The Urbanist Cult

[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:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

Haha. I didn’t intend to say you were not qualified to argue.. I was pointing out your argument isn’t qualified by reason. Why don’t need more crap housing in dc - there are already plenty of condos.

It most certainly is qualified by reason. Building more housing slows the rate of growth in housing prices. Sorry to hear that you're triggered by facts!

What a neat trick. Have you told developers that? I’m sure they’ll be racing to build more housing when they find out that building more housing will kill their margins.

You're not doing a very good job of communicating a cohesive argument. Developers would love to build more housing in DC but are stymied by zoning regulations, height limits, onerous historic district guidelines, etc.

Or is this just a failed attempt to be clever?

Supply isn’t driven by the number of approved units. It’s driven by demand at the high end of the market, which is driven by household incomes. That’s a much more coherent argument than market urbanism.

You make the mistake of assuming that units tied up by zoning or historic preservation would be delivered in addition to the other units that were actually built. It’s much more likely that only one or the other would be delivered at/near the same time unless demand at the high end of the market increases.

If developers wanted to build more, they could. They’re not building as much as is allowed. Therefore, regulation is not the primary constraint on deliveries. It must be something else.

These are very great points. The one thing I think about a lot is how long it has even taken the Toll Brothers to build the 200+ single family homes at the WMAL site. The plan was approved in 2017, they just demolished the towers last summer, construction has just started and they will slowly deliver the units over two phases over several years. This is for highly coveted new construction single family homes inside the beltway!

Not only did they wait for the right conditions to start building, they are in no rush to deliver. They will slowly leak the homes onto the market over time to ensure that they maximize their profit.

There is this simplistic view by market urbanists (and YIMBYs) that housing is a commodity like soy beans. If only the market was freed up to produce more the price would clear and it would get cheaper. The behavior of major developers belies this truth. They know how to manage supply and in fact, if they were not capable of effectively managing supply to keep prices high they would stupidly end up defaulting.

So not only is there a lot of ignorance about real estate finance and a simplistic understanding of economics, they also seem to lack historical knowledge and insight. If it was not for the S&L scandal in the 80s, the reference points for housing costs would be drastically different. During the 80s, developers were not trying to make money build housing. They were trying to make money defrauding banks and many were quite successful at it. They took out big loans, sometimes built cheap crap that are now death traps (like the Surfside condo or the Rock Creek Woods apartments) and sometimes didn't build anything at all and then ran off with the money.

There is just a complete unwillingness to deal with reality which is intellectually fascinating on the one hand, but also obviously extremely concerning on the other because the stage is set for really bad policy to get made that could have very real and serious repercussions for the future, like for example, poor Black and Brown families in this county unnecessarily cramped into overcrowded conditions in one and two bedroom apartments with a facile justification that it is necessary for climate change. It's quite morally bankrupt.

Wow, lots of wrong thinking in here. Obviously part of a market-based approach is to ensure things that are zoning differently actually result in housing. That's... obvious. Simply letting the land sit there empty is no good.

And nobody is saying to put non-white people into slums. Wtf are you talking about? Jesus christ.

I never said anything about slums. You’re projecting, which says a lot about you.

Funny how you just wave away strong criticism with “you’re wrong”. Absolute joke that and perfectly in keeping that you have one talking point and absolutely no clue how the actual world works.

There's literally no other way to interpret what you said champ. Read what you write. Embarrassing, and racist.

DP, but PP is not wrong that Thrive Montgomery on its face is likely to deepen the county's east-west divide and inequity. Also, PP seems more inclined to provide integrated, higher quality housing for Black and Brown families than you do. Maybe that's not the case, but going by what each of you wrote, that's what I conclude.

Classic urbanist move, though, calling someone a racist because they disagree with you and when it's clear your arguments don't make any sense. Once your taking points get blown up with reason and evidence, you always try to shutdown the conversation with a racism allegation. Nice job sticking to the script, champ.

Building housing for particular races is the most racist thing I've heard in a while. How far we've come. People don't want government housing. Subsidized housing never, ever works. This is all just virtue signaling.

[Anonymous]

"Let's build more housing, because land around here is expensive, because many people want to live here for jobs, amenities, and more".

"BuT iT's NoT AfForDAble hOusiNG! ItS LUXURY!"

"Are you willing to sell your home for 500k under market value to a poor family?"

