Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you'll be an effective advocate for your viewpoint in real life, if anonymous disagreement on an internet message board is already too much for you.
Here's the reality: everyone you know personally may agree with you, but there are lots of people in Montgomery County who don't agree with you. You might believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a dupe, a tool, or on the take, but that's not also not the reality. If you want to be an effective advocate, you have to engage with reality.
Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you'll be an effective advocate for your viewpoint in real life, if anonymous disagreement on an internet message board is already too much for you.
Here's the reality: everyone you know personally may agree with you, but there are lots of people in Montgomery County who don't agree with you. You might believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a dupe, a tool, or on the take, but that's not also not the reality. If you want to be an effective advocate, you have to engage with reality.
I didn't say there are no people who disagree with me. I said that I don't believe most people want these changes. Of course there are some people that do want them.
Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you'll be an effective advocate for your viewpoint in real life, if anonymous disagreement on an internet message board is already too much for you.
Here's the reality: everyone you know personally may agree with you, but there are lots of people in Montgomery County who don't agree with you. You might believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a dupe, a tool, or on the take, but that's not also not the reality. If you want to be an effective advocate, you have to engage with reality.
I didn't say there are no people who disagree with me. I said that I don't believe most people want these changes. Of course there are some people that do want them.
Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you'll be an effective advocate for your viewpoint in real life, if anonymous disagreement on an internet message board is already too much for you.
Here's the reality: everyone you know personally may agree with you, but there are lots of people in Montgomery County who don't agree with you. You might believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a dupe, a tool, or on the take, but that's not also not the reality. If you want to be an effective advocate, you have to engage with reality.
I didn't say there are no people who disagree with me. I said that I don't believe most people want these changes. Of course there are some people that do want them.
Lots of people.
This is more meaningless YIMBY distraction.
The only way to be sure is to vote on the specific measures proposed.
I know, I know…
“WAH, BUT WE VOTED FOR THE PEOPLE THAT DO THE THINGS!”
Does that absolve them of the effects of their policy? Their policy, no matter how bad, is now untouchable? If so, I’ll assume that you’ll feel the same if Donald Trump gets elected? If he decides to expand the Supreme Court and nominate Bannon to serve on the court? You’ll just say, well, the people voted for him, sucks for me!
Yes, yes…”I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT YOU’D COMPARE….”
I’m simply using some hyperbole to make a valid comparison to poke fun at your silly “arguments.”
Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you'll be an effective advocate for your viewpoint in real life, if anonymous disagreement on an internet message board is already too much for you.
Here's the reality: everyone you know personally may agree with you, but there are lots of people in Montgomery County who don't agree with you. You might believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a dupe, a tool, or on the take, but that's not also not the reality. If you want to be an effective advocate, you have to engage with reality.
I didn't say there are no people who disagree with me. I said that I don't believe most people want these changes. Of course there are some people that do want them.
Lots of people.
This is more meaningless YIMBY distraction.
The only way to be sure is to vote on the specific measures proposed.
I know, I know…
“WAH, BUT WE VOTED FOR THE PEOPLE THAT DO THE THINGS!”
Does that absolve them of the effects of their policy? Their policy, no matter how bad, is now untouchable? If so, I’ll assume that you’ll feel the same if Donald Trump gets elected? If he decides to expand the Supreme Court and nominate Bannon to serve on the court? You’ll just say, well, the people voted for him, sucks for me!
Yes, yes…”I CAN’T BELIEVE THAT YOU’D COMPARE….”
I’m simply using some hyperbole to make a valid comparison to poke fun at your silly “arguments.”
Yeah, I don't think you will have much success advocating for your positions in real life.
Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you'll be an effective advocate for your viewpoint in real life, if anonymous disagreement on an internet message board is already too much for you.
Here's the reality: everyone you know personally may agree with you, but there are lots of people in Montgomery County who don't agree with you. You might believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a dupe, a tool, or on the take, but that's not also not the reality. If you want to be an effective advocate, you have to engage with reality.
I didn't say there are no people who disagree with me. I said that I don't believe most people want these changes. Of course there are some people that do want them.
Lots of people.
