MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone only reading through the final report and the state law really should check the video of Monday's meeting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=55h90lVpZJI

The Attainable Housing portion of the meeting starts at 2:10 and goes for just under an hour. As seen in the report, the voiced concerns of residents are briefly mentioned in summary and rather summarily dismissed. If there was any doubt that these concerns are valid, all one has to do is listen to the introductions by the council and planning chair. The remainder was unsurprising, given the Council makeup and their recent appointment of the Planning Board (one wonders if the reaction to the scandal had more to do with packing the Board with more decidedly pro-Thrive/pro-development interests in the runup to adoption).

For those complaining about the process, met by comments about the several community meetings in the last couple of years, your thoughts still are valid, though it may not matter from a strictly legal sense. Ask when, along the timeline of those meetings, the full impact was addressed. Not just examples of multiplex housing with reference to the pattern book for continuity with the previously-built community, but fully-built-out properties along the corridors (19-unit to 24-unit stacked flats with maximal allowance for bulk/minimal adherence to to-be setbacks, etc.). The answer would not include those community meetings, as much of the higher-impact recommendations only recently were introduced to the document (which also does not do the job of presenting those maximal buildouts for common understanding), as was the state legislation. It is overwhelmingly likely that community input would be significantly different than was garnered in those already-pandemic-limited interactions.

The dog and pony was comically completed towards the end of the presentation (prior to the Council committee's few questions) with the planning chair repeatedly nodding at the intern's earnest comments about research she had conducted to find favorable examples of jurisdictions that had pursued similar changes. Of course, there had been no critical review of this that would highlight the dissimilarities to that which is being proposed, here. Nor was there any public comment/rebuttal/presentation of opposing viewpoints.

The Council PHP Committee will have 2 working sessions in July, beginning on the 8th. I expect they will have limited public comment, with staff and supporters prepped alternately to present stories of hardship finding desired housing to garner sympathy and dismissive remarks to any concerns voiced, without opportunity for rebuttal/debate. A few half-hearted questions may be presented, intentionally phrased to allow sidestepping of any more troublesome answer. (E.g., "Can we get an idea of the student generation rates?" to "represent" community concerns about school crowding, met with a pat answer that does nothing to project that overcrowding, the associated costs of building and the infeasibility of land acquisition for schools, with a buildout on the scale envisioned that would "correct" the perceived shortage of housing opportunities in the affected areas -- perhaps with a platitudinous "the County has established processes to address school system needs" thrown in.) Having completed that pro forma over the summer, while many are vacationing, they can claim to have completed everything appropriately for the Council vote in the fall.

That is a done deal, short of near-Kenya-level in-the-streets objections, and I don't see the MoCo residents, majority or no, who would have objections having the stomach for anything close to that.

I am really not following you here at all. That being said, I do appreciate the link to the video. I will watch!

Glad to provide the video. The late addition of scope and density options along with the stacked effects with recent state legislation mean that they have not properly engaged the community in the process. The words of the Council and Planning Board chair make it obvious that they are intent on doing things this way, pushing it through with the minimum community awareness possible of fullest impact and disregarding voiced concerns from those who might independently have made themselves aware enough to have formed such thoughts from reasonable bases.

There are things that could be done to address those concerns, such as those for schools and infrastructure or those regarding the relative irreversability of the uncapped/wholesale/sweeping changes should they prove not in the best interests of the populace, while continuing to promote housing capacity aims. However, these will not be done, and they will make sure it is delivered well before the next County Council election cycle.

What more do you think should be happening to make the community aware?

I watched the video and read the report. From that, I can tell that MoCo sent press releases that resulted in news articles in a lot of publications, including the Washington Post. They have a robust website and social media campaign. They held several community meetings (post-pandemic) and indicated that they plan several more- in the affected communities--in the coming months.

Sincerely, what more do you think they should do?

These community meetings are performative. They are not gathering data or changing anything based on citizen feedback. My main concern is the environmental disaster caused when all the green space is ripped out to build driveways and parking lots. This is passed off as environmentally a net positive and it’s not. There are lots of places to build condos but the council wants no limits on development except in their neighborhoods. Fact.

OK then, so at least we are getting somewhere....you don't think they are hiding what they are doing or trying to keep the public from knowing about it, right?
You think that they are not making changes to the proposal that you think should occur as a result of community feedback.

Do I have that right?

Not PP, but by not addressing key questions relating to (1) municipal control over items like storm water and setbacks, and (2) the interaction between this policy and the state level one, as evidenced is still unclear in this thread, yes, they are hiding the potential true impact. These things should be clarified, and then another round of real community engagement should take place. Not just telling communities what the plan is, but real openness to modifying it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone only reading through the final report and the state law really should check the video of Monday's meeting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=55h90lVpZJI

The Attainable Housing portion of the meeting starts at 2:10 and goes for just under an hour. As seen in the report, the voiced concerns of residents are briefly mentioned in summary and rather summarily dismissed. If there was any doubt that these concerns are valid, all one has to do is listen to the introductions by the council and planning chair. The remainder was unsurprising, given the Council makeup and their recent appointment of the Planning Board (one wonders if the reaction to the scandal had more to do with packing the Board with more decidedly pro-Thrive/pro-development interests in the runup to adoption).

