview. Planning does the same thing. They decide on a policy and then manipulate the data to fit the recommendation. If that doesn’t work, they ignore the data and press ahead anyway.
post reply Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Message Quick Reply
Go to: