MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for the YIMBYs who said voters have consistently voted for YIMBY candidates to explain what’s gone so wrong and why their policies have produced anemic housing growth, no jobs, and broken budgets.

You're the only one who has said this.

Nah. The YIMBY earlier in the thread said “ 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?”

Consistently for “several elections,” candidates who support YIMBY policies have won elections, according to the YIMBYs. Your side has won at the ballot box. Now own the results.

You might actually get more housing if you could admit that these policies have failed, but for some reason you continue dominating policy discussions with the same bad ideas. If it were me, and I kept doing the same things and housing kept getting worse, I’d try something different.

"Candidates who support the policies you oppose" is not the same as "YIMBY candidates."

Recent elections: 2018, 2022. Maybe you expect huge results with respect to housing, based on policy changes made within the last 6 years, including covid. I don't.

You didn’t say last two elections. You said several, so go back to at least 2014. And I didn’t say YIMBY candidates above, I said candidates who support YIMBY policies, so your distinction is irrelevant.

Name a single land use vote the YIMBYs have lost since 2004 (or 2014). You haven’t named a single one over two pages, so let’s just agree that you can’t because the YIMBYs have prevailed in every major land use vote. A big expert like yourself should be able identify the votes you lost and the impact those failed initiatives had on the housing market.

There’s no way around it: You own this. Now own the results. There’s been time for your subsidies and zoning changes and all the rest to work before COVID and there’s been time for them to work after. Other local economies and housing markets have bounced back since COVID. This one continues to get worse.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Seriously. You're over here, anonymously being nasty to another anonymous person on the internet, saying "your policies are terrible and it's all your fault." Why are you wasting your time? Is this getting you what you want? Whatever that might be.

Pretty sure that the poster is trying to point out that the policies are bad and we shouldn’t accept more of them, which is the entire subject of the thread. Why are you and the other YIMBYs here? Is this more gaslighting? When you are losing an argument you claim that the other party is too aggressive/sensitive/crazy/racist or whatever suits your argument at the time?

What are YOU getting out of it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for the YIMBYs who said voters have consistently voted for YIMBY candidates to explain what’s gone so wrong and why their policies have produced anemic housing growth, no jobs, and broken budgets.

You're the only one who has said this.

Nah. The YIMBY earlier in the thread said “ 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?”

Consistently for “several elections,” candidates who support YIMBY policies have won elections, according to the YIMBYs. Your side has won at the ballot box. Now own the results.

You might actually get more housing if you could admit that these policies have failed, but for some reason you continue dominating policy discussions with the same bad ideas. If it were me, and I kept doing the same things and housing kept getting worse, I’d try something different.

"Candidates who support the policies you oppose" is not the same as "YIMBY candidates."

Recent elections: 2018, 2022. Maybe you expect huge results with respect to housing, based on policy changes made within the last 6 years, including covid. I don't.

You didn’t say last two elections. You said several, so go back to at least 2014. And I didn’t say YIMBY candidates above, I said candidates who support YIMBY policies, so your distinction is irrelevant.

Name a single land use vote the YIMBYs have lost since 2004 (or 2014). You haven’t named a single one over two pages, so let’s just agree that you can’t because the YIMBYs have prevailed in every major land use vote. A big expert like yourself should be able identify the votes you lost and the impact those failed initiatives had on the housing market.

There’s no way around it: You own this. Now own the results. There’s been time for your subsidies and zoning changes and all the rest to work before COVID and there’s been time for them to work after. Other local economies and housing markets have bounced back since COVID. This one continues to get worse.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Seriously. You're over here, anonymously being nasty to another anonymous person on the internet, saying "your policies are terrible and it's all your fault." Why are you wasting your time? Is this getting you what you want? Whatever that might be.

What I actually want is growth. YIMBY initiatives haven’t delivered even though they’ve had broad support on the council and have become the prevailing land use policy in MoCo. I’d like to know why you think YIMBY policies have failed and how you think YIMBYs need to change course. If you can’t do that, you should consider whether your continued advocacy is helpful or harmful to growth. That’s not nasty. It’s honest.

Ok, so go advocate for growth. Anonymously typing out rude remarks to other anonymous people, on the internet, is not advocating for growth.

I, personally, do not believe that most of the County Council members are YIMBYs; I think they've only just recently, and not completely, started shifting towards the kinds of policies I would like to see; and to the extent they have made policy changes I support, those policy changes have been either small, or recent, or both. So no, I don't think YIMBY policies have failed.