For those complaining about the process, met by comments about the several community meetings in the last couple of years, your thoughts still are valid, though it may not matter from a strictly legal sense. Ask when, along the timeline of those meetings, the full impact was addressed. Not just examples of multiplex housing with reference to the pattern book for continuity with the previously-built community, but fully-built-out properties along the corridors (19-unit to 24-unit stacked flats with maximal allowance for bulk/minimal adherence to to-be setbacks, etc.). The answer would not include those community meetings, as much of the higher-impact recommendations only recently were introduced to the document (which also does not do the job of presenting those maximal buildouts for common understanding), as was the state legislation. It is overwhelmingly likely that community input would be significantly different than was garnered in those already-pandemic-limited interactions.

The dog and pony was comically completed towards the end of the presentation (prior to the Council committee's few questions) with the planning chair repeatedly nodding at the intern's earnest comments about research she had conducted to find favorable examples of jurisdictions that had pursued similar changes. Of course, there had been no critical review of this that would highlight the dissimilarities to that which is being proposed, here. Nor was there any public comment/rebuttal/presentation of opposing viewpoints.

The Council PHP Committee will have 2 working sessions in July, beginning on the 8th. I expect they will have limited public comment, with staff and supporters prepped alternately to present stories of hardship finding desired housing to garner sympathy and dismissive remarks to any concerns voiced, without opportunity for rebuttal/debate. A few half-hearted questions may be presented, intentionally phrased to allow sidestepping of any more troublesome answer. (E.g., "Can we get an idea of the student generation rates?" to "represent" community concerns about school crowding, met with a pat answer that does nothing to project that overcrowding, the associated costs of building and the infeasibility of land acquisition for schools, with a buildout on the scale envisioned that would "correct" the perceived shortage of housing opportunities in the affected areas -- perhaps with a platitudinous "the County has established processes to address school system needs" thrown in.) Having completed that pro forma over the summer, while many are vacationing, they can claim to have completed everything appropriately for the Council vote in the fall.

That is a done deal, short of near-Kenya-level in-the-streets objections, and I don't see the MoCo residents, majority or no, who would have objections having the stomach for anything close to that.

I am really not following you here at all. That being said, I do appreciate the link to the video. I will watch!

Glad to provide the video. The late addition of scope and density options along with the stacked effects with recent state legislation mean that they have not properly engaged the community in the process. The words of the Council and Planning Board chair make it obvious that they are intent on doing things this way, pushing it through with the minimum community awareness possible of fullest impact and disregarding voiced concerns from those who might independently have made themselves aware enough to have formed such thoughts from reasonable bases.

There are things that could be done to address those concerns, such as those for schools and infrastructure or those regarding the relative irreversability of the uncapped/wholesale/sweeping changes should they prove not in the best interests of the populace, while continuing to promote housing capacity aims. However, these will not be done, and they will make sure it is delivered well before the next County Council election cycle.

What more do you think should be happening to make the community aware?

I watched the video and read the report. From that, I can tell that MoCo sent press releases that resulted in news articles in a lot of publications, including the Washington Post. They have a robust website and social media campaign. They held several community meetings (post-pandemic) and indicated that they plan several more- in the affected communities--in the coming months.

Sincerely, what more do you think they should do?

These community meetings are performative. They are not gathering data or changing anything based on citizen feedback. My main concern is the environmental disaster caused when all the green space is ripped out to build driveways and parking lots. This is passed off as environmentally a net positive and it’s not. There are lots of places to build condos but the council wants no limits on development except in their neighborhoods. Fact.

OK then, so at least we are getting somewhere....you don't think they are hiding what they are doing or trying to keep the public from knowing about it, right?
You think that they are not making changes to the proposal that you think should occur as a result of community feedback.

Do I have that right?

Not PP, but by not addressing key questions relating to (1) municipal control over items like storm water and setbacks, and (2) the interaction between this policy and the state level one, as evidenced is still unclear in this thread, yes, they are hiding the potential true impact. These things should be clarified, and then another round of real community engagement should take place. Not just telling communities what the plan is, but real openness to modifying it.

1 and 2 are the same thing, right? And the state law was just ratified a couple months ago, so nothing could be done prior to that, right? So now would be the appropriate time to address, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

They are not saying that everybody needs to "live that lifestyle". They are saying there should be more opportunities for people to live that lifestyle.

Just like Jawando will be able to continue living in his large SFH, so will you if you choose to.

On the bolded, I'm curious what that would look like. Do you have any ideas?

