The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

[Anonymous]

There’s an article in The NY Times about how public official corruption in California has increased significantly because developers are throwing bribes around for zoning favors and other benefits. If it’s happening on such a scale in California, what has Bowser’s DC government become?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

The last 10 years in DC has been nonstop YIMBY and I’ve never seen so many homeless and smelled so much weed in my once safe neighborhood. I used to be able to walk into my local CVS and get laundry detergent without searching for a clerk with a key. We’re done with YIMBY.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

These people are in the pockets of developers and they brag about taking donations from them. They even held a YIMBYs for Harris campaign event yesterday that Governor Wes Moore enthusiastically attended. The guy leading this event was not even wearing a shirt while he was interviewing US congressman and governors. People were commenting on how density cures everything and that "America should look like Singapore". There is also significant overlap between this crown and the crazy people advocating for "wrap around" social services to fix all the problems in society. It is a complete racket financed by large developer groups to screw over middle class America. It's very ironic that they rail against zoning as benefiting "wealthy homeowners" when the reality is actually that zoning actually protects residents and taxpayers from greedy developers. The truly wealthy people do not have much of their net worth in homes and eliminating zoning altogether benefits their investment portfolio at the expense of regular middle class people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

The last 10 years in DC has been nonstop YIMBY and I’ve never seen so many homeless and smelled so much weed in my once safe neighborhood. I used to be able to walk into my local CVS and get laundry detergent without searching for a clerk with a key. We’re done with YIMBY.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

These people are in the pockets of developers and they brag about taking donations from them. They even held a YIMBYs for Harris campaign event yesterday that Governor Wes Moore enthusiastically attended. The guy leading this event was not even wearing a shirt while he was interviewing US congressman and governors. People were commenting on how density cures everything and that "America should look like Singapore". There is also significant overlap between this crown and the crazy people advocating for "wrap around" social services to fix all the problems in society. It is a complete racket financed by large developer groups to screw over middle class America. It's very ironic that they rail against zoning as benefiting "wealthy homeowners" when the reality is actually that zoning actually protects residents and taxpayers from greedy developers. The truly wealthy people do not have much of their net worth in homes and eliminating zoning altogether benefits their investment portfolio at the expense of regular middle class people.

Maybe the developers gave Wes Moore their special bronze star.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

The last 10 years in DC has been nonstop YIMBY and I’ve never seen so many homeless and smelled so much weed in my once safe neighborhood. I used to be able to walk into my local CVS and get laundry detergent without searching for a clerk with a key. We’re done with YIMBY.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

These people are in the pockets of developers and they brag about taking donations from them. They even held a YIMBYs for Harris campaign event yesterday that Governor Wes Moore enthusiastically attended. The guy leading this event was not even wearing a shirt while he was interviewing US congressman and governors. People were commenting on how density cures everything and that "America should look like Singapore". There is also significant overlap between this crown and the crazy people advocating for "wrap around" social services to fix all the problems in society. It is a complete racket financed by large developer groups to screw over middle class America. It's very ironic that they rail against zoning as benefiting "wealthy homeowners" when the reality is actually that zoning actually protects residents and taxpayers from greedy developers. The truly wealthy people do not have much of their net worth in homes and eliminating zoning altogether benefits their investment portfolio at the expense of regular middle class people.

Maybe the developers gave Wes Moore their special bronze star.

He is so corrupt and he doesn't even try to pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

The last 10 years in DC has been nonstop YIMBY and I’ve never seen so many homeless and smelled so much weed in my once safe neighborhood. I used to be able to walk into my local CVS and get laundry detergent without searching for a clerk with a key. We’re done with YIMBY.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

There's no demand for new housing, and also the new housing is too expensive. Weird.

It is weird because developers are concerned about absorption but prices keep going up. It’s almost as if they’re intentionally perpetuating a shortage to test the limits of how much people can spend on housing and maybe even colluding by sharing rent information with each other. So weird.

