"No Mass Development on Mass Ave" signs

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I love that DC has single family homes and that people can live in a decent-sized space within the city. And that's across all the wards. It's what makes DC DC. If you want to live in apartments, go to Crystal City or Washington Landing or whatever it's now called.

I love that DC has single family homes too, but do you know what I'd love even more? If people who owned single family zoned property were free to do whatever they wanted with the land that they own so that our massive housing shortage could be addressed.

The beauty of this plan is that literally everyone with a single family home who wants to keep their single family home can keep them. Your single family home can remain a single family home for as long as you live! The problem is that when people say "I love that DC has single family homes" they are not saying "I love that I can have a single family home," they are saying "I love that absolutely nobody who can't afford a single family home can gain a foothold in my neighborhood."

It's what makes DC DC. If you want to live in apartments, go to Crystal City or Washington Landing or whatever it's now called.

Two can play at that game. I love that DC has dense rowhouses and walkable neighborhoods. It's what makes DC DC. If you want a single family home and never ever want to see apartments buildings built in your line of view, go to Loudoun or Fauquier or wherever.

I grew up in a place where people can do whatever they want with their land. It is a hellscape called Houston. The reason that DC looks like it does is because of planning and zoning. Keep your laissez-faire for ugly cities built to accommodate cars, strip malls, and billboards.

Yes, Houston sucks. Good thing these zoning changes don't permit strip malls, commercial use, or anything like that. They only permit up to four residential units on a plot where previously only a SFH was permitted.

Oh, and I can't stress this enough . . . this is in Maryland, not DC, you nitwit.

Marylander here.
No way do I want to see up to FOUR!! residential units on a plot where CURRENTLY only a SFH was permitted.
Build this in your yard. Your neighbors' yards.
Many of us bought and live in SFH neighborhoods to do exactly that. We could have chosen to live adjacent to mix-use. Some do. Some do not.

This kind of hysteria really demonstrates how bereft of reason these objections are. First, neighborhoods change. There's no reason to encase them in amber. Second, the dreaded four-unit multi-unit building isn't going to be significantly (or any) larger than the large houses developers are putting up. Third, as another PP said, it isn't like all the houses on Mass Ave are getting razed for massive construction projects. If change happens, it will incremental. Fourth, much of the new construction will be a RDUs, rather than a 4-unit building. Fifth, you clearly don't know what "mixed-use" means.

It really does appear that the main objection in many neighborhoods (including mine) is that lots of current residents don't want to live too close to people who live in apartments, which means (charitably) "poor" people, or (less charitably) minorities.

Won't you think of the property prices!
And the imaginary overcrowding of schools. The whole foods will also be packed. Not to mention that there's the risk that poorer/different/younger ppl may move in.

The "culture" of the neighborhood we all love and cherish will be destroyed by the money grabbing developers, and by the younger families who want a place to live in. There's a special place in heaven for nimbys...

[Anonymous]

After they approve that they need to approve corner properties for liquor stores.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need more traffic on River Road and Mass Ave, and we need more overcrowded schools.

This is such a dumb talking point.

New housing doesn't cause new people to materialize out of thin air.

We need new housing because our population is growing - in many cases because people have children who grow up and don't want to live at home.

So the folks who need housing who we keep out of our neighborhoods will still be here they will just buy housing further out in the suburbs and guess what - they will still drive on River Road and Mass Avenue they will just driver greater distances on those roads.

And Montgomery County will have to spend more money, not less, on all of the infra including schools to accommodate them.

But maybe you don't have kids or your kids will live in your home forever?

So your position is that more housing won’t bring more residents and more kids for local schools to the neighborhood?

[Anonymous]

I agree with these signs. County Council has done nothing but destroy Moco. They want river and Mass b/c God Forbid, they still have one area left in the county with good schools..

lets flood it with low income housing and take every afterschool program away.

Anyway, not sure what the vote was , but all these neighborhoods have created covenants to keep from teardowns becoming townhomes or apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with these signs. County Council has done nothing but destroy Moco. They want river and Mass b/c God Forbid, they still have one area left in the county with good schools..

lets flood it with low income housing and take every afterschool program away.

Anyway, not sure what the vote was , but all these neighborhoods have created covenants to keep from teardowns becoming townhomes or apartments.

It passed. Overwhelmingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with these signs. County Council has done nothing but destroy Moco. They want river and Mass b/c God Forbid, they still have one area left in the county with good schools..

lets flood it with low income housing and take every afterschool program away.

Anyway, not sure what the vote was , but all these neighborhoods have created covenants to keep from teardowns becoming townhomes or apartments.

It passed. Overwhelmingly.

terrible county leadership. they ruin everything. time to go

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with these signs. County Council has done nothing but destroy Moco. They want river and Mass b/c God Forbid, they still have one area left in the county with good schools..

lets flood it with low income housing and take every afterschool program away.

Anyway, not sure what the vote was , but all these neighborhoods have created covenants to keep from teardowns becoming townhomes or apartments.

It passed. Overwhelmingly.

terrible county leadership. they ruin everything. time to go

you vote these far leftists into power and this is what you get. Arlington just paused this same thing b/c it didnt create ANY affordable housing. MOCO just approved ADU's with the same thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree with these signs. County Council has done nothing but destroy Moco. They want river and Mass b/c God Forbid, they still have one area left in the county with good schools..

lets flood it with low income housing and take every afterschool program away.

Anyway, not sure what the vote was , but all these neighborhoods have created covenants to keep from teardowns becoming townhomes or apartments.

It passed. Overwhelmingly.

There will be lawsuits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The County Council is about to vote on a proposal for upzoning across the county. They especially want to see mass development along Mass, River and other corridors, plus decimate single family neighborhoods within a mile of Metro.

maximizing housing near metro is smart policy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree with these signs. County Council has done nothing but destroy Moco. They want river and Mass b/c God Forbid, they still have one area left in the county with good schools..

lets flood it with low income housing and take every afterschool program away.

Anyway, not sure what the vote was , but all these neighborhoods have created covenants to keep from teardowns becoming townhomes or apartments.

I am sure you can sell your house for a 50% profit that someone else will be thrilled to purchase and you can move out to Howard or Frederick County and drive everywhere and live with generally soulless retail and food options. Have fun!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We need more traffic on River Road and Mass Ave, and we need more overcrowded schools.

This is such a dumb talking point.

New housing doesn't cause new people to materialize out of thin air.

We need new housing because our population is growing - in many cases because people have children who grow up and don't want to live at home.

So the folks who need housing who we keep out of our neighborhoods will still be here they will just buy housing further out in the suburbs and guess what - they will still drive on River Road and Mass Avenue they will just driver greater distances on those roads.

And Montgomery County will have to spend more money, not less, on all of the infra including schools to accommodate them.

But maybe you don't have kids or your kids will live in your home forever?

So your position is that more housing won’t bring more residents and more kids for local schools to the neighborhood?

DP...once upon a time, there were people living in DC and where your house is was a forest or field. The choice today is to build more cul de sac housing way out in the exurbs, or take advantage of the regional investment in metro and concentrate more dense housing around the metro so the road capacity won't be further constrained. Does that mean there may be more schools needed with boundaries redrawn every decade or two? Sure. That is the way it has been for a century. There shouldn't be an expectation that human development is set in amber, never to change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don’t want for our neighborhoods to to be upzoned.
Our schools, services, traffic do not need this additional density. And it won’t benefit anyone but developers.

Benefits the people who will live there.