IMO, it would be a better policy to limit quadplexes and triplexes to areas within a 1 mile radius of the metro. Create a new single family zoning category to allows more variety in lot sizes and encourage subdivision of of existing single family lots. My idea is to intermediate zoning category R-100 that allows people to split larger R-200 lots. Then Rezone all existing R-200 areas between I-370 and I-495 to R-100. All of R-90 lots within this area between I-370 and I-495 should be rezoned to R-60. The average size of an R-90 lot in MOCO is 12,000 sq. ft, and there are over 30,000 R-90 lots in the county. Changing all R-90 zoning to R-60 in this area (closer to DC) would allow thousands of lot subdivisions to occur. This subdivision process would also promote additional multifamily units in the areas that are very close to transit. Parking minimums can be reduced in the 1 Mile transit radius, but every unit should have a minimum of one onsite parking spot to ensure equitable for disabled and elderly individuals.

[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:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.

“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”

I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.

I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.

Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.

[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:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.

“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”

I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.

I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.

Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.

Yes. That was the poster who accused councilmembers of hypocrisy because the councilmembers do not, themselves, live in duplexes. This poster said, specifically, "No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units."

If you want to argue, go argue with that poster.

[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:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.

“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”

I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.

I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.

Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.

It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.

[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:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.

“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”

I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.

I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.

Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.

It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.

Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!

The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.

[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:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.

“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”

I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.

I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.

Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.

It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.

Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!

The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.

DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.

[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:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.

“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”

I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.

I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.

Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.

It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.

Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!

The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.

DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.

There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily 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:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.

“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”

I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.

I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.

Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.

It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.

Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!

The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.

DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.

There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing

PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.

Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:

1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples

Get it?

[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:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.

“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”

I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.

I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.

Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.

It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.

Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!

The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.

DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.

There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing

I think you're getting confused between expanding options for housing, on the one hand, and expanding the supply of single-family houses, on the other hand. The recommendations will do the former (expanding options for housing). That is the whole point. The recommendations may realistically also end up doing the latter (expanding the supply of single-family houses). As you know, many so-called single-family houses are in reality multi-family houses, right now. If the families and individuals currently living in "single-family" houses were able to get their own housing instead of shared housing, then the single-family houses would be available to be actually single-family houses again.

[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:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

PP, honestly, this is bananas. What they are doing is making it legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types. That doesn't mean that all other housing types will be demolished and replaced by those particular housing types. That doesn't mean everyone will be forced to live in those particular housing types. It only means it will be legal to build certain housing types in large parts of the county where it is currently not legal to build those housing types.

I understand that you believe the best housing type for everyone is ownership of a detached single-unit house, but that's just not true.

I have lived in an ADU (rental), a townhouse (rental), a detached house (rental), and an apartment in a triplex (rental). Now I live in a detached house (owner). In a few years, I expect to move to an apartment in a large building (owner). Different people have different needs, different preferences, different constraints, at different times in their lives. Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.

How is anyone being forced to live in a certain housing type? Do these not exist? Were you in a different part of the country when you lived in these various housing types?

I’m fairly certain that they all exist in MOCO, too, and people are free to live in them.

What you are complaining about is the inability to build them wherever you desire.

You are basically making a "rich and poor people alike are free to sleep under bridges and steal their bread" argument.

Building duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes will not force anyone to live in duplexes/triplexes/fourplexes, you're right.

As usual, you are making things up, or you just have terrible reading comprehension . Someone else stated that zoning forces people into home types.

“Why force everyone into the housing type that you, personally, prefer? That would be terrible housing policy.”

I responded to that. If you’d like to tell them that they are wrong, feel free to back me up.

I also stated that those housing types already exist. Do they not? The PP was somehow implying that they exists and do exists, which I guess is some quantum housing state.

Anyway, I see that elsewhere the newest YIMBY talking points and marching orders are being issued, and they amount to accusing people that think this plan is terrible of being anti diversity. This is comforting because it means that they are close to giving up and are just breaking out their fictional feelings-based arguments instead pretending that they have some academic merit.

It is does force people to live in multifamily hosing because the policy will reduce the supply of single family houses by replacing them with multifamily units. It reduces supply and increases prices for single family houses.

Conversely, the absence of multifamily housing in many areas of the county is forcing people to live in single family housing. Right? Which - guess what? - also reduces supply and increases prices for single family housing!

The great thing about allowing more housing types in more areas in the county is that it will improve people's ability to choose housing that fits their preferences and budget.

DP, to put a finer point on that, what it is actually doing is causing multiple families to live in one SFH, to rent sub-par or undersized apartments, or to not be able to live within the county at all.

There is no component of this policy that will meaningfully increase the supply of single family homes. It does not expand options if it only promotes multifamily housing

PP here. I 100% agree with you that it will not meaningfully increase the supply of SFH, if by that we mean uniplexes/single unit structures. It isn't intended to do that.

Let me put it this way, say you have 20 people. In which scenario do the most people have the most options for fruit:

1. There are 15 bananas, 3 oranges, and 2 apples
2. There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples

Get it?

DP. Or, more analogously,

Option 1: There are 10 bananas, 6 oranges, and 4 apples
Option 2: There are 9 bananas, 10 oranges, 6 apples, 8 peaches, 7 plums, and 2 pears.

In which scenario do people have the most options for fruit?

Of course, if you believe that everybody really wants all bananas all the time, then you will be upset about Option 2, because under Option 2, there will be fewer bananas, both relatively and absolutely.