Why are renters or people who live with their parents allowed to vote on matters of zoning &

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the OP was a false flag from a YIMBY

Yes, the YIMBYs are having a big pro Missing Middle or Expanded Hosing Options rally for Affordable Housing or Attainable Housing in Arlington on Saturday. Many of the people who support MM or EHO in Arlington are younger renters who think Arlington should make it possible for them to have a $1.3 M townhouse in a neighborhood zoned for predominantly white schools rather than a $1.3 M townhouses in a neighborhood where the schools are more diverse.

Sounds like you haven’t talked to any missing middle supporters. Or, you know, read the basic documentation. Then you know that what’s actually getting supporters excited is the prospect of $500 k to $600 k homes in multiplexes where everything else nearby is $1 M or more. Housing in our whitest neighborhoods is also, not coincidently, incredibly expensive. Supporters envision fourplexes and sixplexes smack in the middle of Lyon Village, with missing middle homes costing a fraction of the neighboring houses. Imagine making 120% of the area median income but affording a home that lets you send your kids to Jamestown! Really opens up possibilities.

But wait, it gets even better. Once those slumlord multiplexes start to go up (because that’s what will be developed), those homes won’t be worth $1M for long!

Slumlord multiplexes in North Arlington!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Do people ever listen to themselves?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the OP was a false flag from a YIMBY

Yes, the YIMBYs are having a big pro Missing Middle or Expanded Hosing Options rally for Affordable Housing or Attainable Housing in Arlington on Saturday. Many of the people who support MM or EHO in Arlington are younger renters who think Arlington should make it possible for them to have a $1.3 M townhouse in a neighborhood zoned for predominantly white schools rather than a $1.3 M townhouses in a neighborhood where the schools are more diverse.

Sounds like you haven’t talked to any missing middle supporters. Or, you know, read the basic documentation. Then you know that what’s actually getting supporters excited is the prospect of $500 k to $600 k homes in multiplexes where everything else nearby is $1 M or more. Housing in our whitest neighborhoods is also, not coincidently, incredibly expensive. Supporters envision fourplexes and sixplexes smack in the middle of Lyon Village, with missing middle homes costing a fraction of the neighboring houses. Imagine making 120% of the area median income but affording a home that lets you send your kids to Jamestown! Really opens up possibilities.

But wait, it gets even better. Once those slumlord multiplexes start to go up (because that’s what will be developed), those homes won’t be worth $1M for long!

Wait, are new missing middle homes going to be unaffordable luxuries or decrepit slums? Y’all need to pick a lane. Same on property values. NIMBY groups are complaining that missing middle will cause assessments to increase for SFH. So is missing middle good or bad for property values?

Maybe all of this is just rhetoric, and the real goal is to keep neighborhoods from changing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the OP was a false flag from a YIMBY

Yes, the YIMBYs are having a big pro Missing Middle or Expanded Hosing Options rally for Affordable Housing or Attainable Housing in Arlington on Saturday. Many of the people who support MM or EHO in Arlington are younger renters who think Arlington should make it possible for them to have a $1.3 M townhouse in a neighborhood zoned for predominantly white schools rather than a $1.3 M townhouses in a neighborhood where the schools are more diverse.

Sounds like you haven’t talked to any missing middle supporters. Or, you know, read the basic documentation. Then you know that what’s actually getting supporters excited is the prospect of $500 k to $600 k homes in multiplexes where everything else nearby is $1 M or more. Housing in our whitest neighborhoods is also, not coincidently, incredibly expensive. Supporters envision fourplexes and sixplexes smack in the middle of Lyon Village, with missing middle homes costing a fraction of the neighboring houses. Imagine making 120% of the area median income but affording a home that lets you send your kids to Jamestown! Really opens up possibilities.

But wait, it gets even better. Once those slumlord multiplexes start to go up (because that’s what will be developed), those homes won’t be worth $1M for long!

Slumlord multiplexes in North Arlington!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Do people ever listen to themselves?)

This things won’t be popping up in N. Arlington for a long time, if ever. Why are you so fixated on that neighborhood anyway? It’s weird that you are focused on neighborhoods and not housing.

[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:I think this post was a parody but the YIMBYs are taking it seriously? I guess searching for things to be offended by is easier/more entertaining than getting housing built.

Why would you think that? I have heard plenty of people express this opinion, at public meetings, in real life.