"........"

[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:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

Haha. I didn’t intend to say you were not qualified to argue.. I was pointing out your argument isn’t qualified by reason. Why don’t need more crap housing in dc - there are already plenty of condos.

It most certainly is qualified by reason. Building more housing slows the rate of growth in housing prices. Sorry to hear that you're triggered by facts!

What a neat trick. Have you told developers that? I’m sure they’ll be racing to build more housing when they find out that building more housing will kill their margins.

You're not doing a very good job of communicating a cohesive argument. Developers would love to build more housing in DC but are stymied by zoning regulations, height limits, onerous historic district guidelines, etc.

Or is this just a failed attempt to be clever?

Supply isn’t driven by the number of approved units. It’s driven by demand at the high end of the market, which is driven by household incomes. That’s a much more coherent argument than market urbanism.

You make the mistake of assuming that units tied up by zoning or historic preservation would be delivered in addition to the other units that were actually built. It’s much more likely that only one or the other would be delivered at/near the same time unless demand at the high end of the market increases.

If developers wanted to build more, they could. They’re not building as much as is allowed. Therefore, regulation is not the primary constraint on deliveries. It must be something else.

These are very great points. The one thing I think about a lot is how long it has even taken the Toll Brothers to build the 200+ single family homes at the WMAL site. The plan was approved in 2017, they just demolished the towers last summer, construction has just started and they will slowly deliver the units over two phases over several years. This is for highly coveted new construction single family homes inside the beltway!

Not only did they wait for the right conditions to start building, they are in no rush to deliver. They will slowly leak the homes onto the market over time to ensure that they maximize their profit.

There is this simplistic view by market urbanists (and YIMBYs) that housing is a commodity like soy beans. If only the market was freed up to produce more the price would clear and it would get cheaper. The behavior of major developers belies this truth. They know how to manage supply and in fact, if they were not capable of effectively managing supply to keep prices high they would stupidly end up defaulting.

So not only is there a lot of ignorance about real estate finance and a simplistic understanding of economics, they also seem to lack historical knowledge and insight. If it was not for the S&L scandal in the 80s, the reference points for housing costs would be drastically different. During the 80s, developers were not trying to make money build housing. They were trying to make money defrauding banks and many were quite successful at it. They took out big loans, sometimes built cheap crap that are now death traps (like the Surfside condo or the Rock Creek Woods apartments) and sometimes didn't build anything at all and then ran off with the money.

There is just a complete unwillingness to deal with reality which is intellectually fascinating on the one hand, but also obviously extremely concerning on the other because the stage is set for really bad policy to get made that could have very real and serious repercussions for the future, like for example, poor Black and Brown families in this county unnecessarily cramped into overcrowded conditions in one and two bedroom apartments with a facile justification that it is necessary for climate change. It's quite morally bankrupt.

Wow, lots of wrong thinking in here. Obviously part of a market-based approach is to ensure things that are zoning differently actually result in housing. That's... obvious. Simply letting the land sit there empty is no good.

And nobody is saying to put non-white people into slums. Wtf are you talking about? Jesus christ.

I never said anything about slums. You’re projecting, which says a lot about you.

Funny how you just wave away strong criticism with “you’re wrong”. Absolute joke that and perfectly in keeping that you have one talking point and absolutely no clue how the actual world works.

There's literally no other way to interpret what you said champ. Read what you write. Embarrassing, and racist.

DP, but PP is not wrong that Thrive Montgomery on its face is likely to deepen the county's east-west divide and inequity. Also, PP seems more inclined to provide integrated, higher quality housing for Black and Brown families than you do. Maybe that's not the case, but going by what each of you wrote, that's what I conclude.

Classic urbanist move, though, calling someone a racist because they disagree with you and when it's clear your arguments don't make any sense. Once your taking points get blown up with reason and evidence, you always try to shutdown the conversation with a racism allegation. Nice job sticking to the script, champ.

I am the PP and also a Person of Color, so I have a personal vested interest in how alleviating the housing affordability crisis and the climate crisis are not done on the backs of Black and Brown people, which is what these "urbanists" are trying to do. SoI thank them for doing a great job reinforcing my point that they are morally bankrupt.

Building new housing is not racist. Insinuating as such is a slap in the face to the many people who do, in fact, experience prejudice. Nothing is done "on the backs" of anybody. Insinuating people who wish for walkable, dense neighborhoods are racist is silly, and not productive. Do better champ.

