The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[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.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

[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.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Victimhood is not a good look here. Opponents have acknowledged the proponents, frequently suggesting the proponents move to an established neighborhood that suits their preferences (a sentiment with which I disagree). Proponents have made similar suggestions to opponents. Engage the substance instead of playing the victim. If all you bring to the table is victimhood, then please bow out of the conversation because you’re not helping.

The substance is this: Upzoning is a good option for breaking the rental housing business cycle, which results in shortages and high housing prices, because upzoning allows for smaller scale MF construction with different economics from big MF housing developments. Because smaller scale MF development will also bring new players into the market, upzoning also dilutes the market power of big landlords and developers, who have colluded to push prices even higher. The compact growth initiatives of the past 20 years, which sought to preference MF high-rise over other types of residential construction, weren’t implemented well and had the perfectly foreseeable consequences of housing shortages and rapidly escalating prices. Upzoning is part of the solution for fixing that.

For the NIMBYs who have blamed big developers for the upzoning push, take a close look and see how many big developers are advocating upzoning. You’ll have to look hard because they like upzoning just a little more than they like rent control. For the YIMBYs who have said we need to let the market decide what gets built, I look forward to seeing you oppose subsidies as vigorously as you support upzoning.

[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.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

+1 This. A big condo was constructed in Bethsda and MoCo let them get away with an impact assessment statement that the condo was expected to add 3 children to the public school population. In that way the developer avoided paying major fees. But unsurprisingly, a lot more than 3 kids from that big building joined MCPS. The developer gets all the profits, and we get kindergarten classes with 29 kids and 1 teacher. I don't hate density--I just think that the costs and benefits need to be shared in a way that the everyday citizen benefits, not just the developers. And that means MoCo Planning needs to do their job and not just rubber stamp developer documents that strain credulity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

+1 This. A big condo was constructed in Bethsda and MoCo let them get away with an impact assessment statement that the condo was expected to add 3 children to the public school population. In that way the developer avoided paying major fees. But unsurprisingly, a lot more than 3 kids from that big building joined MCPS. The developer gets all the profits, and we get kindergarten classes with 29 kids and 1 teacher. I don't hate density--I just think that the costs and benefits need to be shared in a way that the everyday citizen benefits, not just the developers. And that means MoCo Planning needs to do their job and not just rubber stamp developer documents that strain credulity.

No, that's not how impact fees work.

Could you please name the big condo, so I can look up the approval? I'm interested to see the specifics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Victimhood is not a good look here. Opponents have acknowledged the proponents, frequently suggesting the proponents move to an established neighborhood that suits their preferences (a sentiment with which I disagree). Proponents have made similar suggestions to opponents. Engage the substance instead of playing the victim. If all you bring to the table is victimhood, then please bow out of the conversation because you’re not helping.

The substance is this: Upzoning is a good option for breaking the rental housing business cycle, which results in shortages and high housing prices, because upzoning allows for smaller scale MF construction with different economics from big MF housing developments. Because smaller scale MF development will also bring new players into the market, upzoning also dilutes the market power of big landlords and developers, who have colluded to push prices even higher. The compact growth initiatives of the past 20 years, which sought to preference MF high-rise over other types of residential construction, weren’t implemented well and had the perfectly foreseeable consequences of housing shortages and rapidly escalating prices. Upzoning is part of the solution for fixing that.

For the NIMBYs who have blamed big developers for the upzoning push, take a close look and see how many big developers are advocating upzoning. You’ll have to look hard because they like upzoning just a little more than they like rent control. For the YIMBYs who have said we need to let the market decide what gets built, I look forward to seeing you oppose subsidies as vigorously as you support upzoning.

Victim who? Victim what? Who is saying that they are victims, and who thinks this is unattractive?

[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.

So why is this being pushed in the name of "equity"? If MoCo wants to prioritize big developers building condos that are expensive, let them state that clearly. Attainable housing is not the same thing as affordable housing.