I go to more than my share of public meetings and have not heard this view espoused a single time. Show me a transcript from a government meeting in the Washington metropolitan area where someone advocates disenfranchising renters.

What government meetings do you go to that have published transcripts?

Video is fine too as long as you provide the time stamp.

What government meetings (for the public) do you go to that have posted videos with time stamps?

Montgomery County, MD does.
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/OnDemand/index.html

Yeah, that's for if you want to watch the Montgomery County Council. There are a lot of meetings in Montgomery County where members of the public speak that aren't Montgomery County Council meetings.

So you are claiming that there are “government meetings” that are not Council meetings where people are saying that renters should not be allowed the right to vote but those meetings are not recorded? Right…………

What I said: "I have heard plenty of people express this opinion, at public meetings, in real life."

What meetings are those?

Community association meetings, HOA meetings, public outreach meetings, meet-the-candidate meetings, etc. People have also said various jaw-dropping things on the record at formal public hearings, of course.

You attend both community association meetings and HOA meetings? Right…..

Not on the same evening, obviously.

Nice fantasy. If you have a community association then you don’t have a HOA. Also, neither a community association nor an HOA meeting would be a public meeting. Have any other stories?

This statement is factually incorrect.

Okay, where do you live that has both a community association and HOA?

https://mcatlas.org/viewer/
on the left, click the box for "civic and home owner associations"

However, you're also operating on faulty assumptions, including:

1. the only people who ever go to a community association or HOA meeting are residents of that community association or HOA
2. people never move

When you go to a lot of meetings attended by members of the public, you quickly learn that members of the public say a lot of things you wouldn't have thought anybody even believed, let alone would say in public.

Neither are open to the public. Thanks for wasting everyone’s time with your fantasies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the OP was a false flag from a YIMBY

Yes, the YIMBYs are having a big pro Missing Middle or Expanded Hosing Options rally for Affordable Housing or Attainable Housing in Arlington on Saturday. Many of the people who support MM or EHO in Arlington are younger renters who think Arlington should make it possible for them to have a $1.3 M townhouse in a neighborhood zoned for predominantly white schools rather than a $1.3 M townhouses in a neighborhood where the schools are more diverse.

Sounds like you haven’t talked to any missing middle supporters. Or, you know, read the basic documentation. Then you know that what’s actually getting supporters excited is the prospect of $500 k to $600 k homes in multiplexes where everything else nearby is $1 M or more. Housing in our whitest neighborhoods is also, not coincidently, incredibly expensive. Supporters envision fourplexes and sixplexes smack in the middle of Lyon Village, with missing middle homes costing a fraction of the neighboring houses. Imagine making 120% of the area median income but affording a home that lets you send your kids to Jamestown! Really opens up possibilities.

But wait, it gets even better. Once those slumlord multiplexes start to go up (because that’s what will be developed), those homes won’t be worth $1M for long!

Wait, are new missing middle homes going to be unaffordable luxuries or decrepit slums? Y’all need to pick a lane. Same on property values. NIMBY groups are complaining that missing middle will cause assessments to increase for SFH. So is missing middle good or bad for property values?

Maybe all of this is just rhetoric, and the real goal is to keep neighborhoods from changing.

It's Schroedinger's Housing: unaffordable luxury AND decrepit slum, higher AND lower property values, all at the same time.

Or, you know, an effort to keep neighborhoods from changing.

[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:I think this post was a parody but the YIMBYs are taking it seriously? I guess searching for things to be offended by is easier/more entertaining than getting housing built.

Why would you think that? I have heard plenty of people express this opinion, at public meetings, in real life.

I go to more than my share of public meetings and have not heard this view espoused a single time. Show me a transcript from a government meeting in the Washington metropolitan area where someone advocates disenfranchising renters.

What government meetings do you go to that have published transcripts?

Video is fine too as long as you provide the time stamp.

What government meetings (for the public) do you go to that have posted videos with time stamps?

Montgomery County, MD does.
https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/COUNCIL/OnDemand/index.html

Yeah, that's for if you want to watch the Montgomery County Council. There are a lot of meetings in Montgomery County where members of the public speak that aren't Montgomery County Council meetings.

So you are claiming that there are “government meetings” that are not Council meetings where people are saying that renters should not be allowed the right to vote but those meetings are not recorded? Right…………

What I said: "I have heard plenty of people express this opinion, at public meetings, in real life."