You’ve lost this one champ. It’s not a what you’re doing per se it’s the way you’re doing it. Your approach is going to lead to racist outcomes even though it’s not overtly racist. Sorry champ.

[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:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

Haha. I didn’t intend to say you were not qualified to argue.. I was pointing out your argument isn’t qualified by reason. Why don’t need more crap housing in dc - there are already plenty of condos.

It most certainly is qualified by reason. Building more housing slows the rate of growth in housing prices. Sorry to hear that you're triggered by facts!

What a neat trick. Have you told developers that? I’m sure they’ll be racing to build more housing when they find out that building more housing will kill their margins.

You're not doing a very good job of communicating a cohesive argument. Developers would love to build more housing in DC but are stymied by zoning regulations, height limits, onerous historic district guidelines, etc.

Or is this just a failed attempt to be clever?

Supply isn’t driven by the number of approved units. It’s driven by demand at the high end of the market, which is driven by household incomes. That’s a much more coherent argument than market urbanism.

You make the mistake of assuming that units tied up by zoning or historic preservation would be delivered in addition to the other units that were actually built. It’s much more likely that only one or the other would be delivered at/near the same time unless demand at the high end of the market increases.

If developers wanted to build more, they could. They’re not building as much as is allowed. Therefore, regulation is not the primary constraint on deliveries. It must be something else.

These are very great points. The one thing I think about a lot is how long it has even taken the Toll Brothers to build the 200+ single family homes at the WMAL site. The plan was approved in 2017, they just demolished the towers last summer, construction has just started and they will slowly deliver the units over two phases over several years. This is for highly coveted new construction single family homes inside the beltway!

Not only did they wait for the right conditions to start building, they are in no rush to deliver. They will slowly leak the homes onto the market over time to ensure that they maximize their profit.

There is this simplistic view by market urbanists (and YIMBYs) that housing is a commodity like soy beans. If only the market was freed up to produce more the price would clear and it would get cheaper. The behavior of major developers belies this truth. They know how to manage supply and in fact, if they were not capable of effectively managing supply to keep prices high they would stupidly end up defaulting.

So not only is there a lot of ignorance about real estate finance and a simplistic understanding of economics, they also seem to lack historical knowledge and insight. If it was not for the S&L scandal in the 80s, the reference points for housing costs would be drastically different. During the 80s, developers were not trying to make money build housing. They were trying to make money defrauding banks and many were quite successful at it. They took out big loans, sometimes built cheap crap that are now death traps (like the Surfside condo or the Rock Creek Woods apartments) and sometimes didn't build anything at all and then ran off with the money.

There is just a complete unwillingness to deal with reality which is intellectually fascinating on the one hand, but also obviously extremely concerning on the other because the stage is set for really bad policy to get made that could have very real and serious repercussions for the future, like for example, poor Black and Brown families in this county unnecessarily cramped into overcrowded conditions in one and two bedroom apartments with a facile justification that it is necessary for climate change. It's quite morally bankrupt.

Wow, lots of wrong thinking in here. Obviously part of a market-based approach is to ensure things that are zoning differently actually result in housing. That's... obvious. Simply letting the land sit there empty is no good.

And nobody is saying to put non-white people into slums. Wtf are you talking about? Jesus christ.

I never said anything about slums. You’re projecting, which says a lot about you.

Funny how you just wave away strong criticism with “you’re wrong”. Absolute joke that and perfectly in keeping that you have one talking point and absolutely no clue how the actual world works.

There's literally no other way to interpret what you said champ. Read what you write. Embarrassing, and racist.

DP, but PP is not wrong that Thrive Montgomery on its face is likely to deepen the county's east-west divide and inequity. Also, PP seems more inclined to provide integrated, higher quality housing for Black and Brown families than you do. Maybe that's not the case, but going by what each of you wrote, that's what I conclude.

Classic urbanist move, though, calling someone a racist because they disagree with you and when it's clear your arguments don't make any sense. Once your taking points get blown up with reason and evidence, you always try to shutdown the conversation with a racism allegation. Nice job sticking to the script, champ.

I am the PP and also a Person of Color, so I have a personal vested interest in how alleviating the housing affordability crisis and the climate crisis are not done on the backs of Black and Brown people, which is what these "urbanists" are trying to do. SoI thank them for doing a great job reinforcing my point that they are morally bankrupt.

