Eh? First of all, this isn't high school debate. Second of all, the statements made by that poster seem to be that people who are residents of an incorporated municipality in Montgomery County shouldn't have a say in Montgomery County land use, because it's not fair that people who aren't residents of an incorporated municipality in Montgomery County don't have a say in that incorporated municipality's land use, or democracy, or something. |
Wonderful perpetuation of the line without nod to the inequty presented to those in unincorporated areas, where decisions can be made that greatly affect them by those with little or no skin in the game. If you don't like the suggested restriction, why not offer an alternative wherein such residents have equivalent protection? Say... Allowing (and making ubiquitous) "light" incorporation of such areas for zoning purposes, or Redefining the scope of authority for incorporated areas to exclude zoning. |
The inequity of all Montgomery County residents having a say in Montgomery County land use decisions? The inequity of City of Rockville's residents having a say in City of Rockville's land use decisions vs non-residents of city of Rockville who don't? The inequity of there being incorporated municipalities with planning/zoning authority in Montgomery County? I sincerely don't get it. |
NIMBY in the sheets, YIMBY in the streets. LOL! What a loser. |
What intentionally misdirective drivel -- it's difficult to believe, given the recent thread posts providing relatively clear context, that your claim of not getting it is anything more than a desperate attempt to confuse others. Just so as not to leave that hanging, it might be seen as the inequity of those not in an incorporated municipality having less relative say in changes related to their own local area in comparison to that of those whose residence is in an incorporated area. The power imbalance potentially allows those in incorporated areas to influence or create zoning policy that affects those in unincorporated areas while being insulated from possible negative effects of such changes, themselves. While the purposes of incorporation might include such protection, it should not afford the power differential with respect to others' localities. |
In other words, you think it's unfair that people who live near but not in the City of Rockville don't have a voice in City of Rockville land use decisions because they're not City of Rockville residents, whereas people who live in the City of Rockville do have a voice in Montgomery County land use decisions because they're Montgomery County residents as well as City of Rockville residents. And so therefore the State of Maryland should strip the authority over land use decisions from the City of Rockville? I hope you're not somebody who mischaracterizes supporters of Missing Middle housing as Oh, they're just upset that they can't afford to live in Bethesda, I would like to live in a mansion in Hawaii but I can't afford it, life isn't fair. |
You want the privilege to be a NIMBY in your neighborhood and a YIMBY in other people’s neighborhoods. You’re absolutely lame and your attempts to spin it make you look even lamer. |
That poster to whom you responded. Possibly. And not quite as you have laid out. As always expected, mischaracterization (in this case, reduction to a specific without acknowledgement of the generality/more legitimate justification that might provide supporting context for that specific) continues from those whose rhetoric appears to rely on such logically fallacious argument. There shouldn't be inequity such that one group has relatively less power/agency regarding the public policy decisions that more directly affect them than another group has. Back to the "possibly." "Should strip" is different from "might consider stripping among several possible remedies, two of which have been suggested," as was the case, here. The other was to restrict those so protected, themselves, from equal input (and, certainly, direction/decision-making) related to areas without such protection to preserve the input from/agency of those most directly affected. I'm open to other possibilities to achieve the equitable end mentioned, if you have some to suggest. There are things I might say to missing middle supporters, but "life isn't fair," as an argument, would not be one. |
The complaints about Takoma Park, Rockville, and Gaithersburg are fair. It doesn’t help that two council members from Takoma Park were among the loudest advocates for increasing density in the county while they lived in a protected enclave where if the zoning doesn’t prevent more density the rent control will. |
Where the inequity, to be clear, is that people who aren't residents of a municipality aren't residents of that municipality, whereas people who are residents of the municipality are residents. |
"You" who? I'm the PP you're responding to, and I don't live in an incorporated municipality, I live in unincorporated Montgomery County. |
Aren’t the historic districts (like Takoma Park) with the charming Victorian era and Craftsman era homes protected from tear downs to increase density on the lots? Not sure if this point was brought up since I haven’t read every single post. |
Please discuss if any possibility of eminent domain. Pls discuss why one planner person mentioned the 12 acres owned by a church in the 4 corners area?
Do the residents know their houses are in the yellow bubble? Does the church? |
What’s even worse is those clowns helped to actively oppose housing density at the Metro station, which is not even in Maryland. And then were conspicuously silent when their white neighbors organized a campaign to prevent a Black man from developing a parking lot for retail. While they went around calling people who opposed their plans across the county as racist. I’m still shocked. |
*fart noise* |