MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Sigh. |
Anonymous
You think that the county’s crumbling infrastructure is a fiction. So the most generous explanation is that you don’t live here. |
Anonymous
Wasn’t that long ago that the YIMBY urbanists would claim that their policies were necessary to increase tax revenues to pay for our infrastructure needs. Now they just pretend that there’s no problem. |
Anonymous
Because it's a cult. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. |
Anonymous
That’s right. All of the YIMBY promises about urbanism being a fiscal boon have turned out to be false. In fact, it turns out we actually have to subsidize market rate housing (Depending on what you believe, the subsidy either goes to the developer or the consumer whose household income is 120 to 150 percent of AMI. It’s a poor use of public money either way.). The county’s compact growth approach is a clear loser but instead of backing away from it the county keeps trying to make other changes to make it work. The problem is the county’s approach is inherently flawed because too many people have to drive to work and because if you prohibit development in a massive part of the county it makes prices for all housing go up. In addition, the YIMBYs have succeeded in making housing construction in parts of the county where it actually is allowed undesirable because they oppose the infrastructure needed to make it commercially viable. If you limit the supply of something, the price goes up assuming constant or increasing demand. One major problem is that YIMBYs have focused on housing to the exclusion of all other land uses. There are a lot of apartments in this area closer to more jobs than apartments in Silver Spring, Olney, Wheaton, or Bethesda. The apartments closer to jobs are always going to fill up faster and command higher rents than the apartments that require long train rides or drives. The developers know this, and it makes them reluctant to build in Montgomery County. |
Anonymous
False assumption, there. Representative government can result in unpopular legislation, as representatives only have to garner votes at the time of election. Their positions across many issues might be evaluated versus their opponent; they might be elected with some of their issue positions being deeply unpopular if enough other positions are popular. Those following through on the unpopular positions might endanger their re-electability, but there are ways around that, e.g.: > Transfer of responsibility, like when conservatives packed SCOTUS (which, conveniently, has lifetime appointment to shield from populist influence) to the tune of overturning Roe. Here, we have the appointed Planning Board to take some of the heat from County Council, who can throw thier hands in the air and say, "Planning says so. I guess it's just the way it should be!" > Assumption of changing electorate, so that when the next election comes, the policies pursued that were unpopular among the prior electorate are subsumed by the demographic change, possibly associated with the policies, themselves. In this case, ever-bluer population shifts/increases in the county enabled by advocates for additional densities. > Issue zealotry, such that the elected representative does not care about reelection if they can get the issue settled in their favor (with more or less permanent effect, as we would have here for zoning changes). This can be enabled by deep-pocketed lobbying, ensuring golden parachutes for exiting representatives. > Political nimbleness, difficult to be sure, wherein the representative is such an adept politician or magnetic personality (among at least a significant portion of the population) as to be able to minimize the reelectability impact of unpopular policies. There are more impressive politicians, to be sure, but the example of Trump, with tax policy that works against the majority of his supporters largely being ignored by the same, is of current relevance. A reminder to others about The Questioner -- this type of poster aims to undercut an opposing position simply by asking questions without ever properly responding with positions of their own that might be critiqued. This technique also may be used in unofficial forums, such as we have here, to lay bare opposition rationale, not so much to counter it within the forum so much as to prepare The Questioner for countering it in official proceedings, where opposition would, then, not have the benefit of the same prior openness of the opposite rationale. This is especially effective when The Questioner holds an official position in these proceedings, where opposition might be time constrained (e.g., public comment at a Board or Council meeting) but The Questioner is not and would have the scheduled position not only of plan presentation, but of rebuttal to opposition (e.g., Planning Board, County Council & staff). |
Anonymous
Far more likely that the pro-development propaganda along with with the multi-layered approach, combining state and local legislation with changes to master plans, zoning text amendments and the like, has allowed each element of the latter to be enacted without the vast majority of folks realizing the likely impacts. |
Anonymous
Disingenuous "Got it," there, as though you have captured the PP's entire position from the one slice you choose to address. And an alternative to the burden of more road maintenance just as easily could be zoning that limits population growth in areas requiring such locally maintained road infrastructure. Like detached SFH zoning. Oh, wait... |
Anonymous
DP/"side-show" commenter. A look at conditions of MCPS schools actually does show this. Leaky roofs and the resulting decay, for example (certainly not the only example), with no funding to address them. As for non-school crumbling infrastructure, the condition of roads in the southeast of the county comes to mind, as does a PP's note about the condition of overused parks, with field and other conditions analagous to "crumbling." |
Anonymous
“Compact Growth” is actively harmful to the county if it doesn’t create jobs and economic growth. It’s that simple. |
Anonymous
Option 1: the majority of voters are ok with the policies enacted by the officials they elected Option 2: conspiracy fictions So you're going with Option 2. |
Anonymous
It is not “conspiracy fiction” it is a multifaceted strategy to change zoning rules through death by a thousand cuts. The zoning changes are very technical and each individual proposal on its own can be sold as a “reasonable change” However, the cumulative impact of the zoning changes represents a fundamental shift in state/county land use standards. Most voters are not aware that a majority “affordable housing” advocates want to eliminate single family zoning and reduce impact fees that are essential for school funding. |
Anonymous
This is lobbying and political advocacy 101. It’s much easier for special interest groups to layer on a bunch of one off policy changes to accomplish their goals than push through a singular bill that constitutes a massive overhaul of existing laws. |
Anonymous
You have literally contributed nothing to this discussion and continue to respond with evasive circular comments or respond to arguments with questions. If you truly had something to support your agenda there would be more substance in the rebuttals to legitimate concerns pointed out by county residents. |
Anonymous
Option 3: anti-democracy propaganda |