Building new housing is not racist. Insinuating as such is a slap in the face to the many people who do, in fact, experience prejudice. Nothing is done "on the backs" of anybody. Insinuating people who wish for walkable, dense neighborhoods are racist is silly, and not productive. Do better champ.

Cannot and will not stop being condescending and in turn racist at the same time. "Slap in the face" to who? Who the hell do you think you are talking to?

[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:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

Haha. I didn’t intend to say you were not qualified to argue.. I was pointing out your argument isn’t qualified by reason. Why don’t need more crap housing in dc - there are already plenty of condos.

It most certainly is qualified by reason. Building more housing slows the rate of growth in housing prices. Sorry to hear that you're triggered by facts!

What a neat trick. Have you told developers that? I’m sure they’ll be racing to build more housing when they find out that building more housing will kill their margins.

You're not doing a very good job of communicating a cohesive argument. Developers would love to build more housing in DC but are stymied by zoning regulations, height limits, onerous historic district guidelines, etc.

Or is this just a failed attempt to be clever?

Supply isn’t driven by the number of approved units. It’s driven by demand at the high end of the market, which is driven by household incomes. That’s a much more coherent argument than market urbanism.

You make the mistake of assuming that units tied up by zoning or historic preservation would be delivered in addition to the other units that were actually built. It’s much more likely that only one or the other would be delivered at/near the same time unless demand at the high end of the market increases.

If developers wanted to build more, they could. They’re not building as much as is allowed. Therefore, regulation is not the primary constraint on deliveries. It must be something else.

These are very great points. The one thing I think about a lot is how long it has even taken the Toll Brothers to build the 200+ single family homes at the WMAL site. The plan was approved in 2017, they just demolished the towers last summer, construction has just started and they will slowly deliver the units over two phases over several years. This is for highly coveted new construction single family homes inside the beltway!

Not only did they wait for the right conditions to start building, they are in no rush to deliver. They will slowly leak the homes onto the market over time to ensure that they maximize their profit.

There is this simplistic view by market urbanists (and YIMBYs) that housing is a commodity like soy beans. If only the market was freed up to produce more the price would clear and it would get cheaper. The behavior of major developers belies this truth. They know how to manage supply and in fact, if they were not capable of effectively managing supply to keep prices high they would stupidly end up defaulting.

So not only is there a lot of ignorance about real estate finance and a simplistic understanding of economics, they also seem to lack historical knowledge and insight. If it was not for the S&L scandal in the 80s, the reference points for housing costs would be drastically different. During the 80s, developers were not trying to make money build housing. They were trying to make money defrauding banks and many were quite successful at it. They took out big loans, sometimes built cheap crap that are now death traps (like the Surfside condo or the Rock Creek Woods apartments) and sometimes didn't build anything at all and then ran off with the money.

There is just a complete unwillingness to deal with reality which is intellectually fascinating on the one hand, but also obviously extremely concerning on the other because the stage is set for really bad policy to get made that could have very real and serious repercussions for the future, like for example, poor Black and Brown families in this county unnecessarily cramped into overcrowded conditions in one and two bedroom apartments with a facile justification that it is necessary for climate change. It's quite morally bankrupt.

Wow, lots of wrong thinking in here. Obviously part of a market-based approach is to ensure things that are zoning differently actually result in housing. That's... obvious. Simply letting the land sit there empty is no good.

And nobody is saying to put non-white people into slums. Wtf are you talking about? Jesus christ.

I never said anything about slums. You’re projecting, which says a lot about you.

Funny how you just wave away strong criticism with “you’re wrong”. Absolute joke that and perfectly in keeping that you have one talking point and absolutely no clue how the actual world works.

There's literally no other way to interpret what you said champ. Read what you write. Embarrassing, and racist.

DP, but PP is not wrong that Thrive Montgomery on its face is likely to deepen the county's east-west divide and inequity. Also, PP seems more inclined to provide integrated, higher quality housing for Black and Brown families than you do. Maybe that's not the case, but going by what each of you wrote, that's what I conclude.

Classic urbanist move, though, calling someone a racist because they disagree with you and when it's clear your arguments don't make any sense. Once your taking points get blown up with reason and evidence, you always try to shutdown the conversation with a racism allegation. Nice job sticking to the script, champ.

