Hans Riemer planning board chair?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets see. DC is worried about empty office buildings downtown, and is trying to turn some of them into residential buildings, whether condos or apartments. NYC is doing the same. Meanwhile, in MoCo, no one is focused on the underutilized commercial space all across MoCo. Does someone honestly think that George Avenue and Rockville Pike will attract one or more corporate headquarters or even office buildings? Or mabe expensive new retail offerings? No real chance. Let’s turn some of it into residential housing of all sorts.

This sounds like a practical solution that should be investigated, but the YIMBYs and pro developers want to instead argue about silly solutions that would force mini apartment buildings into neighborhoods of existing homes. So, of course, owners of SFH will fight against the entire agenda because they are forced to consider the practical with the impractical. Few people hate the idea of bikes lanes, but the 15 minute community crowd will become apoplectic at the mention of increased commute times as an effect of reducing auto travel lanes to fit these luxurious bike lanes.

It’s very strange…as if they are fighting the idea of auto travel and SFH rather than fighting for specific goals.

In other words, solutions that would allow building more homes in areas that already have homes. So impractical!

Georgia Avenue and Rockville Pike are already zoned to allow residential development. Do you have any particular "underutilized" properties on Georgia or Rockville Pike in mind?

DP, but are you kidding? Every one- or two-story shopping center/strip mall with a giant parking lot in front needs to be redone as high-rise mixed use. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also upzone in other places, but remember that Hans Riemer opposed upzoning the last time it was in front of the council and also supported removing Woodside from the DTSS plan last fall. He’s hardly the housing advocate that people make him out to be. The housing production results that Riemer’s policies produced would make a NIMBY proud.

MoCo needs a diversity of housing stock. It needs apartment buildings of all sizes, condos at all sizes and price points, townhouse complexes. And, yes, SFH neighborhoods. There is too much focus on changing SFH neighborhoods, rather than turning commercial areas into residential areas. Those commercial areas will never return to the hayday of large office buildings or expansive retail offerings.

Yes, Montgomery County does. Including apartments in "SFH neighborhoods."

Which commercial areas do you want there to be apartments on, specifically? There's a very good chance they're already zoned for mixed use.

Nah, the apartments SF neighborhoods do not make sense, especially in areas without transit. I understand that’s why they are trying to bring the ridiculous BRT all over, so that they can sell the idea of being close to “transit,” but good luck. I guess that we can just fight all of the proposed changes if you insist on charging that windmill. Maybe someday you’ll get the big victory that they did in Virginia, with 290 units county wide over 5 years. Hopefully not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets see. DC is worried about empty office buildings downtown, and is trying to turn some of them into residential buildings, whether condos or apartments. NYC is doing the same. Meanwhile, in MoCo, no one is focused on the underutilized commercial space all across MoCo. Does someone honestly think that George Avenue and Rockville Pike will attract one or more corporate headquarters or even office buildings? Or mabe expensive new retail offerings? No real chance. Let’s turn some of it into residential housing of all sorts.

This sounds like a practical solution that should be investigated, but the YIMBYs and pro developers want to instead argue about silly solutions that would force mini apartment buildings into neighborhoods of existing homes. So, of course, owners of SFH will fight against the entire agenda because they are forced to consider the practical with the impractical. Few people hate the idea of bikes lanes, but the 15 minute community crowd will become apoplectic at the mention of increased commute times as an effect of reducing auto travel lanes to fit these luxurious bike lanes.

It’s very strange…as if they are fighting the idea of auto travel and SFH rather than fighting for specific goals.

In other words, solutions that would allow building more homes in areas that already have homes. So impractical!

Georgia Avenue and Rockville Pike are already zoned to allow residential development. Do you have any particular "underutilized" properties on Georgia or Rockville Pike in mind?

DP, but are you kidding? Every one- or two-story shopping center/strip mall with a giant parking lot in front needs to be redone as high-rise mixed use. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also upzone in other places, but remember that Hans Riemer opposed upzoning the last time it was in front of the council and also supported removing Woodside from the DTSS plan last fall. He’s hardly the housing advocate that people make him out to be. The housing production results that Riemer’s policies produced would make a NIMBY proud.

