all these affordable housing do gooders are doing the billionaires' work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP's post is spot on. The billionaires have always been very conniving, and OP is correct that this is their latest plan. Another example is how they get tax breaks for themselves by convincing people that the world is going to end if we let transgender people use a bathroom that doesn't correspond to their biological sex, and so people vote for politicians who make that a central issue regardless of the other awful things they plan to do once in power. It turns out that people across the political spectrum are very gullible.

This is completely off topic but no, I don’t think the use of bathrooms is what causes this fear. No one really cared much about this for decades. I think people are VERY afraid of their kids or grandkids getting caught up in this and sterilizing themselves.

You just proved the PP's point. Billionaires manipulate stupids into believing untrue things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand these YIMBY do gooder twerps. They want to raze all SFHs to build dense crap. They love standing on their moral pedestals when they're too stupid to realize they're destroying the middle class and doing the bidding of the billionaires for free. Owning a home is pretty much the ONLY wealth vehicle the middle class has left. But the do gooders want to raze your homes and build giant apartment complexes next to them. Absolutely no one wants to live next to that junk. The middle class will flee, and guess what, developers come in taking all the homes and building a whole bunch of rental crap.

In their infinite wisdom, the YIMBYs and affordable housing idiots are sweeping the last leg of wealth out that is left for the middle class. They ate going to turn the entire counry into permarenters for life. And over time the middle class will be far worse off, because no one will be able to own anything, then they'll still jack up your rents on you in the end. The biggest thing elitists want to control now is land and property ownership. And all these clownshow housing morons are obtaining it for them by ruining your neighborhoods with their amazingly stupid zoning plans.

People keep saying that -- eliminating all SFHs. But that's not true, and it's not how things will go in practice. Nobody is bulldozing your house down.

OP doesn’t care about facts or reality.

They love their ignorant narrative.

I think there is a real conversation to be had here about the best way to secure more housing for people in our county who can’t afford it. But some NIMBYs on this thread sadly are not willing to engage and seem to have a flair for the dramatic.

They have their narrative and are sticking to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP's post is spot on. The billionaires have always been very conniving, and OP is correct that this is their latest plan. Another example is how they get tax breaks for themselves by convincing people that the world is going to end if we let transgender people use a bathroom that doesn't correspond to their biological sex, and so people vote for politicians who make that a central issue regardless of the other awful things they plan to do once in power. It turns out that people across the political spectrum are very gullible.

Progressive YIMBYs exist!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

Grounded in facts and data.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

Grounded in facts and data.

Not really. Developers have rarely built enough units to bring prices down. That has only happened in markets after extreme price increases, and the people in markets where this has happened are still worse off than we are if you go back 10 years instead of selectively slicing a few years worth of data. We should be aiming for price stability in rents and home prices, with prices increasing roughly in line with inflation.

What I and many in our county object to are the cash handouts that Friedson has sponsored for developers. Developers have used those to boost their profits instead of using them to build more housing and bring prices down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

Grounded in facts and data.

Not really. Developers have rarely built enough units to bring prices down. That has only happened in markets after extreme price increases, and the people in markets where this has happened are still worse off than we are if you go back 10 years instead of selectively slicing a few years worth of data. We should be aiming for price stability in rents and home prices, with prices increasing roughly in line with inflation.

What I and many in our county object to are the cash handouts that Friedson has sponsored for developers. Developers have used those to boost their profits instead of using them to build more housing and bring prices down.

So building more housing is the solution and we need to find the best way to do that. Sounds good to me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

Grounded in facts and data.

Not really. Developers have rarely built enough units to bring prices down. That has only happened in markets after extreme price increases, and the people in markets where this has happened are still worse off than we are if you go back 10 years instead of selectively slicing a few years worth of data. We should be aiming for price stability in rents and home prices, with prices increasing roughly in line with inflation.

What I and many in our county object to are the cash handouts that Friedson has sponsored for developers. Developers have used those to boost their profits instead of using them to build more housing and bring prices down.

So building more housing is the solution and we need to find the best way to do that. Sounds good to me!

Right. And Friedson has shown he’s not the guy to find a solution because all he builds is developers’ profit margins.

[Anonymous]

Continuing to build very high end homes does nothing to help those who need affordable housing. Whether it’s apartments, condos, duplexes pr townhomes. Everything they build is always targeted to luxury markets.

What they need to build is basic nice but not luxury housing in areas that can support it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teachers, firefighters, and young people are being priced out of our county because they can’t afford to buy homes here. That is not good, and the way out of it is definitely nuanced but is NOT to embrace NIMBYism in the way that certain councilmembers have.

Firefighters have never lived here.