What meetings are those?

Community association meetings, HOA meetings, public outreach meetings, meet-the-candidate meetings, etc. People have also said various jaw-dropping things on the record at formal public hearings, of course.

You attend both community association meetings and HOA meetings? Right…..

Not on the same evening, obviously.

Nice fantasy. If you have a community association then you don’t have a HOA. Also, neither a community association nor an HOA meeting would be a public meeting. Have any other stories?

This statement is factually incorrect.

Okay, where do you live that has both a community association and HOA?

https://mcatlas.org/viewer/
on the left, click the box for "civic and home owner associations"

However, you're also operating on faulty assumptions, including:

1. the only people who ever go to a community association or HOA meeting are residents of that community association or HOA
2. people never move

When you go to a lot of meetings attended by members of the public, you quickly learn that members of the public say a lot of things you wouldn't have thought anybody even believed, let alone would say in public.

Neither are open to the public. Thanks for wasting everyone’s time with your fantasies.

I'm starting to think you've never been to any community association or HOA meetings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the OP was a false flag from a YIMBY

Yes, the YIMBYs are having a big pro Missing Middle or Expanded Hosing Options rally for Affordable Housing or Attainable Housing in Arlington on Saturday. Many of the people who support MM or EHO in Arlington are younger renters who think Arlington should make it possible for them to have a $1.3 M townhouse in a neighborhood zoned for predominantly white schools rather than a $1.3 M townhouses in a neighborhood where the schools are more diverse.

Sounds like you haven’t talked to any missing middle supporters. Or, you know, read the basic documentation. Then you know that what’s actually getting supporters excited is the prospect of $500 k to $600 k homes in multiplexes where everything else nearby is $1 M or more. Housing in our whitest neighborhoods is also, not coincidently, incredibly expensive. Supporters envision fourplexes and sixplexes smack in the middle of Lyon Village, with missing middle homes costing a fraction of the neighboring houses. Imagine making 120% of the area median income but affording a home that lets you send your kids to Jamestown! Really opens up possibilities.

I can not tell if you are a YIMBY or if this is satire, and I’ve read it a couple of times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the OP was a false flag from a YIMBY

Yes, the YIMBYs are having a big pro Missing Middle or Expanded Hosing Options rally for Affordable Housing or Attainable Housing in Arlington on Saturday. Many of the people who support MM or EHO in Arlington are younger renters who think Arlington should make it possible for them to have a $1.3 M townhouse in a neighborhood zoned for predominantly white schools rather than a $1.3 M townhouses in a neighborhood where the schools are more diverse.

Sounds like you haven’t talked to any missing middle supporters. Or, you know, read the basic documentation. Then you know that what’s actually getting supporters excited is the prospect of $500 k to $600 k homes in multiplexes where everything else nearby is $1 M or more. Housing in our whitest neighborhoods is also, not coincidently, incredibly expensive. Supporters envision fourplexes and sixplexes smack in the middle of Lyon Village, with missing middle homes costing a fraction of the neighboring houses. Imagine making 120% of the area median income but affording a home that lets you send your kids to Jamestown! Really opens up possibilities.

But wait, it gets even better. Once those slumlord multiplexes start to go up (because that’s what will be developed), those homes won’t be worth $1M for long!

Wait, are new missing middle homes going to be unaffordable luxuries or decrepit slums? Y’all need to pick a lane. Same on property values. NIMBY groups are complaining that missing middle will cause assessments to increase for SFH. So is missing middle good or bad for property values?

Maybe all of this is just rhetoric, and the real goal is to keep neighborhoods from changing.

It's Schroedinger's Housing: unaffordable luxury AND decrepit slum, higher AND lower property values, all at the same time.

Or, you know, an effort to keep neighborhoods from changing.

Except if the change is more McMansions. That’s fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the OP was a false flag from a YIMBY

Yes, the YIMBYs are having a big pro Missing Middle or Expanded Hosing Options rally for Affordable Housing or Attainable Housing in Arlington on Saturday. Many of the people who support MM or EHO in Arlington are younger renters who think Arlington should make it possible for them to have a $1.3 M townhouse in a neighborhood zoned for predominantly white schools rather than a $1.3 M townhouses in a neighborhood where the schools are more diverse.

