More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Great. Then make housing where it's already zoned but underutilized. Large apartment/condo buildings within a quarter mile of a Metro. Greenfield up-county. Y'know, housing. Without the community destruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Great. Then make housing where it's already zoned but underutilized. Large apartment/condo buildings within a quarter mile of a Metro. Greenfield up-county. Y'know, housing. Without the community destruction.

Without the what? Building housing is building community, not destroying community.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Alright, well look how well that works for communities when there is no stability and everyone rents. The primarily renter owned communities go to hell and everything becomes slums. You have been deluded by special interest groups. A society of mostly renters benefits no one except for the wealthy people that own the rental properties. Housing policy, economic mobility and middle class financial stability are inseparable. You cannot evaluate them separately and act as they are unrelated. I did not say that they should not build more homes. I just think that this policy is a huge mistake. It would be a better idea to change zoning to allow for more construction of single family homes (smaller minimum lot size within walking distance to metro) higher density townhomes communities (in walking distance to metro) to provide ownership opportunities and increase affordability. Multiplex units on small lots for large swaths of the county are not a good solution and it will be detrimental MOCO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Great. Then make housing where it's already zoned but underutilized. Large apartment/condo buildings within a quarter mile of a Metro. Greenfield up-county. Y'know, housing. Without the community destruction.

Without the what? Building housing is building community, not destroying community.

Great, then make it all contingent on it being among the types of community that the considerable majority of current residents of that community might seek.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: No. Pedestrian bridges cost a lot of money, they occupy a lot of space, and then pedestrians don't use them anyway, because people don't want to have to walk 2-3 times as far just to cross the street. Pedestrian bridges are infrastructure for drivers who don't want to have to slow down or stop for pedestrians. What we need is streets that are safe for people to cross at street level[/quote]

How many times do people cross the street per day ? per how many times is someone killed doing this

Just outside the study zone, but one last night: https://moco360.media/2024/06/03/pedestrian-struck-by-vehicle-in-takoma-park/

[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:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You can try that line, but the way you use it also is a logical fallacy, in this case alluding to a conclusion (that you'd not provided a strawman argument) when the premise ("strawman" being misused) is false. You absolutely set up a strawman argument in your prior post. You know that, of course, but for others' benefit:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Great. Then make housing where it's already zoned but underutilized. Large apartment/condo buildings within a quarter mile of a Metro. Greenfield up-county. Y'know, housing. Without the community destruction.

Without the what? Building housing is building community, not destroying community.

Great, then make it all contingent on it being among the types of community that the considerable majority of current residents of that community might seek.

I think you misunderstand the word community. Community does not mean "current residents and people the current residents approve of."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

How many times do people cross the street per day ? per how many times is someone killed doing this

I'm sorry, but what's your point? Is your point that people don't need to be able to cross the street safely because they don't do it that often? Or that it is safe to cross the street because most of the time, people do it without getting killed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Great. Then make housing where it's already zoned but underutilized. Large apartment/condo buildings within a quarter mile of a Metro. Greenfield up-county. Y'know, housing. Without the community destruction.

Without the what? Building housing is building community, not destroying community.

Great, then make it all contingent on it being among the types of community that the considerable majority of current residents of that community might seek.

I think you misunderstand the word community. Community does not mean "current residents and people the current residents approve of."

And it certainly doesn't mean outside influencers, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Financial security and housing security go hand in hand. There is considerable value in locking in your monthly housing cost. Any appreciation is a bonus. Since buying five years ago, my monthly housing cost has increased less each year than it did when I rented. When I back out principal from PITI, it’s nearly flat.

Diluted ownership is also better for the market than concentrated ownership. Concentrated ownership enabled the price fixing schemes that many big landlords participated in and have subsequently settled. You don’t read much about these on YIMBY blogs, but there’s no question that they drove rents higher. It’s no coincidence that rents fell (or at least didn’t increase as fast) at buildings across the county once attorneys general started suing big landlords for colluding a couple years ago.

We should really focus on making ownership more accessible, whether it’s condos in a high rise, townhouses, duplexes, or detached single family houses. Enabling financial certainty for more people and diluting ownership are both good economic policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Financial security and housing security go hand in hand. There is considerable value in locking in your monthly housing cost. Any appreciation is a bonus. Since buying five years ago, my monthly housing cost has increased less each year than it did when I rented. When I back out principal from PITI, it’s nearly flat.

Diluted ownership is also better for the market than concentrated ownership. Concentrated ownership enabled the price fixing schemes that many big landlords participated in and have subsequently settled. You don’t read much about these on YIMBY blogs, but there’s no question that they drove rents higher. It’s no coincidence that rents fell (or at least didn’t increase as fast) at buildings across the county once attorneys general started suing big landlords for colluding a couple years ago.

We should really focus on making ownership more accessible, whether it’s condos in a high rise, townhouses, duplexes, or detached single family houses. Enabling financial certainty for more people and diluting ownership are both good economic policies.

