Who do you think will win MoCo county exec?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

Yes, and being pro-housing typically entails voting for good housing bills (or proposing your own), which Jawando hasn’t done.

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

Yes, and being pro-housing typically entails voting for good housing bills (or proposing your own), which Jawando hasn’t done.

You don't like the housing production fund or the conversion of the Chevy Chase library to mixed use? Or did you not like allowing more density near metro stations? Or maybe you don't like renter protections?

There's an arrogance to YIMBYism that's totally unjustified by what it has produced. REITs and privately held development companies have done really well. Housing production hasn't done quite as well.

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

Yes, and being pro-housing typically entails voting for good housing bills (or proposing your own), which Jawando hasn’t done.

You don't like the housing production fund or the conversion of the Chevy Chase library to mixed use? Or did you not like allowing more density near metro stations? Or maybe you don't like renter protections?

There's an arrogance to YIMBYism that's totally unjustified by what it has produced. REITs and privately held development companies have done really well. Housing production hasn't done quite as well.

I love renter protections and appreciate how strong Jawando has been on that issue. I also think they need to be coupled with incentives for more housing production. When supply goes up, demand will go down and prices will follow. It’s all part of a balanced approach.

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

Yes, and being pro-housing typically entails voting for good housing bills (or proposing your own), which Jawando hasn’t done.

You don't like the housing production fund or the conversion of the Chevy Chase library to mixed use? Or did you not like allowing more density near metro stations? Or maybe you don't like renter protections?

There's an arrogance to YIMBYism that's totally unjustified by what it has produced. REITs and privately held development companies have done really well. Housing production hasn't done quite as well.

I love renter protections and appreciate how strong Jawando has been on that issue. I also think they need to be coupled with incentives for more housing production. When supply goes up, demand will go down and prices will follow. It’s all part of a balanced approach.

We’ve done a lot of incentives and they haven’t caused production to increase. Maybe the incentives are too friendly to people who want to drag their feet. I don’t think we should do any more Friedson-style incentives with long timelines to start building. I could be open to incentives with shorter windows but only if they’re paired with sticks for people who don’t do anything.

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

Yes, and being pro-housing typically entails voting for good housing bills (or proposing your own), which Jawando hasn’t done.

You don't like the housing production fund or the conversion of the Chevy Chase library to mixed use? Or did you not like allowing more density near metro stations? Or maybe you don't like renter protections?

There's an arrogance to YIMBYism that's totally unjustified by what it has produced. REITs and privately held development companies have done really well. Housing production hasn't done quite as well.

I love renter protections and appreciate how strong Jawando has been on that issue. I also think they need to be coupled with incentives for more housing production. When supply goes up, demand will go down and prices will follow. It’s all part of a balanced approach.

If supply goes up, supply goes up. It might or might not have the intended effect on housing because they will not be perfect substitutions. This is why we should properly plan and zone housing instead of trying to do serious things by acting like a college sophomore that just discovered libertarianism via his weed dealer.

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

Yes, and being pro-housing typically entails voting for good housing bills (or proposing your own), which Jawando hasn’t done.

You don't like the housing production fund or the conversion of the Chevy Chase library to mixed use? Or did you not like allowing more density near metro stations? Or maybe you don't like renter protections?

There's an arrogance to YIMBYism that's totally unjustified by what it has produced. REITs and privately held development companies have done really well. Housing production hasn't done quite as well.

I love renter protections and appreciate how strong Jawando has been on that issue. I also think they need to be coupled with incentives for more housing production. When supply goes up, demand will go down and prices will follow. It’s all part of a balanced approach.

If supply goes up, supply goes up. It might or might not have the intended effect on housing because they will not be perfect substitutions. This is why we should properly plan and zone housing instead of trying to do serious things by acting like a college sophomore that just discovered libertarianism via his weed dealer.

Zoning reform is good. You might find this research article insightful. https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

Yes, and being pro-housing typically entails voting for good housing bills (or proposing your own), which Jawando hasn’t done.

You don't like the housing production fund or the conversion of the Chevy Chase library to mixed use? Or did you not like allowing more density near metro stations? Or maybe you don't like renter protections?

There's an arrogance to YIMBYism that's totally unjustified by what it has produced. REITs and privately held development companies have done really well. Housing production hasn't done quite as well.

I love renter protections and appreciate how strong Jawando has been on that issue. I also think they need to be coupled with incentives for more housing production. When supply goes up, demand will go down and prices will follow. It’s all part of a balanced approach.