As for your desire for growth? All growth, any growth, of any kind, anywhere, anyhow? No, I don't support that.

What I do know is that the future won't be like the present, let alone the past, no matter how much people might try to stop it. Climate change is happening now, and its local, national, and global effects are just going to get more disastrous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for the YIMBYs who said voters have consistently voted for YIMBY candidates to explain what’s gone so wrong and why their policies have produced anemic housing growth, no jobs, and broken budgets.

You're the only one who has said this.

Nah. The YIMBY earlier in the thread said “ 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?”

Consistently for “several elections,” candidates who support YIMBY policies have won elections, according to the YIMBYs. Your side has won at the ballot box. Now own the results.

You might actually get more housing if you could admit that these policies have failed, but for some reason you continue dominating policy discussions with the same bad ideas. If it were me, and I kept doing the same things and housing kept getting worse, I’d try something different.

"Candidates who support the policies you oppose" is not the same as "YIMBY candidates."

Recent elections: 2018, 2022. Maybe you expect huge results with respect to housing, based on policy changes made within the last 6 years, including covid. I don't.

You didn’t say last two elections. You said several, so go back to at least 2014. And I didn’t say YIMBY candidates above, I said candidates who support YIMBY policies, so your distinction is irrelevant.

Name a single land use vote the YIMBYs have lost since 2004 (or 2014). You haven’t named a single one over two pages, so let’s just agree that you can’t because the YIMBYs have prevailed in every major land use vote. A big expert like yourself should be able identify the votes you lost and the impact those failed initiatives had on the housing market.

There’s no way around it: You own this. Now own the results. There’s been time for your subsidies and zoning changes and all the rest to work before COVID and there’s been time for them to work after. Other local economies and housing markets have bounced back since COVID. This one continues to get worse.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Seriously. You're over here, anonymously being nasty to another anonymous person on the internet, saying "your policies are terrible and it's all your fault." Why are you wasting your time? Is this getting you what you want? Whatever that might be.

Pretty sure that the poster is trying to point out that the policies are bad and we shouldn’t accept more of them, which is the entire subject of the thread. Why are you and the other YIMBYs here? Is this more gaslighting? When you are losing an argument you claim that the other party is too aggressive/sensitive/crazy/racist or whatever suits your argument at the time?

What are YOU getting out of it?

You're using "gaslighting" wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for the YIMBYs who said voters have consistently voted for YIMBY candidates to explain what’s gone so wrong and why their policies have produced anemic housing growth, no jobs, and broken budgets.

You're the only one who has said this.

Nah. The YIMBY earlier in the thread said “ 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?”

Consistently for “several elections,” candidates who support YIMBY policies have won elections, according to the YIMBYs. Your side has won at the ballot box. Now own the results.

You might actually get more housing if you could admit that these policies have failed, but for some reason you continue dominating policy discussions with the same bad ideas. If it were me, and I kept doing the same things and housing kept getting worse, I’d try something different.

"Candidates who support the policies you oppose" is not the same as "YIMBY candidates."

Recent elections: 2018, 2022. Maybe you expect huge results with respect to housing, based on policy changes made within the last 6 years, including covid. I don't.

You didn’t say last two elections. You said several, so go back to at least 2014. And I didn’t say YIMBY candidates above, I said candidates who support YIMBY policies, so your distinction is irrelevant.

Name a single land use vote the YIMBYs have lost since 2004 (or 2014). You haven’t named a single one over two pages, so let’s just agree that you can’t because the YIMBYs have prevailed in every major land use vote. A big expert like yourself should be able identify the votes you lost and the impact those failed initiatives had on the housing market.

There’s no way around it: You own this. Now own the results. There’s been time for your subsidies and zoning changes and all the rest to work before COVID and there’s been time for them to work after. Other local economies and housing markets have bounced back since COVID. This one continues to get worse.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Seriously. You're over here, anonymously being nasty to another anonymous person on the internet, saying "your policies are terrible and it's all your fault." Why are you wasting your time? Is this getting you what you want? Whatever that might be.

What I actually want is growth. YIMBY initiatives haven’t delivered even though they’ve had broad support on the council and have become the prevailing land use policy in MoCo. I’d like to know why you think YIMBY policies have failed and how you think YIMBYs need to change course. If you can’t do that, you should consider whether your continued advocacy is helpful or harmful to growth. That’s not nasty. It’s honest.