Enabling home ownership via fixed rate 30 year mortgages is, I think, a recent and American policy choice. At best it's a good forced savings vehicle. It does, as you mention, "set" housing costs but at the cost of people bearing the risk of a significant part of their net worth being in a single fixed depreciating asset -- not very a diverse or liquid way to hold wealth. Trouble getting insurance? Live in a declining rust belt city? Need to move for a new job? Tough luck.

What makes them not depreciating assets lately? That there's not enough of them. So yes, making ownership (or even other housing options) more accessible is good. But it's in tension with the goal of providing financial security via encouraging people to put a lot of their wealth in that one asset.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Financial security and housing security go hand in hand. There is considerable value in locking in your monthly housing cost. Any appreciation is a bonus. Since buying five years ago, my monthly housing cost has increased less each year than it did when I rented. When I back out principal from PITI, it’s nearly flat.

Diluted ownership is also better for the market than concentrated ownership. Concentrated ownership enabled the price fixing schemes that many big landlords participated in and have subsequently settled. You don’t read much about these on YIMBY blogs, but there’s no question that they drove rents higher. It’s no coincidence that rents fell (or at least didn’t increase as fast) at buildings across the county once attorneys general started suing big landlords for colluding a couple years ago.

We should really focus on making ownership more accessible, whether it’s condos in a high rise, townhouses, duplexes, or detached single family houses. Enabling financial certainty for more people and diluting ownership are both good economic policies.

Enabling home ownership via fixed rate 30 year mortgages is, I think, a recent and American policy choice. At best it's a good forced savings vehicle. It does, as you mention, "set" housing costs but at the cost of people bearing the risk of a significant part of their net worth being in a single fixed depreciating asset -- not very a diverse or liquid way to hold wealth. Trouble getting insurance? Live in a declining rust belt city? Need to move for a new job? Tough luck.

What makes them not depreciating assets lately? That there's not enough of them. So yes, making ownership (or even other housing options) more accessible is good. But it's in tension with the goal of providing financial security via encouraging people to put a lot of their wealth in that one asset.

What makes them not depreciate is the scarcity of land. The 30-year fixed is a uniquely American policy choice, but it’s in practice tougher for condos. That would be a good thing to fix.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Financial security and housing security go hand in hand. There is considerable value in locking in your monthly housing cost. Any appreciation is a bonus. Since buying five years ago, my monthly housing cost has increased less each year than it did when I rented. When I back out principal from PITI, it’s nearly flat.

Diluted ownership is also better for the market than concentrated ownership. Concentrated ownership enabled the price fixing schemes that many big landlords participated in and have subsequently settled. You don’t read much about these on YIMBY blogs, but there’s no question that they drove rents higher. It’s no coincidence that rents fell (or at least didn’t increase as fast) at buildings across the county once attorneys general started suing big landlords for colluding a couple years ago.

We should really focus on making ownership more accessible, whether it’s condos in a high rise, townhouses, duplexes, or detached single family houses. Enabling financial certainty for more people and diluting ownership are both good economic policies.

Enabling home ownership via fixed rate 30 year mortgages is, I think, a recent and American policy choice. At best it's a good forced savings vehicle. It does, as you mention, "set" housing costs but at the cost of people bearing the risk of a significant part of their net worth being in a single fixed depreciating asset -- not very a diverse or liquid way to hold wealth. Trouble getting insurance? Live in a declining rust belt city? Need to move for a new job? Tough luck.

What makes them not depreciating assets lately? That there's not enough of them. So yes, making ownership (or even other housing options) more accessible is good. But it's in tension with the goal of providing financial security via encouraging people to put a lot of their wealth in that one asset.

What makes them not depreciate is the scarcity of land. The 30-year fixed is a uniquely American policy choice, but it’s in practice tougher for condos. That would be a good thing to fix.

The land doesn't depreciate. The structures on the land do. What keeps that from happening (pricewise, the assets still need upkeep, of course) to a lot of places is the lack of other housing options. Not land.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All you NIMBYs sure do like complaining (and seem to think most people agree with you, for some reason?)

You all keep yappin' about "community engagement" and "letting your voice be heard". Well guess what, we did all that! It was called the elections. And they have consequences. Get over it, the state is moving forward.

If you wanna live in a farm, go buy a farm lol.

So just lay back and enjoy it?

Was this your advice during Trump’s years in office?

This is also dishonest because this policy does force people to leave there homes by increasing the assessed value of property to the point that many can no longer afford to pay the property taxes. You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

Could you provide an example of a Soviet style apartment complex in Montgomery County, please? Since the Planning Department keeps trying to force everyone into them, there must be at least one such building in Montgomery County. But where? I haven't seen any. What haven't I seen?

One of the things that has been in little dispute, even within Planning, was that the architectural and aesthetic quality of high-rise and multi-family dwellings in the county has traditionally been very poor. You seem to be someone who just argues out of ignorance just for the sake of arguing.

The poster who said

You guys are absolutely try to force people to leave their homes by making the property taxes unaffordable, so don’t lie about your motives to force everyone to live in “environmentally friendly” Soviet style apartment complexes.

is commenting about aesthetic/architectural quality? How about that.