If supply goes up, supply goes up. It might or might not have the intended effect on housing because they will not be perfect substitutions. This is why we should properly plan and zone housing instead of trying to do serious things by acting like a college sophomore that just discovered libertarianism via his weed dealer.

Zoning reform is good. You might find this research article insightful. https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units

Also seems important to distinguish between two arguments about housing in this thread: a) more housing production won’t make housing more affordable/accessible, and b) existing MoCo housing policy is not effective at producing more housing. If you believe a), b) is irrelevant.

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

Yes, and being pro-housing typically entails voting for good housing bills (or proposing your own), which Jawando hasn’t done.

You don't like the housing production fund or the conversion of the Chevy Chase library to mixed use? Or did you not like allowing more density near metro stations? Or maybe you don't like renter protections?

There's an arrogance to YIMBYism that's totally unjustified by what it has produced. REITs and privately held development companies have done really well. Housing production hasn't done quite as well.

I love renter protections and appreciate how strong Jawando has been on that issue. I also think they need to be coupled with incentives for more housing production. When supply goes up, demand will go down and prices will follow. It’s all part of a balanced approach.

If supply goes up, supply goes up. It might or might not have the intended effect on housing because they will not be perfect substitutions. This is why we should properly plan and zone housing instead of trying to do serious things by acting like a college sophomore that just discovered libertarianism via his weed dealer.

Zoning reform is good. You might find this research article insightful. https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units

Also seems important to distinguish between two arguments about housing in this thread: a) more housing production won’t make housing more affordable/accessible, and b) existing MoCo housing policy is not effective at producing more housing. If you believe a), b) is irrelevant.

They’re somewhat related. More housing production can make housing more affordable/accessible. But under what conditions will builders add enough inventory to cause prices to fall? In Austin, for example, rents went up 35 percent in two years before builders added enough inventory to bring prices back down. Our long-term rent trend is about 2.1 percent annual rent increases. Austin experienced more than 14 years of increases (at our rate) in just two years. Even after the housing production boom, Austin’s prices have still risen more in the past 10 years than prices here have. I would not trade our housing market for Austin’s (though I would trade the rest of our economy for Austin’s), because consumers there are worse off than they were a decade ago. Incidentally, slumping prices in Austin have led to a slump in construction, calling into question whether supply booms are sustainable.

Because it’s possible for more supply to bring down prices by adding inventory, at least for a short time, (b) is very much relevant, especially because (b) has real financial costs to the county and therefore taxpayers. We should want areas like North Bethesda to have more housing (and labs and offices). North Bethesda had a little boom about a decade ago, but then prices fell a little, and construction fell off. Builders in that area cited soft demand and poor road infrastructure as reasons for the stop in construction.

Every builder has to decide whether to add supply or wait. In areas like Bethesda, Glenmont, Wheaton, and Silver Spring, where we have made big infrastructure investments, we’re better off if developers decide to build. The question is how to make them build without having to experience rapid price increases first. The county’s housing policy has failed to bring prices down, but at the same time rents have been stable here relative to rents in places that have added enough supply to bring prices down.

Elected and appointed officials have said they want to bring prices down, but what we have instead is a slow but steady rise in rents. That’s still the case despite the various incentives. Therefore, it’s fair to say the housing policies advanced by Friedson have failed. They’re delivering nothing more than the market delivered on its own but at a high cost to the county’s budget.

[Anonymous]

Housing won’t become more affordable until steps are taken to prevent individuals and shell companies from snatching up homes as soon as they hit the market and flipping them to rentals. Then these PT real estate moguls or for-profit companies essentially control FMV for rent while driving up sales prices with their speedy purchases.

Tearing down SFHs and throwing up multi unit housing or plopping tiny homes in backyards won’t fix the problem. They’ll just enrich certain people and corporations while crowding neighborhoods and schools AND driving down values, fueling the continued exodus of the wealthiest taxpayers. A lose-lose “solution.”

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

Yes, and being pro-housing typically entails voting for good housing bills (or proposing your own), which Jawando hasn’t done.

You don't like the housing production fund or the conversion of the Chevy Chase library to mixed use? Or did you not like allowing more density near metro stations? Or maybe you don't like renter protections?

There's an arrogance to YIMBYism that's totally unjustified by what it has produced. REITs and privately held development companies have done really well. Housing production hasn't done quite as well.

