More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

Shocking that someone whose job title is "Housing Programs Manager" would focus on housing!!!!!!!!!111

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely listen to recording. And many questions not answered. They chose questions to answer from a Q&A list.

It’s all perfunctory and they plan to do it no matter the feedback.

The questions is, where do we get started in taking back control?

Who is "we"? Who is "they"?

[Anonymous]

Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Definitely listen to recording. And many questions not answered. They chose questions to answer from a Q&A list.

It’s all perfunctory and they plan to do it no matter the feedback.

The questions is, where do we get started in taking back control?

Who is "we"? Who is "they"?

There are two possibilities here.

1. You know perfectly well and are just being obtuse because you don’t have any other argument.
2. YImBYs are, in aggregate, really dumb and you are just a group representative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If the corridor plan transforms Four Corners into San Francisco's Excelsior District, that will actually be a success for Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

Shocking that someone whose job title is "Housing Programs Manager" would focus on housing!!!!!!!!!111

Where’s the commercial program manager? Oh, Rockville doesn’t have one?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I went to a meeting of Action Committee for Transit. The discussion was mostly about the need for more housing in Rockville to draw people there to support already existing amenities. It wasn't about the need to house more people, but the need to draw people to downtown Rockville from other areas.

Oh, are you talking about the meeting where the speaker was a planner for the City of Rockville, and the Rockville Town Center master plan was the speaker's topic? I was at that meeting too, and yes, unsurprisingly, the discussion at that meeting was about the Rockville Town Center master plan. I'm not sure how that's relevant to the University Boulevard corridor plan, though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHQ0T8gqH_4
https://www.rockvillemd.gov/2309/Rockville-Town-Center-Master-Plan-Update

Shocking that a planner would focus on housing and not jobs. I don’t know what happened to college planning programs but they seem to churn out nothing but people who think you can grow an economy without jobs.

Shocking that someone whose job title is "Housing Programs Manager" would focus on housing!!!!!!!!!111

Where’s the commercial program manager? Oh, Rockville doesn’t have one?

If you want to talk about what the government of the City of Rockville does and doesn't have, start your own thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If the corridor plan transforms Four Corners into San Francisco's Excelsior District, that will actually be a success for Montgomery County.

DP. If we want Excelsior, Glenmont to Wheaton is the better comparison and better community opportunity. Or Wheaton to Kensington, though shorter, and certain to generate even greater opposition.

Four Corners to Wheaton is all about developers' low-hanging fruit from a profit perspective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If the corridor plan transforms Four Corners into San Francisco's Excelsior District, that will actually be a success for Montgomery County.

DP. If we want Excelsior, Glenmont to Wheaton is the better comparison and better community opportunity. Or Wheaton to Kensington, though shorter, and certain to generate even greater opposition.

Four Corners to Wheaton is all about developers' low-hanging fruit from a profit perspective.

Yup, it avoids the difficult and the ethnic areas so they can build the same cookie cutter project that appeals to the same cookie cutter demographic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If the corridor plan transforms Four Corners into San Francisco's Excelsior District, that will actually be a success for Montgomery County.

DP. If we want Excelsior, Glenmont to Wheaton is the better comparison and better community opportunity. Or Wheaton to Kensington, though shorter, and certain to generate even greater opposition.

Four Corners to Wheaton is all about developers' low-hanging fruit from a profit perspective.

Yup, it avoids the difficult and the ethnic areas so they can build the same cookie cutter project that appeals to the same cookie cutter demographic.

Please tell us where "the difficult and the ethnic areas" are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If the corridor plan transforms Four Corners into San Francisco's Excelsior District, that will actually be a success for Montgomery County.

DP. If we want Excelsior, Glenmont to Wheaton is the better comparison and better community opportunity. Or Wheaton to Kensington, though shorter, and certain to generate even greater opposition.

Four Corners to Wheaton is all about developers' low-hanging fruit from a profit perspective.

Yup, it avoids the difficult and the ethnic areas so they can build the same cookie cutter project that appeals to the same cookie cutter demographic.

Please tell us where "the difficult and the ethnic areas" are.

