MoCo Council Vote Today

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to keep playing?

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

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

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

People here would really benefit from taking Econ 101.

lol.

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

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

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

Obvious rounding was obvious.

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

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

Cry harder bud. Your side lost.

What exactly was it that was “won” in your view? Because it wasn’t workforce housing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to keep playing?

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

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

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

People here would really benefit from taking Econ 101.

lol.

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

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

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

Obvious rounding was obvious.

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

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

Cry harder bud. Your side lost.

What exactly was it that was “won” in your view? Because it wasn’t workforce housing.

It's obvious that slogan was put in there to shut up the "affordable" housing activists. We need more housing, end of story. That means this is a win.

Subsidized housing doesn't work, so I don't care about that portion of it. And I refuse to engage with people who demand "affordable" housing without also volunteering a 5% tax hike in order to pay for it. Because they are not serious about affordable housing, they just don't want any housing anywhere.

Understand now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to keep playing?

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

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

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

People here would really benefit from taking Econ 101.

lol.

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

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

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

Obvious rounding was obvious.

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

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

Cry harder bud. Your side lost.

What exactly was it that was “won” in your view? Because it wasn’t workforce housing.

It's obvious that slogan was put in there to shut up the "affordable" housing activists. We need more housing, end of story. That means this is a win.

Subsidized housing doesn't work, so I don't care about that portion of it. And I refuse to engage with people who demand "affordable" housing without also volunteering a 5% tax hike in order to pay for it. Because they are not serious about affordable housing, they just don't want any housing anywhere.

Understand now?

A 5% tax hike on what exactly? Income? Property taxes? You are suggesting the highest tax increase in state history- that I guess would be siphoned specifically and only to be applied to affordable housing for other people.

I imagine the people willing to agree to such a tax increase would be in single digit percentages, if that high.

One of the crazier things Ive ever seen posted here actually.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to keep playing?

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

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

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

People here would really benefit from taking Econ 101.

lol.

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

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

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

Obvious rounding was obvious.

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

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

Cry harder bud. Your side lost.

What exactly was it that was “won” in your view? Because it wasn’t workforce housing.

It's obvious that slogan was put in there to shut up the "affordable" housing activists. We need more housing, end of story. That means this is a win.

Subsidized housing doesn't work, so I don't care about that portion of it. And I refuse to engage with people who demand "affordable" housing without also volunteering a 5% tax hike in order to pay for it. Because they are not serious about affordable housing, they just don't want any housing anywhere.

Understand now?

A 5% tax hike on what exactly? Income? Property taxes? You are suggesting the highest tax increase in state history- that I guess would be siphoned specifically and only to be applied to affordable housing for other people.

I imagine the people willing to agree to such a tax increase would be in single digit percentages, if that high.

One of the crazier things Ive ever seen posted here actually.

Dude, please read. I'm directly asking the people who are yelling about "affordable housing" to volunteer their money to pay for it. This is what NIMBYs do: complain housing isn't "affordable" but offer to way to pay for it. I'm calling out the hypocrisy.

[Anonymous]

Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

[Anonymous]

Can someone remind me why people are entitled to live in expensive zip codes? Can't they just live 20 min away with plenty of affordable housing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

Sane people: .....

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

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

This bill only upzones near transit cooridors on major roads.

Residential streets back up to those major roads. There are other plans in the works, such as the University Blvd. corridor plan, that will open up cul-de-sacs and dead-end streets to those major roads. Especially if properties on major roads are redeveloped and they want to grant parking variances, etc. So it doesn't just impact major roads, it impacts everyone within a quarter mile of the corridor. They can also waive minimum parking requirements for any buildings within a quarter mile of a flash stop, because why not just open up the dead-end residential streets and let people park there? win-win! wait, I thought all these new residents would be using public transit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone remind me why people are entitled to live in expensive zip codes? Can't they just live 20 min away with plenty of affordable housing?

Please point out the affordable housing that is 20 minutes away

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh I read it.
Your "plan" seems to be asking people to give up 5% of ____ if they truly support affordable housing. Got it. Good luck with that.

I'm not asking anything. I'm pointing out that the cries of "affordable housing" are fake. NIMBYs don't care about affordable housing.

[Anonymous]

Do YIMBYS?

Because this housing will not be affordable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Want to keep playing?

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

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

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

People here would really benefit from taking Econ 101.

lol.

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

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

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

Obvious rounding was obvious.

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

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

Cry harder bud. Your side lost.

What exactly was it that was “won” in your view? Because it wasn’t workforce housing.

It's obvious that slogan was put in there to shut up the "affordable" housing activists. We need more housing, end of story. That means this is a win.

Subsidized housing doesn't work, so I don't care about that portion of it. And I refuse to engage with people who demand "affordable" housing without also volunteering a 5% tax hike in order to pay for it. Because they are not serious about affordable housing, they just don't want any housing anywhere.

Understand now?

You are doing a terrific job making the case that the people who voted for this — and especially leading advocate Andrew Friedson — have no integrity by suggesting that they intentionally misled people to pass a bill.

The county just did a big subsidy for market rate housing, on top of the big subsidy it did for housing near metro stations, on top of the subsidy for townhouses with elevators, and on top of the subsidies that it has for MPDUs and buildings that are more than 50 percent MPDUs. If you’re suggesting that we eliminate the subsidies for market rate rental construction so that we have more money for MPDUs, I agree strongly.

For all the normal people here, eliminating inclusionary zoning is the next target for landlords. First they came for prevailing wage, and they won. Then they asked to be exempted from property taxes, and they won. They’ve already convinced Friedson and seven other council members that affordability wasn’t really an important element of a workforce housing bill, so inclusionary zoning’s days are probably numbered.

The people who need more affordable housing are props to people like PP and Andrew Friedson. Their main interest is in bailing out developers who made bad land deals and supporting landlordism, which isn’t really capitalism at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone remind me why people are entitled to live in expensive zip codes? Can't they just live 20 min away with plenty of affordable housing?

We have no land left to build out. We have housing shortage. The only thing left is infill.

[Anonymous]

Why can’t we build on green space up i270? I’m sure land would be cheaper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t we build on green space up i270? I’m sure land would be cheaper.

And then add more people who ahve to drive everywhere on roads that are already overcongested. hence focusing housing in transit corridors, you know, the way the rest of the world does it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why can’t we build on green space up i270? I’m sure land would be cheaper.

And then add more people who ahve to drive everywhere on roads that are already overcongested. hence focusing housing in transit corridors, you know, the way the rest of the world does it.

While I agree with that, it would be harder to make housing affordable to middle-class people in Bethesda, Chevy Chase, and parts of Rockville. While we should work toward that goal, it would be wise to have alternatives in the meantime. I don’t believe this new housing in the previously mentioned areas will be affordable for a two-person household with a $150,000 annual income.