That isn't true. I had DCFD neighbors when I was growing up. They have all been priced out. Sure, some prefer to live in Culpepper, but others can't afford to live in the community they serve. That is flat out wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Continuing to build very high end homes does nothing to help those who need affordable housing. Whether it’s apartments, condos, duplexes pr townhomes. Everything they build is always targeted to luxury markets.

What they need to build is basic nice but not luxury housing in areas that can support it.

Building high density apartments does nothing to address SFH prices because they are not fungible. High density apartments don't bring amenities to a community because the funding for the public infrastructure is underfunded by these developments. The high-priced chain restaurants and stores that can afford the mixed use spaces provide jobs but the apartment dwellers can't eat or shop there.

Townhomes are close enough to SFH that they are somewhat fungible, but we don't build enough of those either. It's either McMansions or high density apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

Thats not really true. They want more housing because housing is expensive and simply supply/demand suggests if you build more housing, at least the rental rates aor ability to purchase wills stabilize. I do not know where anyone on this thread is posting from, but let's assume it is DC....there is plenty of school capacity, DC Water and PEPCO are building our infrastructure thanks to the IRA and rate increases; road capacity isn't going to change, so that is why people support mass transit and bikes/scooters. Single occupancy vehicles are the biggest waste of space in the transportation landscape. Single family Housing is the least efficient way to house humans. That doesn't mean cars or SFH should be eliminated - no one is suggesting that. What they are advocating is a more rational allocation of land.

These are opinions.

Please share what of the opinions are wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand these YIMBY do gooder twerps. They want to raze all SFHs to build dense crap. They love standing on their moral pedestals when they're too stupid to realize they're destroying the middle class and doing the bidding of the billionaires for free. Owning a home is pretty much the ONLY wealth vehicle the middle class has left. But the do gooders want to raze your homes and build giant apartment complexes next to them. Absolutely no one wants to live next to that junk. The middle class will flee, and guess what, developers come in taking all the homes and building a whole bunch of rental crap.

In their infinite wisdom, the YIMBYs and affordable housing idiots are sweeping the last leg of wealth out that is left for the middle class. They ate going to turn the entire counry into permarenters for life. And over time the middle class will be far worse off, because no one will be able to own anything, then they'll still jack up your rents on you in the end. The biggest thing elitists want to control now is land and property ownership. And all these clownshow housing morons are obtaining it for them by ruining your neighborhoods with their amazingly stupid zoning plans.

Not sure if this is bait, but no elected officials seriously want to raze all SFHs in Montgomery County. The AHSI (which I assume you’re referring to) only applies to specific areas within the county near transit corridors. There’s a wealth of literature showing that increasing supply (building more housing) brings down prices. NIMBYs on the council are promoting their exclusionary policies in the name of alleviating economic inequality, and I am not falling for it, nor are many people on the council and perhaps our next executive.

Serious question - how does decreasing the supply of SFH bring down the price of SFH? it seems like it would drive up the price of SFH, while maybe bringing apartment/condo prices (and rent on those properties) down. But most people don't want apartment/condos forever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand these YIMBY do gooder twerps. They want to raze all SFHs to build dense crap. They love standing on their moral pedestals when they're too stupid to realize they're destroying the middle class and doing the bidding of the billionaires for free. Owning a home is pretty much the ONLY wealth vehicle the middle class has left. But the do gooders want to raze your homes and build giant apartment complexes next to them. Absolutely no one wants to live next to that junk. The middle class will flee, and guess what, developers come in taking all the homes and building a whole bunch of rental crap.

In their infinite wisdom, the YIMBYs and affordable housing idiots are sweeping the last leg of wealth out that is left for the middle class. They ate going to turn the entire counry into permarenters for life. And over time the middle class will be far worse off, because no one will be able to own anything, then they'll still jack up your rents on you in the end. The biggest thing elitists want to control now is land and property ownership. And all these clownshow housing morons are obtaining it for them by ruining your neighborhoods with their amazingly stupid zoning plans.

Not sure if this is bait, but no elected officials seriously want to raze all SFHs in Montgomery County. The AHSI (which I assume you’re referring to) only applies to specific areas within the county near transit corridors. There’s a wealth of literature showing that increasing supply (building more housing) brings down prices. NIMBYs on the council are promoting their exclusionary policies in the name of alleviating economic inequality, and I am not falling for it, nor are many people on the council and perhaps our next executive.

Serious question - how does decreasing the supply of SFH bring down the price of SFH? it seems like it would drive up the price of SFH, while maybe bringing apartment/condo prices (and rent on those properties) down. But most people don't want apartment/condos forever.

The goal is to generally bring down the price of housing, not SFH specifically. Emphasizing SFH is why we are where we are now with respect to housing affordability. We want a broader range of housing options to fit a broader range of salaries and households.