White Oak and Central Wheaton. They would rather build up a new area rather than redevelop an old one that doesn't have the demographics they want for their over priced bougie apartments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If the corridor plan transforms Four Corners into San Francisco's Excelsior District, that will actually be a success for Montgomery County.

DP. If we want Excelsior, Glenmont to Wheaton is the better comparison and better community opportunity. Or Wheaton to Kensington, though shorter, and certain to generate even greater opposition.

Four Corners to Wheaton is all about developers' low-hanging fruit from a profit perspective.

Yup, it avoids the difficult and the ethnic areas so they can build the same cookie cutter project that appeals to the same cookie cutter demographic.

Please tell us where "the difficult and the ethnic areas" are.

White Oak and Central Wheaton. They would rather build up a new area rather than redevelop an old one that doesn't have the demographics they want for their over priced bougie apartments.

I will have to check the map again, but as far as I know, White Oak is not on University Boulevard.

I also don't know what redeveloping Central Wheaton would even mean. A lot of Central Wheaton was built in the last 10-20 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If the corridor plan transforms Four Corners into San Francisco's Excelsior District, that will actually be a success for Montgomery County.

DP. If we want Excelsior, Glenmont to Wheaton is the better comparison and better community opportunity. Or Wheaton to Kensington, though shorter, and certain to generate even greater opposition.

Four Corners to Wheaton is all about developers' low-hanging fruit from a profit perspective.

Yup, it avoids the difficult and the ethnic areas so they can build the same cookie cutter project that appeals to the same cookie cutter demographic.

Please tell us where "the difficult and the ethnic areas" are.

White Oak and Central Wheaton. They would rather build up a new area rather than redevelop an old one that doesn't have the demographics they want for their over priced bougie apartments.

They want live bougie without having to earn the money to buy a single family home…if gentrification is the cost, that’s what it takes to be able to ride their bike to the local coffee shop. Current residents of neighborhoods be damned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If the corridor plan transforms Four Corners into San Francisco's Excelsior District, that will actually be a success for Montgomery County.

DP. If we want Excelsior, Glenmont to Wheaton is the better comparison and better community opportunity. Or Wheaton to Kensington, though shorter, and certain to generate even greater opposition.

Four Corners to Wheaton is all about developers' low-hanging fruit from a profit perspective.

Yup, it avoids the difficult and the ethnic areas so they can build the same cookie cutter project that appeals to the same cookie cutter demographic.

Please tell us where "the difficult and the ethnic areas" are.

White Oak and Central Wheaton. They would rather build up a new area rather than redevelop an old one that doesn't have the demographics they want for their over priced bougie apartments.

They want live bougie without having to earn the money to buy a single family home…if gentrification is the cost, that’s what it takes to be able to ride their bike to the local coffee shop. Current residents of neighborhoods be damned.

So they're poor, and they're gentrifiers, and somehow this is damning people who live in neighborhoods, because bikes. Also, coffee shops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Coming soon on to 4 Corners once the county is supporting density without parking.

https://sfstandard.com/2024/05/14/san-francisco-parking-cone-wars-neighborhood-disputes/?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

If the corridor plan transforms Four Corners into San Francisco's Excelsior District, that will actually be a success for Montgomery County.

DP. If we want Excelsior, Glenmont to Wheaton is the better comparison and better community opportunity. Or Wheaton to Kensington, though shorter, and certain to generate even greater opposition.

Four Corners to Wheaton is all about developers' low-hanging fruit from a profit perspective.

Yup, it avoids the difficult and the ethnic areas so they can build the same cookie cutter project that appeals to the same cookie cutter demographic.

Please tell us where "the difficult and the ethnic areas" are.

White Oak and Central Wheaton. They would rather build up a new area rather than redevelop an old one that doesn't have the demographics they want for their over priced bougie apartments.

They want live bougie without having to earn the money to buy a single family home…if gentrification is the cost, that’s what it takes to be able to ride their bike to the local coffee shop. Current residents of neighborhoods be damned.

So they're poor, and they're gentrifiers, and somehow this is damning people who live in neighborhoods, because bikes. Also, coffee shops.

DP

One of the main problems is that they aren't gentrifiers. They love gentrification but they don't want to put the effort or risk into gentrifying.