[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.

So why is this being pushed in the name of "equity"? If MoCo wants to prioritize big developers building condos that are expensive, let them state that clearly. Attainable housing is not the same thing as affordable housing.

I think housing is an equity issue. Don't you?

[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.

So why is this being pushed in the name of "equity"? If MoCo wants to prioritize big developers building condos that are expensive, let them state that clearly. Attainable housing is not the same thing as affordable housing.

I think housing is an equity issue. Don't you?

Housing is not an equity issue. The reason people cannot find suitable housing is an equity issue. Some of the people were born into circumstances or with conditions that limited their chance of succeeding in the world. Other people were born into circumstances that gave them every opportunity to succeed but they decided to adopt choices that did not provide the success they needed to rent or buy the type of housing to which they felt entitled.

[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.

So why is this being pushed in the name of "equity"? If MoCo wants to prioritize big developers building condos that are expensive, let them state that clearly. Attainable housing is not the same thing as affordable housing.

I think housing is an equity issue. Don't you?

Housing is not an equity issue. The reason people cannot find suitable housing is an equity issue. Some of the people were born into circumstances or with conditions that limited their chance of succeeding in the world. Other people were born into circumstances that gave them every opportunity to succeed but they decided to adopt choices that did not provide the success they needed to rent or buy the type of housing to which they felt entitled.

Evidently we have some very basic disagreements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

DP. Victimhood is not a good look here. Opponents have acknowledged the proponents, frequently suggesting the proponents move to an established neighborhood that suits their preferences (a sentiment with which I disagree). Proponents have made similar suggestions to opponents. Engage the substance instead of playing the victim. If all you bring to the table is victimhood, then please bow out of the conversation because you’re not helping.

The substance is this: Upzoning is a good option for breaking the rental housing business cycle, which results in shortages and high housing prices, because upzoning allows for smaller scale MF construction with different economics from big MF housing developments. Because smaller scale MF development will also bring new players into the market, upzoning also dilutes the market power of big landlords and developers, who have colluded to push prices even higher. The compact growth initiatives of the past 20 years, which sought to preference MF high-rise over other types of residential construction, weren’t implemented well and had the perfectly foreseeable consequences of housing shortages and rapidly escalating prices. Upzoning is part of the solution for fixing that.

For the NIMBYs who have blamed big developers for the upzoning push, take a close look and see how many big developers are advocating upzoning. You’ll have to look hard because they like upzoning just a little more than they like rent control. For the YIMBYs who have said we need to let the market decide what gets built, I look forward to seeing you oppose subsidies as vigorously as you support upzoning.

Victim who? Victim what? Who is saying that they are victims, and who thinks this is unattractive?

“I’m a an obnoxious YIMBY who prefers arguing about housing to actually having more housing.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Except I didn’t say “I don’t like density,” I said there were challenges created to schools, parking, traffic, and other infrastructure that local governments fail to address while eagerly shilling for developers. All of which are policy reasons. But you continue to fail to acknowledge any of these, because you aren’t a serious person and this isn’t a serious discussion (and never is with dense YIMBYs).

Yes, you did, but much of what you said is non-factual. Not to mention that "eagerly shilling for developers" is 100% opinion, of course.

By the way, I'm not a YIMBY. I just support the proposed zoning changes.

“Much of what you said is non-factual.” Lol. Every one of these issues is an actual issue in Alexandria, and elsewhere.

Arlington too. The builders are quite happy to built three $1.5 M townhouses on a lot rather than one $2.5 M house.
Even with MM boosting tear down lot prices, the developers are way ahead. They should send the YIMBYs a fruit basket for being their useful idiots.

Which costs less, a house that costs $1.5 million, or a house that costs $2.5 million?

Which is more houses, one house or three houses?

DP. This is all true, but having to get together $300k for a down payment isn’t what most people think when they hear missing middle. If the YIMBYs think this is what winning looks like then missing middle is going to underwhelm.