Why is "growth" good? I'd like fewer people in the area

[Anonymous]

Typical selfish NIMBY. I got mine so F you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I work in Bethesda, live in DC. DW works downtown.

We often don't use our car at all during the week and aside from a$$hole aggressive drivers (almost all of whom are from MD) cutting through our neighborhood could care less about the congestion and the growth has improved our property values while giving us many more things we can easily reach from where we live.

But we'd be miserable too if we needed to drive everywhere but we made different choices.

Northwest DC needs the kind of aggressive traffic calming measures of the type that protect the residential streets of many Maryland drivers.

No, they don't. I wish they did, but they don't.

[Anonymous]

I agree with OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Growth is coming, because the US population is growing, while many areas of the country are in terminal decline. This region is relatively wealthy/dynamic.

So the only question is whether we have smart growth - investing in public transport, cycling infrastructure, preserving green space etc - or chaotic growth- with more congestion, overcrowding etc.

Because certain policymakers, who work just down the road, decided that their corporate donors needed more customers and cheaper labor. Immigrants and their children account for the growth, not births to the native population. It would be pretty easy to stop or reduce "growth", but that wouldn't meet the economic needs of our overseers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Growth is coming, because the US population is growing, while many areas of the country are in terminal decline. This region is relatively wealthy/dynamic.

So the only question is whether we have smart growth - investing in public transport, cycling infrastructure, preserving green space etc - or chaotic growth- with more congestion, overcrowding etc.

Because certain policymakers, who work just down the road, decided that their corporate donors needed more customers and cheaper labor. Immigrants and their children account for the growth, not births to the native population. It would be pretty easy to stop or reduce "growth", but that wouldn't meet the economic needs of our overseers.

Countries with shrinking populations are in economic death spirals because there are not enough workers to support retirees or economic growth.

In any case internal migration and the economic growth of prosperous regions in the US would likely still cause population growth in this region regardless of immigration and the fading states of the midwest would be in even more severe trouble without cheap immigrant labor to prop up their food industries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m with you OP.

I like this area the way it is. We don’t need more development, especially when it comes with less green space.

I think that’s the issue for many people. More development, but not better facilities (parks, libraries).

Why does the County want to pave over every speck of green space and cover it with high density housing? People need trees and parks.

Please provide a local example of park space that was converted to development?

A community garden area in NW DC near McLean Gardens was reduced to build an ugly parking garage, after DC converted the police parking lot to a seven-floor homeless shelter.

So no doubt you opposed that proposal and instead advocated for the parking to come from the under utilized parking garage in Cathedral Commons?

In either case community gardens serve a pretty small number of people - only a tennis court would likely be used by fewer people.

[Anonymous]

Keep voting for Marc Elrich then.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP

I would be happy to see the federal govt take steps to improve economic development in declining rust belt cities, which desperately need growth, have surplus housing and often under utilized infrastructure.

I fear though that limiting growth in places like DC, SF, etc will just mean more people moving to sprawl in the sunbelt.

Locally something we can do is try to encourage more jobs in PG County. That would shorten commutes for residents of PG and Charles Cos, and reduce congestion in other areas.

The only thing that reduced congestion is more mass transit with better headways. Anything short of that, there will be more and more single occupancy cars clogging the roads.

MWCOG says better jobs/housing balance would also do that, along with many transit focused strategies. The number of people who commute from PG all the way into Virginia, and similar lack of balance, adds to vehicle miles traveled. It also makes it more difficult to fully leverage transit operations and capital, because we don't get reverse transit commuters to PG. And it means fewer commuters by active transportation (bike/ped) because commutes from PG, Charles, etc are so long.

Of course it's better that new jobs in PG are in transit oriented locations. New Carrolton, with metro, MARC, Amtrak and in two year, the Purple Line, would be a good location.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with OP.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Growth is coming, because the US population is growing, while many areas of the country are in terminal decline. This region is relatively wealthy/dynamic.

So the only question is whether we have smart growth - investing in public transport, cycling infrastructure, preserving green space etc - or chaotic growth- with more congestion, overcrowding etc.

Because certain policymakers, who work just down the road, decided that their corporate donors needed more customers and cheaper labor. Immigrants and their children account for the growth, not births to the native population. It would be pretty easy to stop or reduce "growth", but that wouldn't meet the economic needs of our overseers.

This.

It's about cheap labor and votes for certain wealthy people. That's why the growth is allowed unfettered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I live in Bethesda and work in DC. I don't understand why we need ever greater density and more homes and more companies to come to the area. The congestion is terrible and the strain on schools and public services is annoying.

Personally, I would be happier if we stayed flat or, better yet, some people moved away!

You're a nut.

The population is expanding. People are coming whether you like it or not. The question is do you want to grow smartly or not? Acting like you deserve some secret utpoia is entitled and ridiculous (and, consistent with someone who lives in Bethesda, natch). Don't be that person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I live in Bethesda and work in DC. I don't understand why we need ever greater density and more homes and more companies to come to the area. The congestion is terrible and the strain on schools and public services is annoying.

Personally, I would be happier if we stayed flat or, better yet, some people moved away!

You're a nut.

The population is expanding. People are coming whether you like it or not. The question is do you want to grow smartly or not? Acting like you deserve some secret utpoia is entitled and ridiculous (and, consistent with someone who lives in Bethesda, natch). Don't be that person.

DP

I’m not from Bethesda. I live in a fairly crappy part of Silver Spring. But I wholeheartedly agree with OP.

[Anonymous]

I was born in DC, raised in NOVA and I liked it the way it was! I hate it the way it is. No, I don't "got mine" either. I was priced out even of the crappy 70's colonial I grew up in. The close in pastoral neighborhood I dreamed of living in as an adult is long mowed under for McMansions on small lots. You can't drive through my hometown at any time of day - 20 minutes a mile - really? In one of "America's best places to live"?
Growth stinks!
We will move when we retire - but I don't know anywhere that is like what our old suburbs were. This area WAS an amazing place to grow up, my kids can't wait to graduate and get out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's so much simpler than any of you have stated.

Municipalities want growth because it means more taxpayers - both corporate and individual. It's all about revenue.

Oh, I thought it was because bureaucrats enjoy kickbacks from developers? Please advise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Growth is coming, because the US population is growing, while many areas of the country are in terminal decline. This region is relatively wealthy/dynamic.

So the only question is whether we have smart growth - investing in public transport, cycling infrastructure, preserving green space etc - or chaotic growth- with more congestion, overcrowding etc.

Because certain policymakers, who work just down the road, decided that their corporate donors needed more customers and cheaper labor. Immigrants and their children account for the growth, not births to the native population. It would be pretty easy to stop or reduce "growth", but that wouldn't meet the economic needs of our overseers.

This.

It's about cheap labor and votes for certain wealthy people. That's why the growth is allowed unfettered.

It’s not cheap labor so much as it is tens of millions of fresh social security numbers that can rack up debt - rent, mortgage, car, credit cards, etc.