MoCo Council Vote Today

[Anonymous]

NIMBYs: This housing won't be affordable! I hate it!

Government: Ok, let's tax you so we can subsidize these new homes!

NIMBYs: NO! Not like that! Something something evil corporation profit blah blah blah

Sane people: .....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many NIMBYs here concerned about "affordable" housing, yet not a single one is talking about raising taxes to pay for these subsidized units. Because yes, they need taxes to subsidize them, because nothing is free.

It's almost as if "affordable" is a fake argument, used to stop any housing construction.

Hmmmm, but why would people be so disingenuous? Hmmmm.

We’ve spent all our subsidy money on market rate housing and on bailing out land speculators, at Friedson’s urging, so unfortunately we don’t have the money to subsidize enough affordable housing. Maybe your heroes the developers will take lower profits.

Please look up the typical profit margin of these "evil developers" and get back to me.

Oh, wait, you won't, because they are in line with most industries because they are not monopolies and there is abundant competition in the space.

Please tell me how much "profit" a homeowner in their 60s is sitting on due to land appreciation? Millions. And you think "developers" are the enemy.

Equity Residential: 63.2 percent gross margin
Avalon Bay: 63.8 percent gross margin
American Assets Trust: 63.4 percent gross margin

Amazon: 50.55 percent gross margin
Apple: 46.33 percent gross margin
Safeway: 27.4 percent gross margin
Kroger: 23 percent gross margin

See how the other companies providing essential goods have lower margins (by more than half?)

Very few homeowners are sitting on millions of dollars of appreciation in land value alone. When you annualize their appreciation, it’s generally in single digits, just a fraction of the profits that developers are making every year.

Want to keep playing?

Sorry, you think 15% higher profit margin than Amazon or some tech companies is .... evidence of some massive corrupt cabal or undue benefit?

AVB brought in 1.8B in profit last year. Apple... 186B.

If you think comparing those companies is helping your argument, I can't take you seriously.

People here would really benefit from taking Econ 101.

lol.

Sorry you’re bad at math. A 63.8 percent gross margin is actually 26.2 percent higher than a 50.55 percent gross margin. And your original post said that we should look at profit margin, which is measured as a percentage, not profit, which is expressed as a dollar value.

You would benefit from Econ 101 (and stats 101 too!) more than most here. Look up how the law of supply and demand applies to essential goods and then tell us what Adam Smith said most influences rents. Hint: It wasn’t zoning.

You don’t seem to know much about business or economics but you insist that your housing approach is the only one and you mock people who disagree with you (much to my entertainment).

Obvious rounding was obvious.

I've been in the RE industry for 10 years. Fact is these margins are not obscene, sorry pal. Move on to your next anti-housing nonsense.

[Anonymous]

I love how NIMBYs immediately jump to lawsuits. As if something in this entire thing is unconstitutional.

You lost, get over it. If you want change, get people to vote. But then you'd realize that most people are not on your side. So you have to resort to lawsuits and delay tactics.

Funny thing is, you lose. Every. Single. Time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NIMBYs: This housing won't be affordable! I hate it!

Government: Ok, let's tax you so we can subsidize these new homes!

NIMBYs: NO! Not like that! Something something evil corporation profit blah blah blah

Sane people: .....

Your characterization is totally wrong. People buy into SFH neighborhoods specifically because that's what they were looking for. Less congestion, space, yards, etc. They want the suburbs.

The people who were against this initiative for valid reasons, are quite right to point out that the selling points were fraudulent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NIMBYs: This housing won't be affordable! I hate it!

Government: Ok, let's tax you so we can subsidize these new homes!

NIMBYs: NO! Not like that! Something something evil corporation profit blah blah blah

Sane people: .....

Your characterization is totally wrong. People buy into SFH neighborhoods specifically because that's what they were looking for. Less congestion, space, yards, etc. They want the suburbs.

The people who were against this initiative for valid reasons, are quite right to point out that the selling points were fraudulent.

