MM Is Dead

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

If you’re so convinced a fourplex will ruin your block, I think you didn’t pick the right block.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

It’s also just a terrible argument because the government controls what you do with your property in so many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

If you’re so convinced a fourplex will ruin your block, I think you didn’t pick the right block.

…and people that want to live in a four plex should live where there are four plexes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

If these current residents want the neighborhood to remain just as it is, then it will. Zoning changes won’t force them to do anything different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

If these current residents want the neighborhood to remain just as it is, then it will. Zoning changes won’t force them to do anything different.

+1. Put your money where your mouth is.

Meanwhile I took another visit to Arlington today and yep, the SFH I saw are all tatty and sad, but the townhouse and smaller apartment building blocks were quite nice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

It’s also just a terrible argument because the government controls what you do with your property in so many ways.

But the point is that the pro-SFH zoning folks are the ones who are advocating [/i]for[i] strict government control over what people do with their property. It is they, not the pro-density folks, who are seeking to impose their will on others here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

It’s also just a terrible argument because the government controls what you do with your property in so many ways.

But the point is that the pro-SFH zoning folks are the ones who are advocating [/i]for[i] strict government control over what people do with their property. It is they, not the pro-density folks, who are seeking to impose their will on others here.

The YIMBYs pretend like negative externalities don’t exist when it does not support their cult agenda. Noise pollution negatively impacts neighbors property rights, as does excess traffic, flooding from impervious surfaces, ect. The use of nearby properties absolutely impacts neighbor’s property rights. Don’t pretend like everything exists in a vacuum and ignore the very real deficiencies in the current development standards for Arlington county.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

It’s also just a terrible argument because the government controls what you do with your property in so many ways.

But the point is that the pro-SFH zoning folks are the ones who are advocating [/i]for[i] strict government control over what people do with their property. It is they, not the pro-density folks, who are seeking to impose their will on others here.

The YIMBYs pretend like negative externalities don’t exist when it does not support their cult agenda. Noise pollution negatively impacts neighbors property rights, as does excess traffic, flooding from impervious surfaces, ect. The use of nearby properties absolutely impacts neighbor’s property rights. Don’t pretend like everything exists in a vacuum and ignore the very real deficiencies in the current development standards for Arlington county.

Ha. I had a feeling the “negative externalities” argument would come into play. By that logic, your house should never have been built because it contributes to precisely the same negative impacts on neighboring properties that you cite here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

You are

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

It’s also just a terrible argument because the government controls what you do with your property in so many ways.

But the point is that the pro-SFH zoning folks are the ones who are advocating [/i]for[i] strict government control over what people do with their property. It is they, not the pro-density folks, who are seeking to impose their will on others here.

The YIMBYs pretend like negative externalities don’t exist when it does not support their cult agenda. Noise pollution negatively impacts neighbors property rights, as does excess traffic, flooding from impervious surfaces, ect. The use of nearby properties absolutely impacts neighbor’s property rights. Don’t pretend like everything exists in a vacuum and ignore the very real deficiencies in the current development standards for Arlington county.

Ha. I had a feeling the “negative externalities” argument would come into play. By that logic, your house should never have been built because it contributes to precisely the same negative impacts on neighboring properties that you cite here.

If people actually had to pay full price for negative externalities thus wouldn’t be nearly as much of an issue, but YIMBY are the same people that argue against impact fees for school capacity and infrastructure. In Arlington the per student cost for new school buildings is around 100k. So impact fees should be up to 50k per housing unit depending on the student generation factors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

It’s also just a terrible argument because the government controls what you do with your property in so many ways.

But the point is that the pro-SFH zoning folks are the ones who are advocating [/i]for strict government control over what people do with their property. It is they, not the pro-density folks, who are seeking to impose their will on others here.

For controls that existed when they decided to become residents of the neighborhood/community.

That still exist.

That provided reasonable certainty about ongoing characteristics of that community.

That supported their determination of investment of time and resources towards that living situation.

Where uprooting to find a different neighborhood/community comes with considerable cost.

Where similar costs borne by those seeking to move in the first place, such as those who might want to occupy new, higher density construction, are a given.

While theirs would not be a given without the impetus to move from the differential environs [i]that would be imposed by those pushing higher density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

It’s also just a terrible argument because the government controls what you do with your property in so many ways.

But the point is that the pro-SFH zoning folks are the ones who are advocating [/i]for[i] strict government control over what people do with their property. It is they, not the pro-density folks, who are seeking to impose their will on others here.

The YIMBYs pretend like negative externalities don’t exist when it does not support their cult agenda. Noise pollution negatively impacts neighbors property rights, as does excess traffic, flooding from impervious surfaces, ect. The use of nearby properties absolutely impacts neighbor’s property rights. Don’t pretend like everything exists in a vacuum and ignore the very real deficiencies in the current development standards for Arlington county.

Ha. I had a feeling the “negative externalities” argument would come into play. By that logic, your house should never have been built because it contributes to precisely the same negative impacts on neighboring properties that you cite here.

If those negative externalities were not addressed at the time of construction, this is an argument against the governmental regime that allowed those externalities (and, perhaps, any groups influencing them towards allowing such), not against the residents who moved in. (Or even the developers who built, except where they were among those influencers, as they then simply took advantage of market conditions made newly favorable by the government.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

If these current residents want the neighborhood to remain just as it is, then it will. Zoning changes won’t force them to do anything different.

This continues the now-tired line of disingenuity from those pushing density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s disingenuous?

It is true that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who want the government to impose strict controls on what private citizens can do with their own land. They are the ones who want to force their will on their neighbors.

I understand the pro-density crowd's wish to frame it as though there were no ex ante condition that influenced current residents in their past choices about where they might live and invest time with a neighborhood/community. But that is not the case.

If these current residents want the neighborhood to remain just as it is, then it will. Zoning changes won’t force them to do anything different.

This continues the now-tired line of disingenuity from those pushing density.

They are one trick ponies and we’ve seen it 1,000 times already.

The trick wasn’t great to begin with.

[Anonymous]

Zoning laws are not constitutional rights. They are subject to change by the relevant legislative body, just like taxes and all other laws.

Anyone who buys a house should know this and should not assume that the neighborhood will always be as it was on the day they made their decision to buy.

The bottom line here is that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who are seeking continued strict government control over what private citizens do with their own land, while the pro-density folks are on the side of letting the free market decide how land should best be used.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Zoning laws are not constitutional rights. They are subject to change by the relevant legislative body, just like taxes and all other laws.

Anyone who buys a house should know this and should not assume that the neighborhood will always be as it was on the day they made their decision to buy.

The bottom line here is that the pro-SFH folks are the ones who are seeking continued strict government control over what private citizens do with their own land, while the pro-density folks are on the side of letting the free market decide how land should best be used.

Now you people are trying to claim that you are champions of the free market. Meanwhile, you are the same people that believe in “equity”, and it’s associated anti-capitalist ideas such as rent control, housing vouchers / section 8, and legally designated or required affordable housing. Once again, you people are ao disingenuous it borders on satire.