I am the PP and also a Person of Color, so I have a personal vested interest in how alleviating the housing affordability crisis and the climate crisis are not done on the backs of Black and Brown people, which is what these "urbanists" are trying to do. SoI thank them for doing a great job reinforcing my point that they are morally bankrupt.

Building new housing is not racist. Insinuating as such is a slap in the face to the many people who do, in fact, experience prejudice. Nothing is done "on the backs" of anybody. Insinuating people who wish for walkable, dense neighborhoods are racist is silly, and not productive. Do better champ.

You’ve lost this one champ. It’s not a what you’re doing per se it’s the way you’re doing it. Your approach is going to lead to racist outcomes even though it’s not overtly racist. Sorry champ.

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

[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:So many boomer brain worms in this thread! You anti urbanist people get less and less credible the more you talk.

Sad little Millennial can’t afford a home and dreams that changing zoning regs will somehow make housing affordable for “they.”

The sad thing is that people like you play it both ways. When someone is an apartment-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you accuse them of being jealous of SFH-dwellers and wanting to ruin what they can't have. When someone is a SFH-dweller and advocates for upzoning, you call them a hypocrite who wants to dictate how everyone else should live.

Who exactly is allowed to advocate for upzoning?

Haha. I didn’t intend to say you were not qualified to argue.. I was pointing out your argument isn’t qualified by reason. Why don’t need more crap housing in dc - there are already plenty of condos.

It most certainly is qualified by reason. Building more housing slows the rate of growth in housing prices. Sorry to hear that you're triggered by facts!

What a neat trick. Have you told developers that? I’m sure they’ll be racing to build more housing when they find out that building more housing will kill their margins.

You're not doing a very good job of communicating a cohesive argument. Developers would love to build more housing in DC but are stymied by zoning regulations, height limits, onerous historic district guidelines, etc.

Or is this just a failed attempt to be clever?

Supply isn’t driven by the number of approved units. It’s driven by demand at the high end of the market, which is driven by household incomes. That’s a much more coherent argument than market urbanism.

You make the mistake of assuming that units tied up by zoning or historic preservation would be delivered in addition to the other units that were actually built. It’s much more likely that only one or the other would be delivered at/near the same time unless demand at the high end of the market increases.

If developers wanted to build more, they could. They’re not building as much as is allowed. Therefore, regulation is not the primary constraint on deliveries. It must be something else.

These are very great points. The one thing I think about a lot is how long it has even taken the Toll Brothers to build the 200+ single family homes at the WMAL site. The plan was approved in 2017, they just demolished the towers last summer, construction has just started and they will slowly deliver the units over two phases over several years. This is for highly coveted new construction single family homes inside the beltway!

Not only did they wait for the right conditions to start building, they are in no rush to deliver. They will slowly leak the homes onto the market over time to ensure that they maximize their profit.

There is this simplistic view by market urbanists (and YIMBYs) that housing is a commodity like soy beans. If only the market was freed up to produce more the price would clear and it would get cheaper. The behavior of major developers belies this truth. They know how to manage supply and in fact, if they were not capable of effectively managing supply to keep prices high they would stupidly end up defaulting.

So not only is there a lot of ignorance about real estate finance and a simplistic understanding of economics, they also seem to lack historical knowledge and insight. If it was not for the S&L scandal in the 80s, the reference points for housing costs would be drastically different. During the 80s, developers were not trying to make money build housing. They were trying to make money defrauding banks and many were quite successful at it. They took out big loans, sometimes built cheap crap that are now death traps (like the Surfside condo or the Rock Creek Woods apartments) and sometimes didn't build anything at all and then ran off with the money.

There is just a complete unwillingness to deal with reality which is intellectually fascinating on the one hand, but also obviously extremely concerning on the other because the stage is set for really bad policy to get made that could have very real and serious repercussions for the future, like for example, poor Black and Brown families in this county unnecessarily cramped into overcrowded conditions in one and two bedroom apartments with a facile justification that it is necessary for climate change. It's quite morally bankrupt.

Wow, lots of wrong thinking in here. Obviously part of a market-based approach is to ensure things that are zoning differently actually result in housing. That's... obvious. Simply letting the land sit there empty is no good.

And nobody is saying to put non-white people into slums. Wtf are you talking about? Jesus christ.