This bill only upzones near transit cooridors on major roads.

[Anonymous]

Gee, I wonder why Potomac (Beltway, 270, major roads connecting to other main arteries), and Takoma Park- fake historical district (metro, major roads, beltway), somehow got exempted from this.

Wouldnt have anything to do with so many council members living in TP, and Friedsen looking out for his moneyed backers in Potomac would it??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NIMBYs: This housing won't be affordable! I hate it!

Government: Ok, let's tax you so we can subsidize these new homes!

NIMBYs: NO! Not like that! Something something evil corporation profit blah blah blah

Sane people: .....

Oh yes, because Montgomery County's tax burden is notoriously low, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many NIMBYs here concerned about "affordable" housing, yet not a single one is talking about raising taxes to pay for these subsidized units. Because yes, they need taxes to subsidize them, because nothing is free.

It's almost as if "affordable" is a fake argument, used to stop any housing construction.

Hmmmm, but why would people be so disingenuous? Hmmmm.

We’ve spent all our subsidy money on market rate housing and on bailing out land speculators, at Friedson’s urging, so unfortunately we don’t have the money to subsidize enough affordable housing. Maybe your heroes the developers will take lower profits.

Please look up the typical profit margin of these "evil developers" and get back to me.

Oh, wait, you won't, because they are in line with most industries because they are not monopolies and there is abundant competition in the space.

Please tell me how much "profit" a homeowner in their 60s is sitting on due to land appreciation? Millions. And you think "developers" are the enemy.

Equity Residential: 63.2 percent gross margin
Avalon Bay: 63.8 percent gross margin
American Assets Trust: 63.4 percent gross margin

Amazon: 50.55 percent gross margin
Apple: 46.33 percent gross margin
Safeway: 27.4 percent gross margin
Kroger: 23 percent gross margin

See how the other companies providing essential goods have lower margins (by more than half?)

Very few homeowners are sitting on millions of dollars of appreciation in land value alone. When you annualize their appreciation, it’s generally in single digits, just a fraction of the profits that developers are making every year.

Want to keep playing?

Sorry, you think 15% higher profit margin than Amazon or some tech companies is .... evidence of some massive corrupt cabal or undue benefit?

AVB brought in 1.8B in profit last year. Apple... 186B.

If you think comparing those companies is helping your argument, I can't take you seriously.

People here would really benefit from taking Econ 101.

lol.

Sorry you’re bad at math. A 63.8 percent gross margin is actually 26.2 percent higher than a 50.55 percent gross margin. And your original post said that we should look at profit margin, which is measured as a percentage, not profit, which is expressed as a dollar value.

You would benefit from Econ 101 (and stats 101 too!) more than most here. Look up how the law of supply and demand applies to essential goods and then tell us what Adam Smith said most influences rents. Hint: It wasn’t zoning.

You don’t seem to know much about business or economics but you insist that your housing approach is the only one and you mock people who disagree with you (much to my entertainment).

Obvious rounding was obvious.

I've been in the RE industry for 10 years. Fact is these margins are not obscene, sorry pal. Move on to your next anti-housing nonsense.

In what math does 15 round to 26? Maybe if you could round without misstating by a magnitude of 1.7 we’d have cheaper housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many NIMBYs here concerned about "affordable" housing, yet not a single one is talking about raising taxes to pay for these subsidized units. Because yes, they need taxes to subsidize them, because nothing is free.

It's almost as if "affordable" is a fake argument, used to stop any housing construction.

Hmmmm, but why would people be so disingenuous? Hmmmm.

We’ve spent all our subsidy money on market rate housing and on bailing out land speculators, at Friedson’s urging, so unfortunately we don’t have the money to subsidize enough affordable housing. Maybe your heroes the developers will take lower profits.

Please look up the typical profit margin of these "evil developers" and get back to me.

Oh, wait, you won't, because they are in line with most industries because they are not monopolies and there is abundant competition in the space.

