David Blair for MoCo executive

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Didn't Elrich and the council just cut like 20 traffic officers? Kiss Vision Zero goodbye

Vision Zero is about road design, not about cops out on the street writing tickets.

As the vision zero director said, road design is decades and billions of dollars away. we need traffic enforcement until then.

Road design can start now. It's not all or nothing. Meanwhile we also need traffic enforcement, and it needs to be automated traffic enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh yeah and speaking of vision zero Riemer and Hucker are the ones asking council staff to do a big study on whether all of traffic enforcement can be outsourced to the Department of Transportation.

That's not "outsourcing." That's making both Montgomery County Police and traffic enforcement more effective by switching primarily to automated enforcement. Montgomery County is not the only jurisdiction considering this. It makes a lot of sense - unless you're someone who likes to drive more than 11 miles per hour over the speed limit, or run red lights, without a penalty.

Riemer is looking at more than just automated enforcement. He wants to outsource the whole thing. And every other jurisdiction is backing away from their knee-jerk, post-George Floyd reaction to activist demands. Even Berkeley backed off this idea last January. Who's going to stop for the traffic engineer in the Chevy Aveo? Not me.

Automated traffic enforcement is very limited in the types of safety infractions it can penalize. It doesn't take drunk drivers off the road. It doesn't stop people going 100 mph. It doesn't stop people who drag race. Or blow through stop signs. Or text and drive. Or hit pedestrians. It's worth enhancing. But it's not a replacement.

Police officers mostly don't do that either. We might expect them to, but they don't, and really, they can't. You'd have to have all of the police officers out doing traffic enforcement full time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Right now you can rent an apartment in downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring for $1,300. There are currently thousands of housing units ready for deliver and most of those buildings are massive so that they will eat up all spare demand in that segment probably for a year or two. What happens in two years if financing conditions tighten? This is why people were saying that bigger is not better. Allowing the massive buildings creates conditions where you have the large buildings next to underdeveloped lots and in some cases surface parking lots.

Link, please.

And yes, sometimes you're going to have big apartment buildings next to things that aren't big apartment buildings. There's nothing wrong with that.

Because you are incapable of doing your own housing market research.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4507-Avondale-St-APT-302-Bethesda-MD-20814/2091757405_zpid/

Related to your second point, you're wrong. It is a very big problem and contrary to proper urban planning.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/11/3/the-case-for-height-restrictions?

A few other options in downtown Bethesda, in case you are looking to move.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4909-Hampden-Ln-APT-101-Bethesda-MD-20814/2085837894_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/b/aldon-of-chevy-chase-chevy-chase-md-5Xhv5B/

Aldon is selling to HOC, did you know that?

No, it's not contrary to "proper urban planning" to have big apartment buildings next to things that aren't big apartment buildings.

[Anonymous]

I’m voting for Riemer. Cannot stand Elrich who wanted the county closed down forever. Riemer also writes me back personally whenever I email with concerns. He hustles. He isn’t afraid to stand up to the Takoma wackos, had good ideas about smart growth. I like him.

Blair? Never
Elrich? Long enough with this guy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Didn't Elrich and the council just cut like 20 traffic officers? Kiss Vision Zero goodbye

Vision Zero is about road design, not about cops out on the street writing tickets.

As the vision zero director said, road design is decades and billions of dollars away. we need traffic enforcement until then.

Road design can start now. It's not all or nothing. Meanwhile we also need traffic enforcement, and it needs to be automated traffic enforcement.

Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Didn't Elrich and the council just cut like 20 traffic officers? Kiss Vision Zero goodbye

Vision Zero is about road design, not about cops out on the street writing tickets.

As the vision zero director said, road design is decades and billions of dollars away. we need traffic enforcement until then.

Road design can start now. It's not all or nothing. Meanwhile we also need traffic enforcement, and it needs to be automated traffic enforcement.

Why?

Because we don't have enough police officers to be everywhere they need to be, all the time, and even if we did, it's a very inefficient and expensive way to do it. Not to mention that there's no question of bias with automated enforcement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Right now you can rent an apartment in downtown Bethesda and Silver Spring for $1,300. There are currently thousands of housing units ready for deliver and most of those buildings are massive so that they will eat up all spare demand in that segment probably for a year or two. What happens in two years if financing conditions tighten? This is why people were saying that bigger is not better. Allowing the massive buildings creates conditions where you have the large buildings next to underdeveloped lots and in some cases surface parking lots.

Link, please.

And yes, sometimes you're going to have big apartment buildings next to things that aren't big apartment buildings. There's nothing wrong with that.

Because you are incapable of doing your own housing market research.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4507-Avondale-St-APT-302-Bethesda-MD-20814/2091757405_zpid/

Related to your second point, you're wrong. It is a very big problem and contrary to proper urban planning.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2014/11/3/the-case-for-height-restrictions?

A few other options in downtown Bethesda, in case you are looking to move.
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4909-Hampden-Ln-APT-101-Bethesda-MD-20814/2085837894_zpid/
https://www.zillow.com/b/aldon-of-chevy-chase-chevy-chase-md-5Xhv5B/

Aldon is selling to HOC, did you know that?

