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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
Compact growth did worsen it. It by definition makes it harder to build more housing, I think preservation is important and we need to preserve open space/agricultural land. However, there are competing priorities promoting preservation land and housing affordability.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
Compact growth did worsen it. It by definition makes it harder to build more housing, I think preservation is important and we need to preserve open space/agricultural land. However, there are competing priorities promoting preservation land and housing affordability.
No, compact non-growth worsened it.
Compact growth does not by definition makes it harder to build more housing. It just makes it harder to build sprawl.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
If you don’t have broad growth you don’t get more housing. If you want more housing, you need to support broad growth, because broad growth lowers developers’ risk and makes them more willing to accept lower profits. Prices could come down through demand destruction, like in decaying rust belt cities, but MoCo is close enough to job centers and has the federal government as a stable employer so it’s unlikely to experience demand destruction. That leaves you with broad growth as the only way forward to achieve your goal.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
What are you afraid of? According to you, nobody wants them anyway. If nobody wants them, nobody will build them. Problem solved.
That is not how that works and you know you are being disingenuous. Of course people will live in housing type that does not match their consumer preferences if their preferred housing type is not available. The Median days on market for condos in MOCO is more than 3 times longer than for single family homes. So I stand by my statement that this policy does not match consumer preferences. It is promoting further imbalances in the housing market which will prevent many county residents from pursuing the housing choices they want and forcing people to live in something they don't want. Houses are not fruit and the planning department is acting like zoning is a sim city game that does not impact real people. Zoning decisions have a major impact on residents and this policy is based on flawed assumptions, that most Americans will use public transit and other luxury beliefs inconsistent with actual behavior. The entire county does not have the capacity to handle a multiple of existing density levels and we do not have the budget to expand infrastructure everywhere all at once in MOCO. This proposal is irresponsible and shows a complete disregard for the well-being of county residents.
Or affordable. How about that. People choose to live in housing that is available and that they can afford, even if it isn't their ideal preference if they had unlimited choice and an unlimited budget.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
Compact growth did worsen it. It by definition makes it harder to build more housing, I think preservation is important and we need to preserve open space/agricultural land. However, there are competing priorities promoting preservation land and housing affordability.
No, compact non-growth worsened it.
Compact growth does not by definition makes it harder to build more housing. It just makes it harder to build sprawl.
Ironically, compact growth policies caused compact non-growth. Compact growth is the most expensive kind so rents have to be high. There’s only so many households that can pay high rents so builders only construct as many units as they think that income segment can absorb.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
Compact growth did worsen it. It by definition makes it harder to build more housing, I think preservation is important and we need to preserve open space/agricultural land. However, there are competing priorities promoting preservation land and housing affordability.
No, compact non-growth worsened it.
Compact growth does not by definition makes it harder to build more housing. It just makes it harder to build sprawl.
Ironically, compact growth policies caused compact non-growth. Compact growth is the most expensive kind so rents have to be high. There’s only so many households that can pay high rents so builders only construct as many units as they think that income segment can absorb.
Compact growth is only the most expensive kind if you don't take the costs of infrastructure into account, but of course you would take the costs of infrastructure into account.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
Compact growth did worsen it. It by definition makes it harder to build more housing, I think preservation is important and we need to preserve open space/agricultural land. However, there are competing priorities promoting preservation land and housing affordability.
No, compact non-growth worsened it.
Compact growth does not by definition makes it harder to build more housing. It just makes it harder to build sprawl.
Ironically, compact growth policies caused compact non-growth. Compact growth is the most expensive kind so rents have to be high. There’s only so many households that can pay high rents so builders only construct as many units as they think that income segment can absorb.
Curious about this. You are saying that is more expensive to build a small apartment building than it is to build a SFH?
That doesn't sound logical at first blush....nor does it jive with what I hear people about saying about developers being behind all of the multi-unit policy push.
Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by compact growth?
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
Compact growth did worsen it. It by definition makes it harder to build more housing, I think preservation is important and we need to preserve open space/agricultural land. However, there are competing priorities promoting preservation land and housing affordability.
No, compact non-growth worsened it.
Compact growth does not by definition makes it harder to build more housing. It just makes it harder to build sprawl.