Ok, so go advocate for growth. Anonymously typing out rude remarks to other anonymous people, on the internet, is not advocating for growth.

I, personally, do not believe that most of the County Council members are YIMBYs; I think they've only just recently, and not completely, started shifting towards the kinds of policies I would like to see; and to the extent they have made policy changes I support, those policy changes have been either small, or recent, or both. So no, I don't think YIMBY policies have failed.

As for your desire for growth? All growth, any growth, of any kind, anywhere, anyhow? No, I don't support that.

What I do know is that the future won't be like the present, let alone the past, no matter how much people might try to stop it. Climate change is happening now, and its local, national, and global effects are just going to get more disastrous.

You still haven’t named a single YIMBY initiative that’s been voted down by the Council. I’ll even give you planning. What YIMBY initiative has been voted down at planning? The fact is you’ve been wildly successfully at getting your programs supported but you have nothing positive to show for any of it. That’s not rude. It’s the truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for the YIMBYs who said voters have consistently voted for YIMBY candidates to explain what’s gone so wrong and why their policies have produced anemic housing growth, no jobs, and broken budgets.

You're the only one who has said this.

Nah. The YIMBY earlier in the thread said “ 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?”

Consistently for “several elections,” candidates who support YIMBY policies have won elections, according to the YIMBYs. Your side has won at the ballot box. Now own the results.

You might actually get more housing if you could admit that these policies have failed, but for some reason you continue dominating policy discussions with the same bad ideas. If it were me, and I kept doing the same things and housing kept getting worse, I’d try something different.

"Candidates who support the policies you oppose" is not the same as "YIMBY candidates."

Recent elections: 2018, 2022. Maybe you expect huge results with respect to housing, based on policy changes made within the last 6 years, including covid. I don't.

You didn’t say last two elections. You said several, so go back to at least 2014. And I didn’t say YIMBY candidates above, I said candidates who support YIMBY policies, so your distinction is irrelevant.

Name a single land use vote the YIMBYs have lost since 2004 (or 2014). You haven’t named a single one over two pages, so let’s just agree that you can’t because the YIMBYs have prevailed in every major land use vote. A big expert like yourself should be able identify the votes you lost and the impact those failed initiatives had on the housing market.

There’s no way around it: You own this. Now own the results. There’s been time for your subsidies and zoning changes and all the rest to work before COVID and there’s been time for them to work after. Other local economies and housing markets have bounced back since COVID. This one continues to get worse.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Seriously. You're over here, anonymously being nasty to another anonymous person on the internet, saying "your policies are terrible and it's all your fault." Why are you wasting your time? Is this getting you what you want? Whatever that might be.

What I actually want is growth. YIMBY initiatives haven’t delivered even though they’ve had broad support on the council and have become the prevailing land use policy in MoCo. I’d like to know why you think YIMBY policies have failed and how you think YIMBYs need to change course. If you can’t do that, you should consider whether your continued advocacy is helpful or harmful to growth. That’s not nasty. It’s honest.

Ok, so go advocate for growth. Anonymously typing out rude remarks to other anonymous people, on the internet, is not advocating for growth.

I, personally, do not believe that most of the County Council members are YIMBYs; I think they've only just recently, and not completely, started shifting towards the kinds of policies I would like to see; and to the extent they have made policy changes I support, those policy changes have been either small, or recent, or both. So no, I don't think YIMBY policies have failed.

As for your desire for growth? All growth, any growth, of any kind, anywhere, anyhow? No, I don't support that.

What I do know is that the future won't be like the present, let alone the past, no matter how much people might try to stop it. Climate change is happening now, and its local, national, and global effects are just going to get more disastrous.

You still haven’t named a single YIMBY initiative that’s been voted down by the Council. I’ll even give you planning. What YIMBY initiative has been voted down at planning? The fact is you’ve been wildly successfully at getting your programs supported but you have nothing positive to show for any of it. That’s not rude. It’s the truth.

What do you consider a YIMBY initiative that Planning voted on?

I guess I should be encouraged that you think "my programs" are winning, whatever "my programs" even are, because what I perceive is small, limited, marginal, slow improvements. NOT wild success. Although it's true that I think the small, limited, marginal, slow improvements are positive change, on net.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for the YIMBYs who said voters have consistently voted for YIMBY candidates to explain what’s gone so wrong and why their policies have produced anemic housing growth, no jobs, and broken budgets.

You're the only one who has said this.

