all these affordable housing do gooders are doing the billionaires' work

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't stand these YIMBY do gooder twerps. They want to raze all SFHs to build dense crap. They love standing on their moral pedestals when they're too stupid to realize they're destroying the middle class and doing the bidding of the billionaires for free. Owning a home is pretty much the ONLY wealth vehicle the middle class has left. But the do gooders want to raze your homes and build giant apartment complexes next to them. Absolutely no one wants to live next to that junk. The middle class will flee, and guess what, developers come in taking all the homes and building a whole bunch of rental crap.

In their infinite wisdom, the YIMBYs and affordable housing idiots are sweeping the last leg of wealth out that is left for the middle class. They ate going to turn the entire counry into permarenters for life. And over time the middle class will be far worse off, because no one will be able to own anything, then they'll still jack up your rents on you in the end. The biggest thing elitists want to control now is land and property ownership. And all these clownshow housing morons are obtaining it for them by ruining your neighborhoods with their amazingly stupid zoning plans.

Not sure if this is bait, but no elected officials seriously want to raze all SFHs in Montgomery County. The AHSI (which I assume you’re referring to) only applies to specific areas within the county near transit corridors. There’s a wealth of literature showing that increasing supply (building more housing) brings down prices. NIMBYs on the council are promoting their exclusionary policies in the name of alleviating economic inequality, and I am not falling for it, nor are many people on the council and perhaps our next executive.

Serious question - how does decreasing the supply of SFH bring down the price of SFH? it seems like it would drive up the price of SFH, while maybe bringing apartment/condo prices (and rent on those properties) down. But most people don't want apartment/condos forever.

The goal is to generally bring down the price of housing, not SFH specifically. Emphasizing SFH is why we are where we are now with respect to housing affordability. We want a broader range of housing options to fit a broader range of salaries and households.

PP here - thank you for answering the question. I have to admit I'm not very well versed on this subject. I always thought/ assumed "missing middle" housing meant houses for the low middle to middle middle class families. So like where I grew up, which was a SFH, but a small one on a small lot. All the families in our neighborhood were working class, or mid-level professionals. Nothing like the mcmansions of today. But it sounds like I'm wrong, and "missing middle" means something else? Cause in my experience I feel like there's plenty of options for singles or couples (apartments/condos), but no where where I can raise a family without being really rich. Every time I see another "mixed use" development going up I get so depressed, because it's always just condos and apartments. But maybe the "American dream" of a house with a little yard and family is just dead?

Don’t let these people fool you. Missing middle is just millennials that want to own a place in a desirable area but can’t afford to. They couldn’t care less about families. They certainly don’t want them in SFHs.

Not quite. Missing middle is a marketing fad. Politicians think it’s middle class housing but it’s really just smaller, expensive housing that boomers buy to rent out or use as a pied-à-terre.

This.

I live in "missing middle" housing, and it's full of middle class families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DP.

Some of those opposed seem always to make the mistake of saying YIMBYs are going to tear down detached SFHs as though the policies currently pursued allow them to force that. While some YIMBYs would like that, being terribly against detached SFHs/car-based suburbia, the zoning/etc. policies they've gotten enacted are about allowance for an owner to do something with a property, not forcing them to do that. This sets up an easy retort from YIMBYs along the lines of, "No one is forcing you to tear down your home/move," when the issue really is about all the surroundings of the home in which one lives.

What makes someone want to live in a particular town/neighborhood? It's the characteristics of that town/neighborhood. Some of that has to do with proximity to one's occupation. Some of that has to do with the available services (schools, parks, roads, transit, etc.) and commercial amenities. And some of that has to do with relative crowding and neighborhood appearance.

And that last bit has a lot to do with the policy changes spurred by YIMBYs. It doesn't have to be one's own home that changes to change one's interest in or enjoyment of one's neighborhood/town. And, with moving being a pretty imposing burden, highly economically inefficient from a whole-of-society perspective, a change imposed on sizable populations already living in built-out neighborhoods, like, say Four Corners with the new U Blvd plan on top of the AHSI-related corridor changes, should be far more scrutinized than proposed conditions (zoning, etc.) for the buildout of entire new communities, such as those more recently developed upcouty around Germantown.

This is a good comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I will also point out how myopic this group is: they only want to build more apartments, with no regard to infrastructure like traffic, schools, libraries, police and fire stations, parks to play in for all the kids who inevitably are going to end up living in those apartments. Any anyone who disagrees with them, or brings up any other angles (including schools), is immediately labeled a racist/bigot

+1. Or they are just labeled a NIMBY. But it’s not NIMBYism to point out that schools are over capacity (where that’s the case) or that traffic is a nightmare and the public transit system is tens of billions of dollars and years away from being a functional substitute in many places.

what schools are over capcity? Not the ones in ward 3...this isn't 10 years ago.
Traffic is going to be a nightmare for as long as single occupancy vehicles, mostly from MD and VA are given priority to use limited road space over mass transit and scooters/bikes and pedestrians.

Fact - this isn't 1955 and living the Boomer dream is not going to work in the 21st century - our built environment needs to change to accommodate a post boomer world, no matter how much the boomers don't want to face it.

ACPS and Alexandria is all in development and not doing a damn thing about school capacity. This forum isn’t just DC proper.

You want to talk about dreams? It is a complete pipe dream to believe that people out here are going to be able to drop their cars for your fantasy land. It would take billions and billions of investment to overcome the physical distances required. And that assumes it is done competently, with recent experience of Potomac Yard metro and the dedicated bus lane in the middle of highway 1 (both severely underused) providing little confidence of that.