Ironically, compact growth policies caused compact non-growth. Compact growth is the most expensive kind so rents have to be high. There’s only so many households that can pay high rents so builders only construct as many units as they think that income segment can absorb.
Compact growth is only the most expensive kind if you don't take the costs of infrastructure into account, but of course you would take the costs of infrastructure into account.
On a per house basis, the costs of infrastructure are still lower than the cost of comparable land in a compact growth area.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
Compact growth did worsen it. It by definition makes it harder to build more housing, I think preservation is important and we need to preserve open space/agricultural land. However, there are competing priorities promoting preservation land and housing affordability.
No, compact non-growth worsened it.
Compact growth does not by definition makes it harder to build more housing. It just makes it harder to build sprawl.
Ironically, compact growth policies caused compact non-growth. Compact growth is the most expensive kind so rents have to be high. There’s only so many households that can pay high rents so builders only construct as many units as they think that income segment can absorb.
Curious about this. You are saying that is more expensive to build a small apartment building than it is to build a SFH?
That doesn't sound logical at first blush....nor does it jive with what I hear people about saying about developers being behind all of the multi-unit policy push.
Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by compact growth?
I think we both know that the major drivers of housing supply in compact growth area are multi family high rises close to transit. It’s the most expensive type of construction on the most expensive land. Even if you replace every SFH on a 50-lot square block with a quad, you’re only gaining 150 units, which is a modest high-rise apartment project.
For small apartment buildings, the cost per square foot is usually a little more than the cost per square foot for a comparably priced single family home. So if you’re building three 1k sq foot stacked apartments, the construction cost is about the same as a 3k sq ft SFH. The apartments aren’t commercially viable because the 3k sq ft SFH will probably sell for just a bit less than the three apartments altogether, the apartments entail more financial risk and work. You’re also still building on the most expensive land, made even more expensive by compact growth’s limits on where you can put housing. When you limit the supply of something, it costs more.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
Compact growth did worsen it. It by definition makes it harder to build more housing, I think preservation is important and we need to preserve open space/agricultural land. However, there are competing priorities promoting preservation land and housing affordability.
No, compact non-growth worsened it.
Compact growth does not by definition makes it harder to build more housing. It just makes it harder to build sprawl.
Ironically, compact growth policies caused compact non-growth. Compact growth is the most expensive kind so rents have to be high. There’s only so many households that can pay high rents so builders only construct as many units as they think that income segment can absorb.
Curious about this. You are saying that is more expensive to build a small apartment building than it is to build a SFH?
That doesn't sound logical at first blush....nor does it jive with what I hear people about saying about developers being behind all of the multi-unit policy push.
Unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by compact growth?
I think we both know that the major drivers of housing supply in compact growth area are multi family high rises close to transit. It’s the most expensive type of construction on the most expensive land. Even if you replace every SFH on a 50-lot square block with a quad, you’re only gaining 150 units, which is a modest high-rise apartment project.
For small apartment buildings, the cost per square foot is usually a little more than the cost per square foot for a comparably priced single family home. So if you’re building three 1k sq foot stacked apartments, the construction cost is about the same as a 3k sq ft SFH. The apartments aren’t commercially viable because the 3k sq ft SFH will probably sell for just a bit less than the three apartments altogether, the apartments entail more financial risk and work. You’re also still building on the most expensive land, made even more expensive by compact growth’s limits on where you can put housing. When you limit the supply of something, it costs more.
Absolutely. It's high time we got rid of zoning where only uniplexes are allowed, so that we can expand the supply of housing.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
Compact growth did worsen it. It by definition makes it harder to build more housing, I think preservation is important and we need to preserve open space/agricultural land. However, there are competing priorities promoting preservation land and housing affordability.
No, compact non-growth worsened it.
Compact growth does not by definition makes it harder to build more housing. It just makes it harder to build sprawl.
Ironically, compact growth policies caused compact non-growth. Compact growth is the most expensive kind so rents have to be high. There’s only so many households that can pay high rents so builders only construct as many units as they think that income segment can absorb.
Compact growth is only the most expensive kind if you don't take the costs of infrastructure into account, but of course you would take the costs of infrastructure into account.
On a per house basis, the costs of infrastructure are still lower than the cost of comparable land in a compact growth area.