Ok, so there is a housing shortage.

Are big landlords colluding? Yes. Are big landlords developers? No.

Sometimes they’re the same people and a developer can’t get very far in building something if they don’t have a landlord lined up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

The last 10 years in DC has been nonstop YIMBY and I’ve never seen so many homeless and smelled so much weed in my once safe neighborhood. I used to be able to walk into my local CVS and get laundry detergent without searching for a clerk with a key. We’re done with YIMBY.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

These people are in the pockets of developers and they brag about taking donations from them. They even held a YIMBYs for Harris campaign event yesterday that Governor Wes Moore enthusiastically attended. The guy leading this event was not even wearing a shirt while he was interviewing US congressman and governors. People were commenting on how density cures everything and that "America should look like Singapore". There is also significant overlap between this crown and the crazy people advocating for "wrap around" social services to fix all the problems in society. It is a complete racket financed by large developer groups to screw over middle class America. It's very ironic that they rail against zoning as benefiting "wealthy homeowners" when the reality is actually that zoning actually protects residents and taxpayers from greedy developers. The truly wealthy people do not have much of their net worth in homes and eliminating zoning altogether benefits their investment portfolio at the expense of regular middle class people.

When DC starts meting out caning to “youth” car hackers and druggie street vagrants like Singapore does, then YIYBYs can talk about following Singapore zoning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

The last 10 years in DC has been nonstop YIMBY and I’ve never seen so many homeless and smelled so much weed in my once safe neighborhood. I used to be able to walk into my local CVS and get laundry detergent without searching for a clerk with a key. We’re done with YIMBY.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

These people are in the pockets of developers and they brag about taking donations from them. They even held a YIMBYs for Harris campaign event yesterday that Governor Wes Moore enthusiastically attended. The guy leading this event was not even wearing a shirt while he was interviewing US congressman and governors. People were commenting on how density cures everything and that "America should look like Singapore". There is also significant overlap between this crown and the crazy people advocating for "wrap around" social services to fix all the problems in society. It is a complete racket financed by large developer groups to screw over middle class America. It's very ironic that they rail against zoning as benefiting "wealthy homeowners" when the reality is actually that zoning actually protects residents and taxpayers from greedy developers. The truly wealthy people do not have much of their net worth in homes and eliminating zoning altogether benefits their investment portfolio at the expense of regular middle class people.

When DC starts meting out caning to “youth” car hackers and druggie street vagrants like Singapore does, then YIYBYs can talk about following Singapore zoning.

Another one was exited about upzoning because it will lead to more matches on Grindr...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unironically.
Most of you will hate this but I don’t care. We all need to suck it up and move into the 21st century, 25 years too late.

No more tweaking around the edges with low-level zoning reform or a few more metro stops or buses here and there. We need a broad scale systematic urban planning overhaul that completely eliminates single family zoning anywhere inside the Beltway.

Single family zoning is simply unsustainable. We can’t grow our economy if we don’t have new residents and we can’t have new residents if we don’t have homes. And if we don’t have more homes near better, reliable transit, then everyone will be more miserable stuck in traffic and less productive at work and less economically competitive. We need to completely eliminate suburban sprawl. The 1950s planned communities need to stay in the past. In a perfect world we’d move everyone closer in to promote re-wilding of our exurbs.

Nobody should be living in a single family suburban home and drive an SUV. It should be either urban, dense multi family dwelling walkable 15-minute neighborhoods, or rural homesteads, preferably using their land for organic family farming and solar fields and green spaces.

If it weren’t for American “but muh freedumb!” selfish ideology, I guarantee we would all have a much higher quality of life with less traffic, less stress, stronger communities, less obesity, and a better economy.

Bring on the YIMBY revolution.

The last 10 years in DC has been nonstop YIMBY and I’ve never seen so many homeless and smelled so much weed in my once safe neighborhood. I used to be able to walk into my local CVS and get laundry detergent without searching for a clerk with a key. We’re done with YIMBY.