Nah. The YIMBY earlier in the thread said “ 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?”

Consistently for “several elections,” candidates who support YIMBY policies have won elections, according to the YIMBYs. Your side has won at the ballot box. Now own the results.

You might actually get more housing if you could admit that these policies have failed, but for some reason you continue dominating policy discussions with the same bad ideas. If it were me, and I kept doing the same things and housing kept getting worse, I’d try something different.

"Candidates who support the policies you oppose" is not the same as "YIMBY candidates."

Recent elections: 2018, 2022. Maybe you expect huge results with respect to housing, based on policy changes made within the last 6 years, including covid. I don't.

You didn’t say last two elections. You said several, so go back to at least 2014. And I didn’t say YIMBY candidates above, I said candidates who support YIMBY policies, so your distinction is irrelevant.

Name a single land use vote the YIMBYs have lost since 2004 (or 2014). You haven’t named a single one over two pages, so let’s just agree that you can’t because the YIMBYs have prevailed in every major land use vote. A big expert like yourself should be able identify the votes you lost and the impact those failed initiatives had on the housing market.

There’s no way around it: You own this. Now own the results. There’s been time for your subsidies and zoning changes and all the rest to work before COVID and there’s been time for them to work after. Other local economies and housing markets have bounced back since COVID. This one continues to get worse.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Seriously. You're over here, anonymously being nasty to another anonymous person on the internet, saying "your policies are terrible and it's all your fault." Why are you wasting your time? Is this getting you what you want? Whatever that might be.

What I actually want is growth. YIMBY initiatives haven’t delivered even though they’ve had broad support on the council and have become the prevailing land use policy in MoCo. I’d like to know why you think YIMBY policies have failed and how you think YIMBYs need to change course. If you can’t do that, you should consider whether your continued advocacy is helpful or harmful to growth. That’s not nasty. It’s honest.

Ok, so go advocate for growth. Anonymously typing out rude remarks to other anonymous people, on the internet, is not advocating for growth.

I, personally, do not believe that most of the County Council members are YIMBYs; I think they've only just recently, and not completely, started shifting towards the kinds of policies I would like to see; and to the extent they have made policy changes I support, those policy changes have been either small, or recent, or both. So no, I don't think YIMBY policies have failed.

As for your desire for growth? All growth, any growth, of any kind, anywhere, anyhow? No, I don't support that.

What I do know is that the future won't be like the present, let alone the past, no matter how much people might try to stop it. Climate change is happening now, and its local, national, and global effects are just going to get more disastrous.

You still haven’t named a single YIMBY initiative that’s been voted down by the Council. I’ll even give you planning. What YIMBY initiative has been voted down at planning? The fact is you’ve been wildly successfully at getting your programs supported but you have nothing positive to show for any of it. That’s not rude. It’s the truth.

What do you consider a YIMBY initiative that Planning voted on?

I guess I should be encouraged that you think "my programs" are winning, whatever "my programs" even are, because what I perceive is small, limited, marginal, slow improvements. NOT wild success. Although it's true that I think the small, limited, marginal, slow improvements are positive change, on net.

You’re best positioned to tell everyone where you’ve lost. If your criticism is that Planning is too slow, that’s valid and I suggest you direct your energy there. They spent five or six years on this attainable housing strategy and that was after they determined it wasn’t going to add much housing during year one or two of the process. Imagine if they had spent that time on the things that were actually scaring off builders and addressed those.

[Anonymous]

I sorta assumed Ehrlich was all for this but nope, he opposes it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:People move to SFH neighborhoods specifically to have space. They are going to ruin the entire county until it is paved concrete jungle like Tokyo and we all get to live in sh!tty 400 sqft apts.

But hey, at least the crappy chipotle down the street is walkable. I can’t wait until this stupendously backfires and everyone with means (by and large part home owners) flees because all of the upzoning imports tons of poverty and trashy people into the county. Gee, you mean it sucks when your neighborhood street has 30000 cars parked all over because each triplex houses 20 people all with their own cars?

R.I.P. MoCo. Howard and AA Counties looking more attractive by the day.

This is so off-base. Everyone moving into these upzoned pod apartments will walk and bicycle everywhere! lol

Are they pod apartments, or are they luxury apartments? Or maybe they are luxury pod apartments?

If you want to move to Howard County or Anne Arundel County, you are free to do so.

If you want to move to DC, or areas with previously established higher density, you, and others, are free to do so.