Sounds like you haven’t talked to any missing middle supporters. Or, you know, read the basic documentation. Then you know that what’s actually getting supporters excited is the prospect of $500 k to $600 k homes in multiplexes where everything else nearby is $1 M or more. Housing in our whitest neighborhoods is also, not coincidently, incredibly expensive. Supporters envision fourplexes and sixplexes smack in the middle of Lyon Village, with missing middle homes costing a fraction of the neighboring houses. Imagine making 120% of the area median income but affording a home that lets you send your kids to Jamestown! Really opens up possibilities.

I can not tell if you are a YIMBY or if this is satire, and I’ve read it a couple of times.

What makes you think it’s satire? The underlying info is lifted straight from the county’s materials.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm assuming the OP was a false flag from a YIMBY

Yes, the YIMBYs are having a big pro Missing Middle or Expanded Hosing Options rally for Affordable Housing or Attainable Housing in Arlington on Saturday. Many of the people who support MM or EHO in Arlington are younger renters who think Arlington should make it possible for them to have a $1.3 M townhouse in a neighborhood zoned for predominantly white schools rather than a $1.3 M townhouses in a neighborhood where the schools are more diverse.

Sounds like you haven’t talked to any missing middle supporters. Or, you know, read the basic documentation. Then you know that what’s actually getting supporters excited is the prospect of $500 k to $600 k homes in multiplexes where everything else nearby is $1 M or more. Housing in our whitest neighborhoods is also, not coincidently, incredibly expensive. Supporters envision fourplexes and sixplexes smack in the middle of Lyon Village, with missing middle homes costing a fraction of the neighboring houses. Imagine making 120% of the area median income but affording a home that lets you send your kids to Jamestown! Really opens up possibilities.

But wait, it gets even better. Once those slumlord multiplexes start to go up (because that’s what will be developed), those homes won’t be worth $1M for long!

Wait, are new missing middle homes going to be unaffordable luxuries or decrepit slums? Y’all need to pick a lane. Same on property values. NIMBY groups are complaining that missing middle will cause assessments to increase for SFH. So is missing middle good or bad for property values?

Maybe all of this is just rhetoric, and the real goal is to keep neighborhoods from changing.

It's Schroedinger's Housing: unaffordable luxury AND decrepit slum, higher AND lower property values, all at the same time.

Or, you know, an effort to keep neighborhoods from changing.

Except if the change is more McMansions. That’s fine.

It's not that McMansions are fine, it's just that even McMansions fall into the category of "the only worthy housing type" (a one-unit detached building), whereas a duplex of the same building size does not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:property taxes? This is absurd.

Because they are residents. Do you think that just because someone has chosen to rent rather than own, or that they are not wealthy enough to own, that they don't have a stake in our community?

Do you think only white male property owners should be able to vote as the Constitution originally articulated?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yep, when my tenant pays rent I just keep it all for myself for Starbucks and avocado toast.

I have a whole separate pool of money that I use to pay property taxes on the property that I rent out.

Therefore I am paying taxes and my tenant is not, and should have no say in local public affairs.

Your tenant is contributing to your ability to pay property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yep, when my tenant pays rent I just keep it all for myself for Starbucks and avocado toast.

I have a whole separate pool of money that I use to pay property taxes on the property that I rent out.

Therefore I am paying taxes and my tenant is not, and should have no say in local public affairs.

Your tenant is contributing to your ability to pay property taxes.

I'm just guessing, but I think the "Starbucks and avocado toast" reference indicates that the PP's post was not sincere.

[Anonymous]

"Missing middle" is quite the branding, I must say.

So these cops, teachers, etc who can't afford a 1.5 million dollar single family home, are going to be able to afford 750k quadplexes?

Just call it what it is. We want to upzone for density. We think that is good.

But the idea that the middle class is somehow going to be able to afford to live where they work because of this is just not backed up by the numbers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:property taxes? This is absurd.

Because they are residents. Do you think that just because someone has chosen to rent rather than own, or that they are not wealthy enough to own, that they don't have a stake in our community?

Do you think only white male property owners should be able to vote as the Constitution originally articulated?

And speaking as a landlord, anyone who thinks renters don't pay property tax is a clueless idiot. As a landlord I don't eat the property tax, it pass it along to my renters as part of my cost buildup for determining what rent to charge.