MoCo needs a diversity of housing stock. It needs apartment buildings of all sizes, condos at all sizes and price points, townhouse complexes. And, yes, SFH neighborhoods. There is too much focus on changing SFH neighborhoods, rather than turning commercial areas into residential areas. Those commercial areas will never return to the hayday of large office buildings or expansive retail offerings.

Yes, Montgomery County does. Including apartments in "SFH neighborhoods."

Which commercial areas do you want there to be apartments on, specifically? There's a very good chance they're already zoned for mixed use.

Nah, the apartments SF neighborhoods do not make sense, especially in areas without transit. I understand that’s why they are trying to bring the ridiculous BRT all over, so that they can sell the idea of being close to “transit,” but good luck. I guess that we can just fight all of the proposed changes if you insist on charging that windmill. Maybe someday you’ll get the big victory that they did in Virginia, with 290 units county wide over 5 years. Hopefully not.

Why don't they make sense? Because nobody would want to build a duplex? Because nobody would want to live in a duplex? Please explain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That guy is an idiot. He needs to go and get a job and stop living off county taxpayers.

+1

But he did his minion duty for TP Dems and will be rewarded justly forever more

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets see. DC is worried about empty office buildings downtown, and is trying to turn some of them into residential buildings, whether condos or apartments. NYC is doing the same. Meanwhile, in MoCo, no one is focused on the underutilized commercial space all across MoCo. Does someone honestly think that George Avenue and Rockville Pike will attract one or more corporate headquarters or even office buildings? Or mabe expensive new retail offerings? No real chance. Let’s turn some of it into residential housing of all sorts.

This sounds like a practical solution that should be investigated, but the YIMBYs and pro developers want to instead argue about silly solutions that would force mini apartment buildings into neighborhoods of existing homes. So, of course, owners of SFH will fight against the entire agenda because they are forced to consider the practical with the impractical. Few people hate the idea of bikes lanes, but the 15 minute community crowd will become apoplectic at the mention of increased commute times as an effect of reducing auto travel lanes to fit these luxurious bike lanes.

It’s very strange…as if they are fighting the idea of auto travel and SFH rather than fighting for specific goals.

In other words, solutions that would allow building more homes in areas that already have homes. So impractical!

Georgia Avenue and Rockville Pike are already zoned to allow residential development. Do you have any particular "underutilized" properties on Georgia or Rockville Pike in mind?

DP, but are you kidding? Every one- or two-story shopping center/strip mall with a giant parking lot in front needs to be redone as high-rise mixed use. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also upzone in other places, but remember that Hans Riemer opposed upzoning the last time it was in front of the council and also supported removing Woodside from the DTSS plan last fall. He’s hardly the housing advocate that people make him out to be. The housing production results that Riemer’s policies produced would make a NIMBY proud.

MoCo needs a diversity of housing stock. It needs apartment buildings of all sizes, condos at all sizes and price points, townhouse complexes. And, yes, SFH neighborhoods. There is too much focus on changing SFH neighborhoods, rather than turning commercial areas into residential areas. Those commercial areas will never return to the hayday of large office buildings or expansive retail offerings.

Yes, Montgomery County does. Including apartments in "SFH neighborhoods."

Which commercial areas do you want there to be apartments on, specifically? There's a very good chance they're already zoned for mixed use.

Nah, the apartments SF neighborhoods do not make sense, especially in areas without transit. I understand that’s why they are trying to bring the ridiculous BRT all over, so that they can sell the idea of being close to “transit,” but good luck. I guess that we can just fight all of the proposed changes if you insist on charging that windmill. Maybe someday you’ll get the big victory that they did in Virginia, with 290 units county wide over 5 years. Hopefully not.

Why don't they make sense? Because nobody would want to build a duplex? Because nobody would want to live in a duplex? Please explain.

Because I bought in a suburban community of single family homes because I want to live in a suburban community of single family homes. Not in any community with random, or several, duplexes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Lets see. DC is worried about empty office buildings downtown, and is trying to turn some of them into residential buildings, whether condos or apartments. NYC is doing the same. Meanwhile, in MoCo, no one is focused on the underutilized commercial space all across MoCo. Does someone honestly think that George Avenue and Rockville Pike will attract one or more corporate headquarters or even office buildings? Or mabe expensive new retail offerings? No real chance. Let’s turn some of it into residential housing of all sorts.