I never said anything about slums. You’re projecting, which says a lot about you.

Funny how you just wave away strong criticism with “you’re wrong”. Absolute joke that and perfectly in keeping that you have one talking point and absolutely no clue how the actual world works.

There's literally no other way to interpret what you said champ. Read what you write. Embarrassing, and racist.

DP, but PP is not wrong that Thrive Montgomery on its face is likely to deepen the county's east-west divide and inequity. Also, PP seems more inclined to provide integrated, higher quality housing for Black and Brown families than you do. Maybe that's not the case, but going by what each of you wrote, that's what I conclude.

Classic urbanist move, though, calling someone a racist because they disagree with you and when it's clear your arguments don't make any sense. Once your taking points get blown up with reason and evidence, you always try to shutdown the conversation with a racism allegation. Nice job sticking to the script, champ.

I am the PP and also a Person of Color, so I have a personal vested interest in how alleviating the housing affordability crisis and the climate crisis are not done on the backs of Black and Brown people, which is what these "urbanists" are trying to do. SoI thank them for doing a great job reinforcing my point that they are morally bankrupt.

Building new housing is not racist. Insinuating as such is a slap in the face to the many people who do, in fact, experience prejudice. Nothing is done "on the backs" of anybody. Insinuating people who wish for walkable, dense neighborhoods are racist is silly, and not productive. Do better champ.

You’ve lost this one champ. It’s not a what you’re doing per se it’s the way you’re doing it. Your approach is going to lead to racist outcomes even though it’s not overtly racist. Sorry champ.

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

You really need to pipe down and shut up because you don't know a damn thing about prejudice or racism. You going to lecture people of color about racism? Huh? You cannot even tell me what housing discrimination in the rental market is today s it manifested right now. How it is experienced. Yet you going to lecture people about racism? Log off bro.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"Let's build more housing, because land around here is expensive, because many people want to live here for jobs, amenities, and more".

"BuT iT's NoT AfForDAble hOusiNG! ItS LUXURY!"

"Are you willing to sell your home for 500k under market value to a poor family?"

"........"

No one would expect urbanist policies to result in affordable housing if you didn't promise affordable housing. At the end of the day, the conversation always lands with some version of it's not fair to expect developers to deliver affordable housing. The urbanist paradigm is simply cruel in the way it dangles the promise of shelter and diverse neighborhoods but never delivers it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

If you think expensive restaurants and de facto segregated neighborhoods are even remotely close to the same thing, you will never understand why your policies are terrible for society. I'd love to see more land opened up for multifamily, but without a concerted, deliberate effort to regulate the housing market, spend subsidies more wisely, and bring more jobs to job-deficient areas, we'll end up with more segregation and discrimination, not less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Let's build more housing, because land around here is expensive, because many people want to live here for jobs, amenities, and more".

"BuT iT's NoT AfForDAble hOusiNG! ItS LUXURY!"

"Are you willing to sell your home for 500k under market value to a poor family?"

"........"

No one would expect urbanist policies to result in affordable housing if you didn't promise affordable housing. At the end of the day, the conversation always lands with some version of it's not fair to expect developers to deliver affordable housing. The urbanist paradigm is simply cruel in the way it dangles the promise of shelter and diverse neighborhoods but never delivers it.

If you open a grocery store, should you be forced to sell 10% of your food at a loss because people are poor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

If you think expensive restaurants and de facto segregated neighborhoods are even remotely close to the same thing, you will never understand why your policies are terrible for society. I'd love to see more land opened up for multifamily, but without a concerted, deliberate effort to regulate the housing market, spend subsidies more wisely, and bring more jobs to job-deficient areas, we'll end up with more segregation and discrimination, not less.

Yes, I do. SFH is segregation. Urbanists wish to undo that discriminatory part of zoning. NIMBYs and "affordable housing" advocates do not.

No "affordable housing" plan, or supporter, has made rent come down. It's only about handouts to a few poor people (inclusionary zoning) or a few apartments scattered here and there. It's virtue signaling. It doesn't work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

If you think expensive restaurants and de facto segregated neighborhoods are even remotely close to the same thing, you will never understand why your policies are terrible for society. I'd love to see more land opened up for multifamily, but without a concerted, deliberate effort to regulate the housing market, spend subsidies more wisely, and bring more jobs to job-deficient areas, we'll end up with more segregation and discrimination, not less.