Please tell me how much "profit" a homeowner in their 60s is sitting on due to land appreciation? Millions. And you think "developers" are the enemy.

Equity Residential: 63.2 percent gross margin
Avalon Bay: 63.8 percent gross margin
American Assets Trust: 63.4 percent gross margin

Amazon: 50.55 percent gross margin
Apple: 46.33 percent gross margin
Safeway: 27.4 percent gross margin
Kroger: 23 percent gross margin

See how the other companies providing essential goods have lower margins (by more than half?)

Very few homeowners are sitting on millions of dollars of appreciation in land value alone. When you annualize their appreciation, it’s generally in single digits, just a fraction of the profits that developers are making every year.

Want to keep playing?

Sorry, you think 15% higher profit margin than Amazon or some tech companies is .... evidence of some massive corrupt cabal or undue benefit?

AVB brought in 1.8B in profit last year. Apple... 186B.

If you think comparing those companies is helping your argument, I can't take you seriously.

People here would really benefit from taking Econ 101.

lol.

Sorry you’re bad at math. A 63.8 percent gross margin is actually 26.2 percent higher than a 50.55 percent gross margin. And your original post said that we should look at profit margin, which is measured as a percentage, not profit, which is expressed as a dollar value.

You would benefit from Econ 101 (and stats 101 too!) more than most here. Look up how the law of supply and demand applies to essential goods and then tell us what Adam Smith said most influences rents. Hint: It wasn’t zoning.

You don’t seem to know much about business or economics but you insist that your housing approach is the only one and you mock people who disagree with you (much to my entertainment).

Obvious rounding was obvious.

I've been in the RE industry for 10 years. Fact is these margins are not obscene, sorry pal. Move on to your next anti-housing nonsense.

In what math does 15 round to 26? Maybe if you could round without misstating by a magnitude of 1.7 we’d have cheaper housing.

Cry harder bud. Your side lost.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NIMBYs: This housing won't be affordable! I hate it!

Government: Ok, let's tax you so we can subsidize these new homes!

NIMBYs: NO! Not like that! Something something evil corporation profit blah blah blah

Sane people: .....

Oh yes, because Montgomery County's tax burden is notoriously low, right?

Obvious troll against NIMBYs yelling about "affordable" housing... wasn't so obvious, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Gee, I wonder why Potomac (Beltway, 270, major roads connecting to other main arteries), and Takoma Park- fake historical district (metro, major roads, beltway), somehow got exempted from this.

Wouldnt have anything to do with so many council members living in TP, and Friedsen looking out for his moneyed backers in Potomac would it??

Interesting point. I hope someone publicly calls them out on this.

[Anonymous]

Always fun to see people point out real issues with the realities of the bill and the other side just respond with ad hominem emotional statements

YOU DONT CARE ABOUT HOUSING??

DONT YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE??


Well yes- I would love if "nurses, cops, firefighters, teachers" could live in the county... but how exactly does this accomplish that?

(insert another emotional argument with no data)

[Anonymous]

Also- the other reality right now is the housing market and overall economy is so bad that really very few single earners are able to afford a house in Montgomery county- not just teachers, firefighters, cops- or whatever other group people always mention.

If you make less than about 140k- it's nearly impossible to break into the housing market given the current prices and interest rates.

[Anonymous]

No teacher is going to want to buy into a spot where they have to try on public transportation to get too and from their school. Oh and try to drop off and pick up their kids from daycare on the way using public transportation. Also being exposed to that many more germs when you already have a job without days off or no subs available.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Always fun to see people point out real issues with the realities of the bill and the other side just respond with ad hominem emotional statements

YOU DONT CARE ABOUT HOUSING??

DONT YOU WANT PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE??


Well yes- I would love if "nurses, cops, firefighters, teachers" could live in the county... but how exactly does this accomplish that?

(insert another emotional argument with no data)

Because mounds and mounds of peer-reviewed research proves that more housing options helps people?

Trying *something*, instead of *nothing* seems to be a good approach.