No, it's not contrary to "proper urban planning" to have big apartment buildings next to things that aren't big apartment buildings.

That is not relevant.

If you read the link, it clearly spells out how a 16 story building next to a parking lot inhibits growth and development. There are plenty of examples in our community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
That is not relevant.

If you read the link, it clearly spells out how a 16 story building next to a parking lot inhibits growth and development. There are plenty of examples in our community.

Chuck Marohn is a civil engineer, who furthermore has changed his mind on a lot of things since 2014.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Didn't Elrich and the council just cut like 20 traffic officers? Kiss Vision Zero goodbye

Vision Zero is about road design, not about cops out on the street writing tickets.

As the vision zero director said, road design is decades and billions of dollars away. we need traffic enforcement until then.

Road design can start now. It's not all or nothing. Meanwhile we also need traffic enforcement, and it needs to be automated traffic enforcement.

Why?

Because we don't have enough police officers to be everywhere they need to be, all the time, and even if we did, it's a very inefficient and expensive way to do it. Not to mention that there's no question of bias with automated enforcement.

You also have not presented a case for why it is necessary to only be fully automated. The purpose of traffic enforcement is to stop immediate dangers, not collect revenue. Automated enforcement does nothing to improve immediate safety of a driver engaged in dangerous behavior. The idea that everything has to be 100% one thing or another really does not make any sense. Automated enforcement is one tool and police are another tool for enforcement of traffic laws. We currently use both in this county. Maybe one could argue for increased automated enforcement, but there is no justification for 100% automated enforcement, particularly as it does nothing to address immediate public safety risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That is not relevant.

If you read the link, it clearly spells out how a 16 story building next to a parking lot inhibits growth and development. There are plenty of examples in our community.

Chuck Marohn is a civil engineer, who furthermore has changed his mind on a lot of things since 2014.

And you are? Care to share your expertise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Didn't Elrich and the council just cut like 20 traffic officers? Kiss Vision Zero goodbye

Vision Zero is about road design, not about cops out on the street writing tickets.

As the vision zero director said, road design is decades and billions of dollars away. we need traffic enforcement until then.

Road design can start now. It's not all or nothing. Meanwhile we also need traffic enforcement, and it needs to be automated traffic enforcement.

Why?

Because we don't have enough police officers to be everywhere they need to be, all the time, and even if we did, it's a very inefficient and expensive way to do it. Not to mention that there's no question of bias with automated enforcement.

You also have not presented a case for why it is necessary to only be fully automated. The purpose of traffic enforcement is to stop immediate dangers, not collect revenue. Automated enforcement does nothing to improve immediate safety of a driver engaged in dangerous behavior. The idea that everything has to be 100% one thing or another really does not make any sense. Automated enforcement is one tool and police are another tool for enforcement of traffic laws. We currently use both in this county. Maybe one could argue for increased automated enforcement, but there is no justification for 100% automated enforcement, particularly as it does nothing to address immediate public safety risks.

Nobody has called for 100% automated enforcement and nothing else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That is not relevant.

If you read the link, it clearly spells out how a 16 story building next to a parking lot inhibits growth and development. There are plenty of examples in our community.

Chuck Marohn is a civil engineer, who furthermore has changed his mind on a lot of things since 2014.

And you are? Care to share your expertise?

Dude, you're the person who linked to that old Strong Towns post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
That is not relevant.

If you read the link, it clearly spells out how a 16 story building next to a parking lot inhibits growth and development. There are plenty of examples in our community.

Chuck Marohn is a civil engineer, who furthermore has changed his mind on a lot of things since 2014.

And you are? Care to share your expertise?

Dude, you're the person who linked to that old Strong Towns post.

And you have provided no support for your proposition that the information in that post in inaccurate. If you have no expertise in the area, there is zero reason to listen to you.

[Anonymous]

These GGW people are just as bad as the Critical Race Theory and Anti-Maskers. Derailing every thread on any subject to their nonsense.

The Montgomery County Executive has limited authority over zoning and land use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly Riemer has realized that he has exactly zero future job prospects in the private sector. This is why term limits is important folks, unfortunately it also affects Rice who I think does a good job.

It's interesting that the Real Estate lobby in this county keeps putting up primary challengers to Co. Exec. incumbents. Last time if was Doug Duncan, funded by Real Estate/Developer money challenging Leggett. This time it is Riemer, who will likely also be funded and owned by the same folks.

This actually probably will help to ensure that Elrich is re-elected, as it will split the anti-Elrich vote. Elrich already proved last time that he can defeat other Takoma Park challengers.

I think Blair is getting the developer $, not Riemer.

Well then Riemer has spent the last 4 years pandering to them for nothing. Sounds like Riemer. LOL. Like who is his actual base of support?

If you want somebody who's opposed to building additional housing, then you should vote for a second term for Elrich.

If you want somebody who led the effort to take money from school construction and give it to developers, vote for Riemer.

I'm voting for Blair. It's too bad Riemer will split the vote and Elrich will win a second term. Nice parting gift from Riemer to the citizens of Montgomery County.

Details on this?