This sounds like a practical solution that should be investigated, but the YIMBYs and pro developers want to instead argue about silly solutions that would force mini apartment buildings into neighborhoods of existing homes. So, of course, owners of SFH will fight against the entire agenda because they are forced to consider the practical with the impractical. Few people hate the idea of bikes lanes, but the 15 minute community crowd will become apoplectic at the mention of increased commute times as an effect of reducing auto travel lanes to fit these luxurious bike lanes.

It’s very strange…as if they are fighting the idea of auto travel and SFH rather than fighting for specific goals.

In other words, solutions that would allow building more homes in areas that already have homes. So impractical!

Georgia Avenue and Rockville Pike are already zoned to allow residential development. Do you have any particular "underutilized" properties on Georgia or Rockville Pike in mind?

DP, but are you kidding? Every one- or two-story shopping center/strip mall with a giant parking lot in front needs to be redone as high-rise mixed use. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t also upzone in other places, but remember that Hans Riemer opposed upzoning the last time it was in front of the council and also supported removing Woodside from the DTSS plan last fall. He’s hardly the housing advocate that people make him out to be. The housing production results that Riemer’s policies produced would make a NIMBY proud.

MoCo needs a diversity of housing stock. It needs apartment buildings of all sizes, condos at all sizes and price points, townhouse complexes. And, yes, SFH neighborhoods. There is too much focus on changing SFH neighborhoods, rather than turning commercial areas into residential areas. Those commercial areas will never return to the hayday of large office buildings or expansive retail offerings.

Yes, Montgomery County does. Including apartments in "SFH neighborhoods."

Which commercial areas do you want there to be apartments on, specifically? There's a very good chance they're already zoned for mixed use.

Nah, the apartments SF neighborhoods do not make sense, especially in areas without transit. I understand that’s why they are trying to bring the ridiculous BRT all over, so that they can sell the idea of being close to “transit,” but good luck. I guess that we can just fight all of the proposed changes if you insist on charging that windmill. Maybe someday you’ll get the big victory that they did in Virginia, with 290 units county wide over 5 years. Hopefully not.

Why don't they make sense? Because nobody would want to build a duplex? Because nobody would want to live in a duplex? Please explain.

Because I bought in a suburban community of single family homes because I want to live in a suburban community of single family homes. Not in any community with random, or several, duplexes

Oh. Well, that doesn't mean duplexes don't make sense. That just means you believe property owners should not be allowed to build duplexes in the neighborhood you live in.

[Anonymous]

And just because you believe duplexes belong everywhere doesn't mean they make sense to the people who live there

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didnt say they were!

Woodside should have some moderate upzoning.

It just doesnt seem to be targeted or central to mass transit but rather "hey here are the SFH areas- lets pop it right there first"

What's wrong with allowing duplexes in any neighborhood where only oneplexes are currently allowed?

Creating more car dependent housing units, that’s what. I have no problem with this near metro. Once duplexes have taken off there, start to move out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didnt say they were!

Woodside should have some moderate upzoning.

It just doesnt seem to be targeted or central to mass transit but rather "hey here are the SFH areas- lets pop it right there first"

What's wrong with allowing duplexes in any neighborhood where only oneplexes are currently allowed?

Creating more car dependent housing units, that’s what. I have no problem with this near metro. Once duplexes have taken off there, start to move out.

You can move out now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And just because you believe duplexes belong everywhere doesn't mean they make sense to the people who live there

It's a mistake to believe "things I like" and "things that make sense" are identical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

No, duplexes are the goal. Which makes the people who don't want duplexes feel attacked.

You are basically making a tone argument. YIMBYs are so mean to people who don't want duplexes! If they were nice to people who want duplexes, then they would be more effective! But that's not true. Tone is not the problem. After you've patiently engaged for the kajillionth time with people who simply do not want duplexes, you start thinking that there might be more productive uses for your time.