Well, no. This would be a reasonable response if someone posted "omg Potomac is a car-dependent exurban hellscape, DC is looking more attractive by the day!" but nobody did. "I hate it here, I want to move" is different from "I support (or oppose) changes to Montgomery County's policies on housing, land use, and transportation."

It's a reasonable tongue-in-cheek response to the blithe you're-free-to-move-if-you-don't-like-the-changes-we're-pushing sentiment.

They hate the prospect of the changes to what they like about the place in which they have invested considerable life energies when choosing that place as their residence, with that prospect informed by the changes they have seen thus far from similar policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for the YIMBYs who said voters have consistently voted for YIMBY candidates to explain what’s gone so wrong and why their policies have produced anemic housing growth, no jobs, and broken budgets.

You're the only one who has said this.

Nah. The YIMBY earlier in the thread said “ 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?”

Consistently for “several elections,” candidates who support YIMBY policies have won elections, according to the YIMBYs. Your side has won at the ballot box. Now own the results.

You might actually get more housing if you could admit that these policies have failed, but for some reason you continue dominating policy discussions with the same bad ideas. If it were me, and I kept doing the same things and housing kept getting worse, I’d try something different.

"Candidates who support the policies you oppose" is not the same as "YIMBY candidates."

Recent elections: 2018, 2022. Maybe you expect huge results with respect to housing, based on policy changes made within the last 6 years, including covid. I don't.

You didn’t say last two elections. You said several, so go back to at least 2014. And I didn’t say YIMBY candidates above, I said candidates who support YIMBY policies, so your distinction is irrelevant.

Name a single land use vote the YIMBYs have lost since 2004 (or 2014). You haven’t named a single one over two pages, so let’s just agree that you can’t because the YIMBYs have prevailed in every major land use vote. A big expert like yourself should be able identify the votes you lost and the impact those failed initiatives had on the housing market.

There’s no way around it: You own this. Now own the results. There’s been time for your subsidies and zoning changes and all the rest to work before COVID and there’s been time for them to work after. Other local economies and housing markets have bounced back since COVID. This one continues to get worse.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Seriously. You're over here, anonymously being nasty to another anonymous person on the internet, saying "your policies are terrible and it's all your fault." Why are you wasting your time? Is this getting you what you want? Whatever that might be.

Pretty sure that the poster is trying to point out that the policies are bad and we shouldn’t accept more of them, which is the entire subject of the thread. Why are you and the other YIMBYs here? Is this more gaslighting? When you are losing an argument you claim that the other party is too aggressive/sensitive/crazy/racist or whatever suits your argument at the time?

What are YOU getting out of it?

You're using "gaslighting" wrong.

"Gaslighting" is being misused versus it's quasi-strict psychological definition. The term has become overused in recent years, with common misuse referring to the misrepresentation or mischaracterization of another's position as coming from or being related to a faulty or emotional mental state, with the intention of discrediting that position, either in conjunction with a weak counter-argument or in the absence of a counter-argument altogether.

Given the rise in that technical misuse, the relative linguistic recency of the term and the evolving nature of word meanings in living languages, I would not be surprised if, in a decade or so, that misuse became an accepted definition. As it stands, the PP might have characterized the PPP as having mischaracterized their own previous post by terming it "nasty " with the presumed aim of detracting from their argument, as above, especially considering the dismissive "Whatever that might be" at the end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I sorta assumed Ehrlich was all for this but nope, he opposes it

Elrich has no role in land use. The council has all of the authority and works through planning. Elrich doesn’t matter at all in this conversation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Still waiting for the YIMBYs who said voters have consistently voted for YIMBY candidates to explain what’s gone so wrong and why their policies have produced anemic housing growth, no jobs, and broken budgets.

You're the only one who has said this.

Nah. The YIMBY earlier in the thread said “ 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?”

Consistently for “several elections,” candidates who support YIMBY policies have won elections, according to the YIMBYs. Your side has won at the ballot box. Now own the results.

You might actually get more housing if you could admit that these policies have failed, but for some reason you continue dominating policy discussions with the same bad ideas. If it were me, and I kept doing the same things and housing kept getting worse, I’d try something different.

"Candidates who support the policies you oppose" is not the same as "YIMBY candidates."

Recent elections: 2018, 2022. Maybe you expect huge results with respect to housing, based on policy changes made within the last 6 years, including covid. I don't.

