MM Is Dead
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
because EVERYTHING that is a common good gets opposed by NIMBYs. Preschools, high schools, sidewalks, solar powed, waste treatment plants … |
Anonymous
| Hopefully Montgomery county is paying attention and stops their moronic plan |
Anonymous
I agree to some extent. All for solar, better infrastructure, etc but eliminating SFH zoning is not needed. There is plenty of room to build up - apts, condos, etc. people here just look down on those types of homes. Everywhere Else in the world, a condo is a fine place to live. Wealthier people live in the larger suburban homes, most live in condos/apts. le |
Anonymous
That would work, perhaps, if the discussion was about two people looking to move, one into more density and one into less. You're telling that second person to leave their home, with all the life invested there, if they don't like your solution to accommodating the first, who plans to move from their current abode anyway. |
Anonymous
Haha! Spoken like someone who has never had to live and rent in NYC. $2K+ a month for a 300 square foot apartment where your bathroom and kitchen are a couple of feet apart. Yeah, rents aren’t that different. |
Anonymous
I think that Friedson is already signaling that it could be scaled back significantly. He’s seen the amount and intensity of the opposition and he knows that much of MOCO has very deep pockets to support a lawsuit. He’s pretty young and I think that he’s got to have political aspirations beyond this. |
Anonymous
But the choices should not be limited to 1000 sqft condo or 4000 sqft SFH. It would be nice to have more housing in the middle. |
Anonymous
Opponents do not support MMH because they believe it would bring in people who are less wealthy who would drive down property values. They would oppose the initiative even if the county limited sales of MM units to people with incomes below a certain threshold. It’s all about property value and keeping cars off their street. They don’t actually care about trees or infrastructure capacity. |
Anonymous
So propose something that definitively addresses infrastructure capacity, ensures that the benefits of the regulation adopted accrue to those with that kind of income threshold need or the like, and is presented with thorough considerations of alternatives towards those ends. See how many fewer objections are raised. The fact that these initiatives don't do that points either to poor reasoning for the population at large or to well considered reasoning...for developers. |
Anonymous
What are you blathering on about? There's many people asking for more schools and school funding ballot initiatives are usually successful. Nobody ever wants to fund risk management like sewer systems. That's why those costs are often pushed onto developers. The criticisms are all valid and true. It seems absurd to pretend that they don't exist. Why not just address them? |
Anonymous
|
WOOOHOOO!
No more traffic needed on my street! I saved long to pay for my quiet street. |
Anonymous
So maybe you need to do what the rest of us did and buy a small 1.5 bath colonial fixer-upper or a small 2 bed ranch with an original kitchen and bath? Only the new construction is 4000 sqft for a SFH. And consider existing duplexes and townhomes in South Arlington, also like we did. Put in some sweat equity and make a profit. But if MM stands, all those existing homes will be torn down to make way for new construction that is unaffordable to anyone in the middle, regardless of sqft. Whether it’s a 4000 sqft SFH or a six-plex, it’s not going to make a real dent in affordability or the regional housing crisis with a cap of 50 per year. It’s just enough to piss off current residents when parking and tree canopy and storm water and school crowding aren’t addressed simultaneously. We need many, many more high rises in the R-B corridor and “National Landing” and there’s lots of office space that is sitting empty that could make an actual dent in housing and affordability and transit access without upsetting the entire SFH resident owner population. Unless, of course, you’re not actually interested in solving these issues. |
Anonymous
MoCo's initiative far outstrips Arlington's. The MoCo Council approach has been to put the truly outrageous out there and then pull back to the merely ridiculous, hoping that their "moderation" makes that palatable and any continuing opposition somehow unreasonable. Anything between ridiculoua and outrageous they get would be icing on the cake for density boosters. |
Anonymous
None of this is true for Arlington. There were arguments about the high school, but not because people didn’t want it in their backyard but because they wanted a school that was equivalent to the existing high schools like W-L, Yorktown and Wakefield and the County, per usual, wouldn’t do that. They forced all these other 1/2 a$$ options on people. I’d love to hear about the preschool and solar power that Arlington NIMBYs scrapped. I’ve lived here over twenty years. |
Anonymous
No Marylanders just aren’t that bright. |