That's just not true. Sprawl costs to build, and then it keeps on costing, in perpetuity.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
Duplexes do exist in small numbers. Townhouses and condos exist in much larger numbers. From those existing units, along with data on household income and job growth, one can make pretty good predictions about pricing and demand. Planning did that as they put together the strategy. The results weren’t favorable to the proposal.
This isn’t going to move the housing needle. I say that with frustration (not joy) because I think it’s important that the county grow. But because the loudest advocates have put all of their weight behind upzoning, that’s what we’re getting. What we won’t get is more attainable (much less more affordable) housing, significantly more housing, or sustainable job growth. We definitely won’t get a solution to the housing crisis that compact growth created.
The next time there’s an important growth initiative, I hope that the YIMBYs can be open to hard data that challenges their assumptions and to solutions that aren’t part of their existing dogma.
That's interesting. I don't think it's important that the county grow. I think it's important that the county have housing people want and can afford. I think it's important that the county be a place where people want to live and work - including young people. I think it's important that the county be a place that is prepared for the coming climate crises. I think it's important that the county be a place where people can be healthy and safe. Sprawl would get us none of those things. Not one.
And no, compact growth did not create the housing crisis, and sprawl won't solve it.
Compact growth did worsen it. It by definition makes it harder to build more housing, I think preservation is important and we need to preserve open space/agricultural land. However, there are competing priorities promoting preservation land and housing affordability.
No, compact non-growth worsened it.
Compact growth does not by definition makes it harder to build more housing. It just makes it harder to build sprawl.
Ironically, compact growth policies caused compact non-growth. Compact growth is the most expensive kind so rents have to be high. There’s only so many households that can pay high rents so builders only construct as many units as they think that income segment can absorb.
Compact growth is only the most expensive kind if you don't take the costs of infrastructure into account, but of course you would take the costs of infrastructure into account.
On a per house basis, the costs of infrastructure are still lower than the cost of comparable land in a compact growth area.
I see this all the time on the internet because it gets disseminated by strong towns. The problem is that it’s just not true.
I support having more affordable housing. I just don't see this leading to the affordable housing and diversity that is touted as the intended purpose. Where does it say the housing has to be affordable? New housing whether SFHs or duplexes or whatever else is not going to be affordable in MoCo. Developers build everything big and luxury to make money. Money is not to be made selling "affordable" housing. That's why the government subsidies so-called affordable housing. There are new townhomes going up down the road in far outside the beltway MoCo starting at 800k at 3500 sqft. That's bigger and more expensive than my SFH. Most likely developers will build the same massive unaffordable crap. It just seems like a give away to developers.
Anonymous wrote:I support having more affordable housing. I just don't see this leading to the affordable housing and diversity that is touted as the intended purpose. Where does it say the housing has to be affordable? New housing whether SFHs or duplexes or whatever else is not going to be affordable in MoCo. Developers build everything big and luxury to make money. Money is not to be made selling "affordable" housing. That's why the government subsidies so-called affordable housing. There are new townhomes going up down the road in far outside the beltway MoCo starting at 800k at 3500 sqft. That's bigger and more expensive than my SFH. Most likely developers will build the same massive unaffordable crap. It just seems like a give away to developers.
I support having more housing, which is the intended purpose of this proposed zoning change.
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.
This is not a trivial thing like picking fruit to eat for breakfast or the color of clothing you are going to wear. I completely understand what you are saying, but disagree with your argument because it worsens the mismatch between consumers preferences and market supply. The shortage is the largest for single family houses and this zoning change will worsen it. The housing type and zoning density have significant impacts on county finances, schools, traffic and overall quality of life. Not everyone wants to live in single family houses but a large proportion of MOCO residents people do. Around 80% of Americans prefer single family houses and this policy does not increase the supply or promote affordability for the housing type that most people want. I am not against allowing plex buildings in walkable locations close the metro. However, I think it is a mistake to allow them them everywhere in the county.
How are you measuring demand for things that don't exist? How do people demonstrate their preference for something that doesn't exist?
It does exist...there are absolutely many apartments and townhomes in the neighborhoods most targeted by this policy. Has the board ever looked at apartment and townhome vacancies/sales? They seem to be going up all over Bethesda for example. Is there really a shortage of multifamily? Was any analysis done to assess this?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}