The DMV needs a YIMBY revolution

[Anonymous]

“Missing middle”, “gentle density”, “granny flats”, “smart growth”, “”vibrancy.” It all sounds so nice. But it’s all BS spin.

[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?

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...

It won’t help the incel density bros much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“Missing middle”, “gentle density”, “granny flats”, “smart growth”, “”vibrancy.” It all sounds so nice. But it’s all BS spin.

Please add placemaking and third place to the mad lib.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Missing middle”, “gentle density”, “granny flats”, “smart growth”, “”vibrancy.” It all sounds so nice. But it’s all BS spin.

Please add placemaking and third place to the mad lib.

Arlington now uses Expanded Housing Options or EHO. Perhaps it is a play on HUD’s Equal Housing Opportunity but you never know with Arlington Co.

[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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

[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:

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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

[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:

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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

If you have ever lived in a SFH you won't move to s townhouse. Shared walls suck.

[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:

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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

[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:

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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

[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:

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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

If you have ever lived in a SFH you won't move to s townhouse. Shared walls suck.

Different people have different preferences. Not everyone is you.

[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:

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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

Build and sell. Rentals are an entirely different kind of investors, but we really shouldn’t be rooting for rentals. The anger with the housing market is most intense in the for sale market. That’s not to say there aren’t severe affordability problems at the bottom of the market but a lot of economic frustration arises from an inability to buy. Not all of it. A lot of it.

[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:

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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

[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:

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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

[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:

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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

They do exist and they sound great.

https://nerej.com/the-risks-of-buying-into-a-small-condominium-association-by-andre-tremblay

[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:

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?

Three townhouses yield more profit than one house. That’s not the builder’s concern. The best thing the three townhouses can do is get people to move from houses so that the builder can build more townhouses. MM is leveling up profits for builders.

Sometimes this is true. In many places the McMansion will still deliver the higher yield. The wealthier the neighborhood is now, the more likely that the McMansion will be the higher profit margin building type.

To build and sell or rent?

Most of the SFH would be owned, also all of any multiunits will be rentals.

there is no way for you to know that

How do you propose to establish a condo regime for a three to six unit building?

I don't need to propose anything, because this actually exists.

The vast majority of small multifamily buildings like this are rentals. Small multifamily buildings usually have very expensive HOA fees because admin expenses are spread between a small number of units. They have to outsource HOA management to an external provider because it is not possible to hire full time employees for a small association. The legal retainer, admin management fees, annual audit, accounting services tax filing, and other required services just to maintain an HOA will easily be $1,000+ a month. Then include building maintenance, reserves, lawn maintenance. In total, monthly HOA fees for a quadplex or sixplex will easily start at $500+/month for a brand new unit. Furthermore, the risk adjusted return is more favorable when selling the plex building to an rental property investor. The MM units will provide very few ownership opportunities because most of them will be rentals. I work in the real estate industry and my clients are primarily real estate investors. This is common knowledge among actual investors/developers. People that claim MM units will provide ownership opportunities either don’t know what they are talking about or they are being dishonest.