If you go around Washington, literally tens of thousands of new residential units have been built in the last decade. Yet Washington’s population hasn’t grown very significantly. And if you believe in the Urbanist trickle down fallacy, if the demand curve is shallow and the supply curve is increasing, just where is the “attainable”, much less “affordable” housing that the YIMBYs promise?

These people are in the pockets of developers and they brag about taking donations from them. They even held a YIMBYs for Harris campaign event yesterday that Governor Wes Moore enthusiastically attended. The guy leading this event was not even wearing a shirt while he was interviewing US congressman and governors. People were commenting on how density cures everything and that "America should look like Singapore". There is also significant overlap between this crown and the crazy people advocating for "wrap around" social services to fix all the problems in society. It is a complete racket financed by large developer groups to screw over middle class America. It's very ironic that they rail against zoning as benefiting "wealthy homeowners" when the reality is actually that zoning actually protects residents and taxpayers from greedy developers. The truly wealthy people do not have much of their net worth in homes and eliminating zoning altogether benefits their investment portfolio at the expense of regular middle class people.

If only YIMBY land were like Singapore, the carjacking “youths” would be caned in the “green squares,” pot smokers would be in jail, and the homeless would be put in barracks in the middle of nowhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

His or her preferences are just as valid as yours, and just as foundational to policy making. I know that it’s upsetting that the current residents of affected neighborhoods aren’t quite ready to buy into “Friedman’s Miracle Elixir and Density Tonic.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the most disingenuous things that the YIMBYs are currently doing (looking at you Evan Glass) is trying to associate the opponents of this free for all residential zoning with people that generally object to building housing altogether, which is silly, of course.

I think that most everyone would be a proponent of building properly planned and zoned housing. To say otherwise is creative fiction.

+100. I have made this point twice already on just this thread and each time it is met with bemusement.

+1 Like the Bethesda "attainable" housing push right now. Why doesn't Bethesda use the word "affordable" housing, which has an actual definition of who qualifies for housing and which could actually benefit the community at large? Because that's not what developers want to build--they just want to push through the most profitable new developments even if there's inadequate infrastructure in place to manage the additional traffic and the overcrowding of schools.

Bethesda is not a municipal body. It is an unincorporated area. Bethesda doesn't use any words - not attainable, not affordable.

Ok the Attainable housing strategy of MoCo that will dramatically affect Bethesda and enrich the pocket of developers by reducing the quality of life for nearly everyone else

This is true, if "nearly everyone else" means "people who own a SFH (however you define that term) and don't want to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building" and "reduce the quality of life" means "potentially have to live next to a 2-4 unit residential building".

To the extent that the pockets of developers will be enriched, it will be because the developers build housing that people want to, and can afford to, live in. I don't know about you, but in my own life, I have found that having housing I want to, and can afford to, live in actually increases my quality of life.

Except we’ve already talked about the quality of life issues that come from increased density, but don’t bother engaging on any of that.

You have talked about some of the potential disadvantages, many of which are completely subjective (e.g., "I don't like density"), but you haven't talked about any of the potential advantages.

And you'll fully entitled to any I-don't-like-density preferences you might have, but it would be wise to keep in mind that they are preferences, not policy reasons.

His or her preferences are just as valid as yours, and just as foundational to policy making. I know that it’s upsetting that the current residents of affected neighborhoods aren’t quite ready to buy into “Friedman’s Miracle Elixir and Density Tonic.”

Nobody has said anybody's preferences are invalid. Or that anybody's preferences shouldn't be considered. Here's the asymmetry, though: supporters of the proposed zoning changes acknowledge that there are residents who oppose the zoning changes, but opponents of the proposed zoning changes do not acknowledge that there are residents who support the zoning changes.

In any case, "I personally don't like [something]" is not a policy reason against [something], just like "I personally like [something]" is not a policy reason for it.

I don't know who Friedman is.