More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So they're non-gentrifiers who are causing gentrification? With their bikes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So they're non-gentrifiers who are causing gentrification? With their bikes?

Thanks for confirming that bike lanes don’t generate revenue for retail businesses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So they're non-gentrifiers who are causing gentrification? With their bikes?

Thanks for confirming that bike lanes don’t generate revenue for retail businesses.

Oh, it's you. Your posts are boring, and there is no point in engaging with them.

[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: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.

So they're non-gentrifiers who are causing gentrification? With their bikes?

Thanks for confirming that bike lanes don’t generate revenue for retail businesses.

Oh, it's you. Your posts are boring, and there is no point in engaging with them.

You cannot seem to make up your mind. Not worth engaging, except you cannot stop replying.

Just like the story that bikes are good for business, except for when they aren’t. Which is conveniently when you want to tell a different story.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So they're non-gentrifiers who are causing gentrification? With their bikes?

They're not causing gentrification because it's always a demand for the exact same brand new fully realized thing in a new area. Gentrification is a process in which people move into existing distressed neighborhoods, fix up properties and slowly transform it. Gentrifiers at least have some skin in the game.

[Anonymous]

I simply do not understand where people will be parking? Also are they building on the church green? It is in the yellow blob mark that shows the planned multipurpose housing is my understanding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I simply do not understand where people will be parking? Also are they building on the church green? It is in the yellow blob mark that shows the planned multipurpose housing is my understanding.

Where are they going to park?

EVERYWHERE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I simply do not understand where people will be parking? Also are they building on the church green? It is in the yellow blob mark that shows the planned multipurpose housing is my understanding.

Where will who be parking? Is who building on which church green?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I simply do not understand where people will be parking? Also are they building on the church green? It is in the yellow blob mark that shows the planned multipurpose housing is my understanding.

Where will who be parking? Is who building on which church green?

Please go back to remedial context school, it’s exhausting for people that can keep with with a conversation.

[Anonymous]

Can anyone post the plans? I’d like to see the updates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Ok who is the commercial program manager for Montgomery Planning? What are their thoughts on the corridors plan? Where is the commercial growth strategy to go along with the housing strategy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can anyone post the plans? I’d like to see the updates.

Good luck finding a plan…the planning board still hasn’t posted anything from the last couple of recorded meetings. However, you can search YouTube for older ones. I guess that you can’t hide all of the evidence.

[Anonymous]

I will say they were polling us in the virtual meeting, but giving only a few minutes to respond, and not answering questions. Felt rushed and was not a real poll if you see results. It was a “wham bam” poll

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I will say they were polling us in the virtual meeting, but giving only a few minutes to respond, and not answering questions. Felt rushed and was not a real poll if you see results. It was a “wham bam” poll

They are not interested in real engagement and outreach. The way they advertise these events they intentionally try to stack the audience with activists they know who support their agenda. If the polling at the meeting doesn’t provide the results they want, they won’t report them. Etc, etc.

You have to understand that Planning, thanks to Casey Anderson, has been taken over by activists- many of whom don’t even live in the county (the planning area manager where I am lives in VA). They are not interested in what’s best for the county. They are only interested is furthering their activist agenda and using that as a springboard for self promotion.

This is what happens when you have an unaccountable government agency. The individual interests of mid-level bureaucrats becomes prioritized over the public good.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will say they were polling us in the virtual meeting, but giving only a few minutes to respond, and not answering questions. Felt rushed and was not a real poll if you see results. It was a “wham bam” poll

They are not interested in real engagement and outreach. The way they advertise these events they intentionally try to stack the audience with activists they know who support their agenda. If the polling at the meeting doesn’t provide the results they want, they won’t report them. Etc, etc.

You have to understand that Planning, thanks to Casey Anderson, has been taken over by activists- many of whom don’t even live in the county (the planning area manager where I am lives in VA). They are not interested in what’s best for the county. They are only interested is furthering their activist agenda and using that as a springboard for self promotion.

This is what happens when you have an unaccountable government agency. The individual interests of mid-level bureaucrats becomes prioritized over the public good.

OUTSIDE AGITATORS!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!