You didn’t say last two elections. You said several, so go back to at least 2014. And I didn’t say YIMBY candidates above, I said candidates who support YIMBY policies, so your distinction is irrelevant.

Name a single land use vote the YIMBYs have lost since 2004 (or 2014). You haven’t named a single one over two pages, so let’s just agree that you can’t because the YIMBYs have prevailed in every major land use vote. A big expert like yourself should be able identify the votes you lost and the impact those failed initiatives had on the housing market.

There’s no way around it: You own this. Now own the results. There’s been time for your subsidies and zoning changes and all the rest to work before COVID and there’s been time for them to work after. Other local economies and housing markets have bounced back since COVID. This one continues to get worse.

What are you trying to accomplish here? Seriously. You're over here, anonymously being nasty to another anonymous person on the internet, saying "your policies are terrible and it's all your fault." Why are you wasting your time? Is this getting you what you want? Whatever that might be.

Pretty sure that the poster is trying to point out that the policies are bad and we shouldn’t accept more of them, which is the entire subject of the thread. Why are you and the other YIMBYs here? Is this more gaslighting? When you are losing an argument you claim that the other party is too aggressive/sensitive/crazy/racist or whatever suits your argument at the time?

What are YOU getting out of it?

You're using "gaslighting" wrong.

"Gaslighting" is being misused versus it's quasi-strict psychological definition. The term has become overused in recent years, with common misuse referring to the misrepresentation or mischaracterization of another's position as coming from or being related to a faulty or emotional mental state, with the intention of discrediting that position, either in conjunction with a weak counter-argument or in the absence of a counter-argument altogether.

Given the rise in that technical misuse, the relative linguistic recency of the term and the evolving nature of word meanings in living languages, I would not be surprised if, in a decade or so, that misuse became an accepted definition. As it stands, the PP might have characterized the PPP as having mischaracterized their own previous post by terming it "nasty " with the presumed aim of detracting from their argument, as above, especially considering the dismissive "Whatever that might be" at the end.

Man, are all of the YImBYs this silly?

It’s their clear tactic to present unproven, emotionally based, and many times, clearly false or totally unrelated information as “proof” that they are right or as a method of discrediting and invaliding the beliefs and arguments of people that don’t agree with them. They do not care one bit about anyone that stands in the way of the cult.

Do you want the current APA definition?

to manipulate another person into doubting their perceptions, experiences, or understanding of events. The term once referred to manipulation so extreme as to induce mental illness or to justify commitment of the gaslighted person to a psychiatric institution but is now used more generally. It is usually considered a colloquialism, though occasionally it is seen in clinical literature, referring, for example, to the manipulative tactics associated with antisocial personality disorder

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sorta assumed Ehrlich was all for this but nope, he opposes it

Elrich has no role in land use. The council has all of the authority and works through planning. Elrich doesn’t matter at all in this conversation.

Can he not veto a decision?

Then they have to have show a unanimous vote to override the veto?

Trust me, the council knew what they were doing here well. This upzoning has been planned for a long time.

https://moco360.media/2023/03/28/county-council-unanimously-overrides-elrichs-veto-of-planning-board-appointee/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sorta assumed Ehrlich was all for this but nope, he opposes it

Elrich has no role in land use. The council has all of the authority and works through planning. Elrich doesn’t matter at all in this conversation.

Can he not veto a decision?

Then they have to have show a unanimous vote to override the veto?

Trust me, the council knew what they were doing here well. This upzoning has been planned for a long time.

https://moco360.media/2023/03/28/county-council-unanimously-overrides-elrichs-veto-of-planning-board-appointee/

He cannot veto zoning text amendments or master plans because they do not require his approval. The upzoning should have happened a long time ago buy planning and the advocates prioritized performative urbanism over getting something done.

[Anonymous]

There’s sadly way too much “community involvement” and “environmental studies”. Anybody can make a fuss and block a project, it’s crazy! With these, there’s no way the county can grow to the level it needs to be competitive to NOVA. Maryland is a bunch of busybodies that love to shuffle money around without anything getting done. Let people build, let businesses come and make money. It’s not that hard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s sadly way too much “community involvement” and “environmental studies”. Anybody can make a fuss and block a project, it’s crazy! With these, there’s no way the county can grow to the level it needs to be competitive to NOVA. Maryland is a bunch of busybodies that love to shuffle money around without anything getting done. Let people build, let businesses come and make money. It’s not that hard.

What “environmental studies” are being done or even legally mandated? What an absolutely idiotic and bizarre statement.