I love renter protections and appreciate how strong Jawando has been on that issue. I also think they need to be coupled with incentives for more housing production. When supply goes up, demand will go down and prices will follow. It’s all part of a balanced approach.

If supply goes up, supply goes up. It might or might not have the intended effect on housing because they will not be perfect substitutions. This is why we should properly plan and zone housing instead of trying to do serious things by acting like a college sophomore that just discovered libertarianism via his weed dealer.

Zoning reform is good. You might find this research article insightful. https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units

Also seems important to distinguish between two arguments about housing in this thread: a) more housing production won’t make housing more affordable/accessible, and b) existing MoCo housing policy is not effective at producing more housing. If you believe a), b) is irrelevant.

They’re somewhat related. More housing production can make housing more affordable/accessible. But under what conditions will builders add enough inventory to cause prices to fall? In Austin, for example, rents went up 35 percent in two years before builders added enough inventory to bring prices back down. Our long-term rent trend is about 2.1 percent annual rent increases. Austin experienced more than 14 years of increases (at our rate) in just two years. Even after the housing production boom, Austin’s prices have still risen more in the past 10 years than prices here have. I would not trade our housing market for Austin’s (though I would trade the rest of our economy for Austin’s), because consumers there are worse off than they were a decade ago. Incidentally, slumping prices in Austin have led to a slump in construction, calling into question whether supply booms are sustainable.

Because it’s possible for more supply to bring down prices by adding inventory, at least for a short time, (b) is very much relevant, especially because (b) has real financial costs to the county and therefore taxpayers. We should want areas like North Bethesda to have more housing (and labs and offices). North Bethesda had a little boom about a decade ago, but then prices fell a little, and construction fell off. Builders in that area cited soft demand and poor road infrastructure as reasons for the stop in construction.

Every builder has to decide whether to add supply or wait. In areas like Bethesda, Glenmont, Wheaton, and Silver Spring, where we have made big infrastructure investments, we’re better off if developers decide to build. The question is how to make them build without having to experience rapid price increases first. The county’s housing policy has failed to bring prices down, but at the same time rents have been stable here relative to rents in places that have added enough supply to bring prices down.

Elected and appointed officials have said they want to bring prices down, but what we have instead is a slow but steady rise in rents. That’s still the case despite the various incentives. Therefore, it’s fair to say the housing policies advanced by Friedson have failed. They’re delivering nothing more than the market delivered on its own but at a high cost to the county’s budget.

A lot more could happen with the completion of the site at the now demolished White Flint mall: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1217123.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1217123.page

[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:Wes Moore, who is very YIMBY and has been endorsing YIMBYs in races against NIMBYs all over the state and in many county races, endorsed Jawando. Maybe this will put to bed the ridiculous claim that Jawando is anti-housing because he opposed some odious bills.

https://bethesdamagazine.com/2026/06/05/moore-endorses-jawando-for-montgomery-county-executive/

Wes Moore’s political endorsements in Montgomery County seem to defy intraparty ideology. He endorsed Jawando for county executive but endorsed Morrison for District 1 of County Council (the most Friedson-coded candidate in that race). Any policy-related rationale for the Mooredorsements is pure poppycock — there seems to be something else going on.

Or maybe he isn’t myopically focused on just one policy. In the case of county executive, maybe he believes the other two candidates aren’t very good. That could also be part of it. Or maybe the super pac spending against Jawando offended his sensibilities. Probably a combination of all of the above.

Or maybe Jawando was one of the first to endorse Moore when he ran for governor the first time and Morrison works for the state government. This isn’t about being “myopically focused on just one policy” — the endorsements are clearly not policy-based (if they were, they’d be much more coherent).

I get why it’s puzzling to you and other people in YIMBY echo chamber, but out here in the real world where developers aren’t going to build themselves to bankruptcy and an executive has to juggle multiple issues (market housing being the one the county government has the LEAST control over), maybe Moore made his decision based on the whole candidate, with policy-based considerations just part of the criteria.

Or none of the criteria! You went from arguing Moore’s endorsement made Jawando a YIMBY to arguing Moore endorsed him in spite of his NIMBY housing policy. You should get a degree in sports management because of how adept you are at moving the goalposts!

I never stopped arguing that Moore’s endorsement means that Jawando is pro housing. Why would Moore endorse someone who would prevent him from achieving his housing goals? All the candidates are pro housing, though.

You seem to be suffering from YIMBY cognitive disorder or maybe something worse. Were you one of the upvotes on the racist post on YIMBY MoCo about this?