Fact - I’m a millennial. This isn’t about boomers versus millennials but people who live in the real world (with all of its constraints) and those who don’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

[Anonymous]

Owning a home is definitely NOT the only way to build wealth. Renting is much cheaper than owning these days and if you rent a cheap place, you can pocket the difference and invest it in SP500. that’s the best way to build wealth for a young couple these days. Especially with having to move around for jobs in this modern economy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+100

You'll own nothing, and you'll love it!

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.

I truly think that things like this are creating two classes, billionaires and the impoverished.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

[Anonymous]

I think a lot of issues could be fixed if they would only allow 2 cars per apartment. And you couldn't license a 3rd to that address. We definitely have houses with 9+ cars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

So these new apartments are in fact affordable then? The issue being perhaps they are "too" affordable?

Granted, there are multiple posters, but its hard to tell if the objection is poor people living in these buildings or poor people not being able to afford these buildings and its just millennials leaving their avocado toast crumbs everywhere and parking their fleet of electric SUVs in front of SFHs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

So these new apartments are in fact affordable then? The issue being perhaps they are "too" affordable?

Granted, there are multiple posters, but its hard to tell if the objection is poor people living in these buildings or poor people not being able to afford these buildings and its just millennials leaving their avocado toast crumbs everywhere and parking their fleet of electric SUVs in front of SFHs.

The new apartments are free because everyone gets vouchers to live there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Owning a home is definitely NOT the only way to build wealth. Renting is much cheaper than owning these days and if you rent a cheap place, you can pocket the difference and invest it in SP500. that’s the best way to build wealth for a young couple these days. Especially with having to move around for jobs in this modern economy

That’s your opinion. I prefer to pay 2014 dollars and 2020 interest rates for my housing and invest the difference between 2014 housing prices and 2026 housing prices in a variety of ways (including rental housing). I am easily ahead of where I’d be had I kept renting in the same building.

[Anonymous]

NP. I think like many things there is a “middle ground” for missing middle (pun intended). Increasing density doesn’t necessarily need to consist of large apartment buildings. I think having a mix of duplexes, triplexes, and garden apartments would be nice to get a bit more variety in neighborhoods.

I live in Arlington in a desired school district, walkable to a metro station. I managed to buy pre-COVID at a low rate, which isn’t doable for families like mine anymore (dual fed GS-14s and we couldn’t afford to buy our house today). It feels unfair to completely pull up the ladder behind me while aLL around are $2-3M new builds. So now only the very wealthy have proximity to public transit and highly ranked schools.

I believe people of all income levels should have access to taxpayer-funded amenities. Of course there should be real capacity studies, not just rubber-stamping of reports and write offs for developers. I know we already have plenty of rainwater issues in the county and so we can’t encourage building to the lot lines. And I agree with a PP about limiting the number of vehicles that can be registered to an address (with actual enforcement of this).

But I would be totally fine with something other than 5k + SFHs going up all around me. Rich people have been using zoning codes to their benefit for decades now to hoard resources and I don’t think it’s right. Of course not everyone can be in their #1 zip code choice. However, if localities throughout the region relaxed zoning and also added amenities to lower income neighborhoods that are lacking them, it would ease some of the pressure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think a lot of issues could be fixed if they would only allow 2 cars per apartment. And you couldn't license a 3rd to that address. We definitely have houses with 9+ cars.

Require the infrastructure (parking garage, in this case, but sewer capacity, schools, etc., too) commensurate with the development. Much more effective and a better solution for all residents. Apartment residents get to park at their home instead of blocks away while the SFH neighborhoods can find parking in front of their houses more easily.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep in mind all this upzoning is a natural and predictable consequence of mass immigration of low wage workers. You can't have your "No human is illegal" and "Stop ICE" yard signs and not expect this.

The upzoning is to provide homes for these people close enough to you that they can mow your lawns, cook your food and watch your kids. They of course would rather live close to the people that defend and employ them rather than to live out in Waldorf or something and commute in for 2 hours for their low-paying jobs.

So rant on as you like, but you're just getting exactly what you asked for.

Except they never build anything that the cooks, landscapers, and childcare workers can afford.

The infill building is always very expensive housing, whether it’s for rent or purchase.

Maybe I don't get the coded language being used, but then who is "leaving trash everywhere, parking a million cars and generally ruining a neighborhood?" Middle-class millennials? If its not low wage workers, what exactly are you all collectively freaking out about?

Well for one thing, these lower wage workers tend to cram as many people as they can into these apartments since none of them can afford them on their own. But people can pretend how that’s not the case. No coded language anywhere. Just the reality that many politicians and activists turn their backs on and pretend it’s not happening because they increased density.

DP

I live down the street from an affordable apartment complex. It's completely fine and in no way prevents my family from living a suburban lifestyle. Yes, I think people who oppose that are pretty silly.

My kids go to a title 1 school. 70% of the kids come from one apartment complex, the rest come from townhouses and sfhs. The school was an excellent school before the apartment complex (I've lived here for 14 years) and the schools around it are excellent too. It irks me that the county is letting only one school fail. Why aren't kids bussed from this apartment to all the local elementary schools? They have to be bussed to mine, so might as well be bussed to the others too, which are just as close. Concentrated poverty like this will always be an issue

I totally agree that concentrating multifamily housing in some geographical areas is a bad idea. In the case you are describing it also sounds like the school boundaries intentionally segregate students by income.