And those people include developers that stand to profit financially. Just like NIMBYs stand to gain from keeping the supply of housing low as it protects their property values.
I think YIMBYs need to speak for themselves and stop pretending they know and stand for everyone's interests.
Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't think you'll be an effective advocate for your viewpoint in real life, if anonymous disagreement on an internet message board is already too much for you.
Here's the reality: everyone you know personally may agree with you, but there are lots of people in Montgomery County who don't agree with you. You might believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a dupe, a tool, or on the take, but that's not also not the reality. If you want to be an effective advocate, you have to engage with reality.
I didn't say there are no people who disagree with me. I said that I don't believe most people want these changes. Of course there are some people that do want them.
Lots of people.
And those people include developers that stand to profit financially. Just like NIMBYs stand to gain from keeping the supply of housing low as it protects their property values.
I think YIMBYs need to speak for themselves and stop pretending they know and stand for everyone's interests.
You might believe that everyone who disagrees with you is a dupe, a tool, or on the take, but that's not also not the reality.
Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
07:38/poster to whom you responded.
Option 1: There never have been development interests that have co-opted governmental/regulatory bodies for their own enrichment in a way that is to the disadvantage of residents.
Option 2: Reality.
See how that works? Each side could set up such unproductive arguments. However, anyone following this thread can see that the development interests are disproportionately using those.
Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
07:38/poster to whom you responded.
Option 1: There never have been development interests that have co-opted governmental/regulatory bodies for their own enrichment in a way that is to the disadvantage of residents.
Option 2: Reality.
See how that works? Each side could set up such unproductive arguments. However, anyone following this thread can see that the development interests are disproportionately using those.
So what's your explanation for the fact that a majority of voters in Montgomery County, consistently, for several elections now, have voted for candidates who support the policies you oppose?
Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
07:38/poster to whom you responded.
Option 1: There never have been development interests that have co-opted governmental/regulatory bodies for their own enrichment in a way that is to the disadvantage of residents.
Option 2: Reality.
See how that works? Each side could set up such unproductive arguments. However, anyone following this thread can see that the development interests are disproportionately using those.
So what's your explanation for the fact that a majority of voters in Montgomery County, consistently, for several elections now, have voted for candidates who support the policies you oppose?
What is your explanation for the existence of Marc Elrich?
Anonymous wrote:Blame the Builders Lobby/Association in your town.
They have run out of land to develop.
BS. The huge quantities of MoCo land that is underdeveloped. Turn the current commercial zoned areas into condos, apartments, etc. Developers would rather lobby to destroy SFH neighborhoods than develop the commercial properties. The land along the Pike is underutilized. It will never be office or retail space. Turn it into residential. The Pike has the infrastructure and Metro lines already there.
Listen to yourself. DESTROY SFH NEIGHBORHOODS!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 By allowing landowners to build duplexes.
Duplexes that will get turned into rentals. Ruin home ownership for the middle class and replace with rentals. Yay, we can all lay rent for the rest of our lives while building zero wealth. This is idiotic policy hidden under the guise of ‘improving affordable housing!’. It is nothing more than a land grab and stealing of wealth from the middle class.
Well, I guess you think renters are scary.
Renting sucks. Owning a home is the single biggest way the middle class is able to build wealth. But I bet you’re too financially stupid to understand this basic concept and are perfectly fine with ruining the last remaining pillar for the middle class. Yay, we will have your stupid socialist utopia when we are an entire nation of very mediocre renters for life beholden to corporations and investing group landlords who control all of the land and who can raise rents on a whim.
Are you a parody account?
Seriously, spend 1 minute on this. How in the world can housing be an unlimited source of wealth building? That wealth is only going up because housing prices go up, because NIMBYs stop housing production. Think about. Prices and home value don't go up unless more people want a more restricted good. Econ 101 champ.
Why do you hate renters so much? Why do you think certain people (owners) should get more wealth, where renters don't? Very selfish of you.
Owners should always get more wealth. They put up the capital and upkeep.
Renters get a place to live.
Why do business owners get wealthier versus a mid level manager?
If owners didn’t get more wealth than consumers there would be no incentive to invest and there would be no new housing. The left YIMBYs crack me up sometimes until I realize they’re making housing policy in this county.