Yes, I do. SFH is segregation. Urbanists wish to undo that discriminatory part of zoning. NIMBYs and "affordable housing" advocates do not.

No "affordable housing" plan, or supporter, has made rent come down. It's only about handouts to a few poor people (inclusionary zoning) or a few apartments scattered here and there. It's virtue signaling. It doesn't work.

The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968. It has been illegal to deny home-ownership or housing to anyone based upon their race since it was enacted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1968

Single family homes are not segregation. This is such a tired cliche (if not outright lie) that keeps getting blurted about. There are tons of SFH's homes in PG County. Lots of them filled with non-white people. Even some, heaven forbid, are gated communities. Those horrendous SFH's are so terrible that bunches of non-white people are flocking to previously very white Charles County to buy, build and live.

For some odd reason, no one is screaming to eradicate SFH zoning in those counties. Why on earth would that be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Let's build more housing, because land around here is expensive, because many people want to live here for jobs, amenities, and more".

"BuT iT's NoT AfForDAble hOusiNG! ItS LUXURY!"

"Are you willing to sell your home for 500k under market value to a poor family?"

"........"

No one would expect urbanist policies to result in affordable housing if you didn't promise affordable housing. At the end of the day, the conversation always lands with some version of it's not fair to expect developers to deliver affordable housing. The urbanist paradigm is simply cruel in the way it dangles the promise of shelter and diverse neighborhoods but never delivers it.

If you open a grocery store, should you be forced to sell 10% of your food at a loss because people are poor?

If you voted for Biden or Northam you should be forced to do this, yes. That’s what you voted for. Subsidies founded on the backs of small business owners and entrepreneurs. An ebbing tide grounds all boats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

If you think expensive restaurants and de facto segregated neighborhoods are even remotely close to the same thing, you will never understand why your policies are terrible for society. I'd love to see more land opened up for multifamily, but without a concerted, deliberate effort to regulate the housing market, spend subsidies more wisely, and bring more jobs to job-deficient areas, we'll end up with more segregation and discrimination, not less.

Yes, I do. SFH is segregation. Urbanists wish to undo that discriminatory part of zoning. NIMBYs and "affordable housing" advocates do not.

No "affordable housing" plan, or supporter, has made rent come down. It's only about handouts to a few poor people (inclusionary zoning) or a few apartments scattered here and there. It's virtue signaling. It doesn't work.

Let's see. Some of the same political consultants who helped Trump hone his campaign message that we was going to "save" communities from affordable housing, then turn around on behalf of their new clients and argue that people who oppose the Smart Growth agenda discriminate and hate affordable housing? So Trumpy!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Racist outcomes? That makes no sense. Based on your logic, expensive restaurants are racist because certain people go there? Seriously, think about what you are saying for 2 seconds. Systemic racism is a thing. That doesn't mean we should throw our hands up and do nothing. There will be demographic differences in literally everything we do. Using that as a shield to prop up property values and exclude people is wrong.

At the end of the the day, SFH zoning is the most discriminatory thing. The history of it, and why it continues, is exactly that.

If you think expensive restaurants and de facto segregated neighborhoods are even remotely close to the same thing, you will never understand why your policies are terrible for society. I'd love to see more land opened up for multifamily, but without a concerted, deliberate effort to regulate the housing market, spend subsidies more wisely, and bring more jobs to job-deficient areas, we'll end up with more segregation and discrimination, not less.

Yes, I do. SFH is segregation. Urbanists wish to undo that discriminatory part of zoning. NIMBYs and "affordable housing" advocates do not.

No "affordable housing" plan, or supporter, has made rent come down. It's only about handouts to a few poor people (inclusionary zoning) or a few apartments scattered here and there. It's virtue signaling. It doesn't work.

Let's see. Some of the same political consultants who helped Trump hone his campaign message that we was going to "save" communities from affordable housing, then turn around on behalf of their new clients and argue that people who oppose the Smart Growth agenda discriminate and hate affordable housing? So Trumpy!

You keep bringing up Trump. Nobody cares. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous]

Until the US becomes a socialist or communist nation, there will be huge differences in housing opportunity. That's how capitalism works.

The smart growth crowd could also be accused of racism. The kind of affordable housing they talk about is available in other sections of the city. But they want to live in Tenleytown and Friendship Heights. I wonder why.