1. Jawando simply is not a pro-housing candidate. Many posters on this thread alone have said that they are supporting Jawando because they are NIMBYs and want a NIMBY for county exec. He claims to be pro-housing in theory but is not in practice. Look up Bill 29-20 and his rationale for opposing the AHSI (he cited “overburdened schools” at a time when MCPS enrollment is actively declining, creating many problems for the school system). Excuses, excuses, and more excuses that don’t pass the smell test.

2. I’m not aware of the post to which you are referring because I don’t live on this forum. However, I do know that racism
constituted some NIMBY rationale in the past.

What YIMBYs don't understand is that you can be pro-housing but also believe that more housing should be built in a thoughtful way. Just abandoning all zoning and giving gobs of money to developers, and then hoping everything somehow works out, is not a rational or sane strategy.

Agreed. But Jawando won’t build more housing in a thoughtful way — he’ll use that rhetoric as an excuse to refrain from building smart housing. Vote Glass!

Nothing that Jawando voted against was smart.

Agree to disagree, but hard to frame a candidate who doesn’t vote to build more housing as pro-housing.

You can be pro-housing without voting for bad bills.

Yes, and being pro-housing typically entails voting for good housing bills (or proposing your own), which Jawando hasn’t done.

You don't like the housing production fund or the conversion of the Chevy Chase library to mixed use? Or did you not like allowing more density near metro stations? Or maybe you don't like renter protections?

There's an arrogance to YIMBYism that's totally unjustified by what it has produced. REITs and privately held development companies have done really well. Housing production hasn't done quite as well.

I love renter protections and appreciate how strong Jawando has been on that issue. I also think they need to be coupled with incentives for more housing production. When supply goes up, demand will go down and prices will follow. It’s all part of a balanced approach.

If supply goes up, supply goes up. It might or might not have the intended effect on housing because they will not be perfect substitutions. This is why we should properly plan and zone housing instead of trying to do serious things by acting like a college sophomore that just discovered libertarianism via his weed dealer.

Zoning reform is good. You might find this research article insightful. https://www.upjohn.org/research-highlights/new-construction-makes-homes-more-affordable-even-those-who-cant-afford-new-units

Also seems important to distinguish between two arguments about housing in this thread: a) more housing production won’t make housing more affordable/accessible, and b) existing MoCo housing policy is not effective at producing more housing. If you believe a), b) is irrelevant.

They’re somewhat related. More housing production can make housing more affordable/accessible. But under what conditions will builders add enough inventory to cause prices to fall? In Austin, for example, rents went up 35 percent in two years before builders added enough inventory to bring prices back down. Our long-term rent trend is about 2.1 percent annual rent increases. Austin experienced more than 14 years of increases (at our rate) in just two years. Even after the housing production boom, Austin’s prices have still risen more in the past 10 years than prices here have. I would not trade our housing market for Austin’s (though I would trade the rest of our economy for Austin’s), because consumers there are worse off than they were a decade ago. Incidentally, slumping prices in Austin have led to a slump in construction, calling into question whether supply booms are sustainable.

Because it’s possible for more supply to bring down prices by adding inventory, at least for a short time, (b) is very much relevant, especially because (b) has real financial costs to the county and therefore taxpayers. We should want areas like North Bethesda to have more housing (and labs and offices). North Bethesda had a little boom about a decade ago, but then prices fell a little, and construction fell off. Builders in that area cited soft demand and poor road infrastructure as reasons for the stop in construction.

Every builder has to decide whether to add supply or wait. In areas like Bethesda, Glenmont, Wheaton, and Silver Spring, where we have made big infrastructure investments, we’re better off if developers decide to build. The question is how to make them build without having to experience rapid price increases first. The county’s housing policy has failed to bring prices down, but at the same time rents have been stable here relative to rents in places that have added enough supply to bring prices down.

Elected and appointed officials have said they want to bring prices down, but what we have instead is a slow but steady rise in rents. That’s still the case despite the various incentives. Therefore, it’s fair to say the housing policies advanced by Friedson have failed. They’re delivering nothing more than the market delivered on its own but at a high cost to the county’s budget.

A lot more could happen with the completion of the site at the now demolished White Flint mall: https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1217123.page
https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/1217123.page

There are a few nursing homes or senior living built by the Strathmore metro stop or condo living added in anticipation of Woodward High school which is up and open on nearby Old Georgetown Road.