Again, please explain how SFH owners can keep expecting faster-than-inflation property value growth, forever.
Please take Math 101 and get back to me when you realize that it's impossible.
I’m just curious: How did you decide that the previous poster said SFH owners need faster-than-inflation property value growth to come out ahead?
It's been the latest side-show to distract from their inability to address the concerns raised about additional densities, now pages back...
The distractions are endless.
By the way, speaking of pages back, did you know that not only are they not going to charge developers (or anyone else) increased impact fees for this mess, they plan to provide:
1. An exemption from the county’s development impact tax for three-bedroom and larger units in multi-family buildings.
2. A 50% discount on the development impact tax for single-family attached and detached dwellings that are 1,500 square feet or smaller (i.e., smaller homes, sometimes referred to as attainable housing)."
3. Increasing exemptions for 3bdrm+ apartments and halving them for attainable size housing (not to mention a bunch of other changes). In addition, a revamping the public points system to minimize “excessive” additional requirements for residential construction.
This is from the growth and infrastructure policy. They’re proposing to cut these fees even though there’s no evidence that smaller houses generate fewer students and there’s no evidence that lower fees benefit consumers. The impact fee program used to be structured very fairly. Fees were based on the number of students a particular type of housing was expected to generate. Since the program started, they’ve layered a number of exemptions and discounts into it, hollowing out one of two dedicated funding sources for the MCPS capital budget. As a result, we’ve seen school construction projects downsized and delayed.
Hans Riemer was responsible for messing up impact fees. He’s going to have left a lasting legacy of mismanagement in Moco.
This is all sad. I can understand wanting to upzone SFH areas that are close to metro. It's only a matter of time before greater density comes. But to not charge developers appropriate impact fees just indicates that the MoCo powers that be are in the pocket of developers. And the crowded MCPS schools and crumbling infrastructure are a testament to that.
Which crumbling infrastructure are you talking about, specifically? Are you talking about crowded and crumbling MCPS schools, or is there non-school infrastructure that you perceive as crumbling?
DP. I would say overburdened infrastructure (roads, parks, other county government facilities) rather than crumbling. Obviously existing residents need to foot the bill to get that back to healthy but we can’t keep falling further behind, so developers will need to foot the bill for their growth. If that means they have to settle for less profit, then so be it. We shouldn’t be subsidizing massive corporate profits.
What is your basis for saying that county roads, parks, and other county government facilities are overburdened?
OK.
Schools: Many of them are chronically overcrowded and have temporary classrooms, according to MCPS guidelines. Planning adopted a higher threshold for classifying a school as overcrowded, and even by that measure a number of schools are overcrowded.
Roads: I don’t think this needs explaining, but look at the Beltway or 270 at rush hour if you need more data.
Parks: Fields are booked wall to wall and some leagues can’t get the slots they need to meet demand in their programs. Because they’re used so much, a lot of the fields are bare, compacted dirt that is as hard as concrete.
And so on. The county did not scale infrastructure or services along with growth such that growth has caused the quality of life to deteriorate. It’s hard to be that incompetent, but that’s planning and the county council for you.
Needing someone to explain this to you makes YIMBYs look utterly clueless and hurts your credibility.
+100
Watch the YIMBY PP simply ignore this. Like a good cult member
People need to fight back before it is too late. This policy will destroy everything that made MOCO a desirable place to live. There will be nothing left to defend if people don't stand up to prevent ideological crazies.
Have you considered the possibility that this is actually something people want? The reason people aren't fighting back is because this is actually something people want?
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.
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.
07:38/poster to whom you responded.
Option 1: There never have been development interests that have co-opted governmental/regulatory bodies for their own enrichment in a way that is to the disadvantage of residents.
Option 2: Reality.
See how that works? Each side could set up such unproductive arguments. However, anyone following this thread can see that the development interests are disproportionately using those.
So what's your explanation for the fact that a majority of voters in Montgomery County, consistently, for several elections now, have voted for candidates who support the policies you oppose?
What’s your explanation for the terrible MoCo economy and the worst housing growth ever under two decades of YIMBY rule? You’re right that your side has won elections. Now be accountable for outcomes.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}