Have you seen the aesthetic/architectural quality of the houses in the University Boulevard corridor? It's cookie cutter, mass-produced, tract housing. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

There is absolutely everything wrong with mass-produced tract apartments housing. It destroys the American dream by creating a nation of renters and landed gentry. Policies that push people to live in low-quality apartments complexes will cause the middle class to lose opportunities to establish generational wealth and financial stability.

So to be clear:

mass-produced tract houses inhabited by landed gentry are good
mass-produced tract apartment buildings inhabited by renters are bad

Is that what you're saying, yes?

No, I am saying that this "missing middle" housing agenda that encourages the replacement of SFH with multifamily rental properties will be detrimental to the American middle class. The rentals will be owned by wealthy investor groups rather than middle class families . This is not the correct way to promote affordable housing and enhance financial stalbility for middle class households. I do not support eliminating single family zoning, I think it would be better to reduce minimum lot sizes for single family houses close to transit corridors, allow for assemblage development at slightly higher density level than SFH when creating owner-occupied townhome communities. The missing middle housing proposal incentivizes investor owned multiplex buildings while harming middle class residents in MOCO.

So what you're saying is: rental housing is bad for for the American middle class and therefore government policy should discourage it.

That seems problematic.

DP. So what you're doing is casting PP's thoughts in an incomplete and one-sided way so as to create a strawman argument. Those seem to be all that the YIMBY folks bother to create.

Yes, rental housing is bad for the middle class prosperity and financial security. This MM proposal that creates incentive to replace SFH with small plex buildings will threaten the primary form of financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households. It will effectively push them out of the housing market by driving up the price of SFH, so they will end up renting instead. This zoning policy will worsen wealth inequality and make it more difficult for everyone outside of the most affluent households to own a home. The new plex units will be primarily investor owned, most of them will not provide ownership opportunities. Without homeownership there is no middle class in the US.

The primary purpose of housing is housing, not financial security/wealth accumulation for middle class households.

Financial security and housing security go hand in hand. There is considerable value in locking in your monthly housing cost. Any appreciation is a bonus. Since buying five years ago, my monthly housing cost has increased less each year than it did when I rented. When I back out principal from PITI, it’s nearly flat.

Diluted ownership is also better for the market than concentrated ownership. Concentrated ownership enabled the price fixing schemes that many big landlords participated in and have subsequently settled. You don’t read much about these on YIMBY blogs, but there’s no question that they drove rents higher. It’s no coincidence that rents fell (or at least didn’t increase as fast) at buildings across the county once attorneys general started suing big landlords for colluding a couple years ago.

We should really focus on making ownership more accessible, whether it’s condos in a high rise, townhouses, duplexes, or detached single family houses. Enabling financial certainty for more people and diluting ownership are both good economic policies.

Enabling home ownership via fixed rate 30 year mortgages is, I think, a recent and American policy choice. At best it's a good forced savings vehicle. It does, as you mention, "set" housing costs but at the cost of people bearing the risk of a significant part of their net worth being in a single fixed depreciating asset -- not very a diverse or liquid way to hold wealth. Trouble getting insurance? Live in a declining rust belt city? Need to move for a new job? Tough luck.

What makes them not depreciating assets lately? That there's not enough of them. So yes, making ownership (or even other housing options) more accessible is good. But it's in tension with the goal of providing financial security via encouraging people to put a lot of their wealth in that one asset.

What makes them not depreciate is the scarcity of land. The 30-year fixed is a uniquely American policy choice, but it’s in practice tougher for condos. That would be a good thing to fix.

The land doesn't depreciate. The structures on the land do. What keeps that from happening (pricewise, the assets still need upkeep, of course) to a lot of places is the lack of other housing options. Not land.

Of course the structures depreciate. Happily the appreciation of the land generally outpaces the depreciation of the structure. Lots in East Bethesda go for more than $1 million now, far more than the land plus structure cost when the seller purchased it decades ago.

You make a fair point about the forced savings of repaying principal, but locking in housing costs in prior year dollars leaves more money for investment in later years. If, for example, you bought in 2004, you’re paying 2004 housing costs using 2024 dollars. That leaves a lot of money for investment in riskier assets, which is where the real wealth accumulation comes. Someone who rented for those 20 years would have likely seen rents increase faster than wages, and they’d have less money to invest (as a percentage of overall earnings) than they did 20 years ago.

In short, owner occupancy is good for individuals and it’s good for housing markets. It’s bad for corporate landlords because they lose pricing power. YIMBYs are hostile to owner occupancy because it’s bad for the corporate landlords who established the YIMBY doctrine.

[Anonymous]

There's rent vs buy calculators out there and the numbers are going to vary if you compare say an autoworker who had a lot of their net worth in a home bought in 1965 Detroit vs a government worker in 1965 Bethesda. In the end it comes down to you can't have housing both be a source of wealth growth for homeowners and something that everyone is going to be able to attain.

You might end up what we have now: strong political will to maintain high housing prices, vs the strong political will to build more housing.