Data show people are fleeing MoCo for Frederick

[Anonymous]

NP. As a liberal Democrat and long-time Montgomery County resident. I say this most sincerely that the arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes. It’s truly unfortunate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. As a liberal Democrat and long-time Montgomery County resident. I say this most sincerely that the arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes. It’s truly unfortunate.

"The arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes" means "The people elected by voters to hold office in Montgomery County are doing things I don't like." If they were doing things you did like, or even weren't doing things you don't like, you would call it leadership, not arrogance.

I don't know which things you don't like, but there's a good chance they involve increasing the supply of housing or de-prioritizing car transportation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. As a liberal Democrat and long-time Montgomery County resident. I say this most sincerely that the arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes. It’s truly unfortunate.

LOL. "As a liberal Democrat and long-time Montgomery County resident", you just now have a problem with the establishment?, what MoCo has always been?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As a liberal Democrat and long-time Montgomery County resident. I say this most sincerely that the arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes. It’s truly unfortunate.

"The arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes" means "The people elected by voters to hold office in Montgomery County are doing things I don't like." If they were doing things you did like, or even weren't doing things you don't like, you would call it leadership, not arrogance.

I don't know which things you don't like, but there's a good chance they involve increasing the supply of housing or de-prioritizing car transportation.

Ask yourself, is anyone really against either one of those things, or are they against changes that affect their neighborhoods in negative ways? By all means, build density where it makes sense. Don’t try to build density in neighborhoods of single family homes, especially since you don’t have the data to prove that it achieves any of the goals. I mean, if you have proof, let’s see it.

Specifically, some proof that changes in zoning create affordable housing without negatively affecting the quality of life and property values for existing owners of SFH, and some evidence that those changes also prevent gentrification in lower income areas. The ZTA that the council plans to shove through with thrive aren’t studied well, and god knows what is going to happen. Probably worse for both higher value and lower income areas. Don’t worry, they’ll pass a bunch of bad local transit plans like the University B corridor plan and then use them as some justification for bad housing planning. It will be a masterpiece of MoCo scheming, the developers will be the only ones that profit.

Plenty of backslapping for all.

This going to be the like the monorail episode of the simpsons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As a liberal Democrat and long-time Montgomery County resident. I say this most sincerely that the arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes. It’s truly unfortunate.

"The arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes" means "The people elected by voters to hold office in Montgomery County are doing things I don't like." If they were doing things you did like, or even weren't doing things you don't like, you would call it leadership, not arrogance.

I don't know which things you don't like, but there's a good chance they involve increasing the supply of housing or de-prioritizing car transportation.

Ask yourself, is anyone really against either one of those things, or are they against changes that affect their neighborhoods in negative ways? By all means, build density where it makes sense. Don’t try to build density in neighborhoods of single family homes, especially since you don’t have the data to prove that it achieves any of the goals. I mean, if you have proof, let’s see it.

Specifically, some proof that changes in zoning create affordable housing without negatively affecting the quality of life and property values for existing owners of SFH, and some evidence that those changes also prevent gentrification in lower income areas. The ZTA that the council plans to shove through with thrive aren’t studied well, and god knows what is going to happen. Probably worse for both higher value and lower income areas. Don’t worry, they’ll pass a bunch of bad local transit plans like the University B corridor plan and then use them as some justification for bad housing planning. It will be a masterpiece of MoCo scheming, the developers will be the only ones that profit.

Plenty of backslapping for all.

This going to be the like the monorail episode of the simpsons.

Yes. For example, building duplexes in neighborhoods of "single family homes" makes sense. And only affects neighborhoods in a "negative way" if you're a person who's terrified of people who live in duplexes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As a liberal Democrat and long-time Montgomery County resident. I say this most sincerely that the arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes. It’s truly unfortunate.

"The arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes" means "The people elected by voters to hold office in Montgomery County are doing things I don't like." If they were doing things you did like, or even weren't doing things you don't like, you would call it leadership, not arrogance.

I don't know which things you don't like, but there's a good chance they involve increasing the supply of housing or de-prioritizing car transportation.

Ask yourself, is anyone really against either one of those things, or are they against changes that affect their neighborhoods in negative ways? By all means, build density where it makes sense. Don’t try to build density in neighborhoods of single family homes, especially since you don’t have the data to prove that it achieves any of the goals. I mean, if you have proof, let’s see it.

Specifically, some proof that changes in zoning create affordable housing without negatively affecting the quality of life and property values for existing owners of SFH, and some evidence that those changes also prevent gentrification in lower income areas. The ZTA that the council plans to shove through with thrive aren’t studied well, and god knows what is going to happen. Probably worse for both higher value and lower income areas. Don’t worry, they’ll pass a bunch of bad local transit plans like the University B corridor plan and then use them as some justification for bad housing planning. It will be a masterpiece of MoCo scheming, the developers will be the only ones that profit.

Plenty of backslapping for all.

This going to be the like the monorail episode of the simpsons.

Yes. For example, building duplexes in neighborhoods of "single family homes" makes sense. And only affects neighborhoods in a "negative way" if you're a person who's terrified of people who live in duplexes.

No. We all know the inevitable where a single duplex gets rented out to multiple people who then drive multiple cars per duplex. They have nowhere to park and start parking their cars all over the neighborhood, junking up the place, making neighborhoods run down, and leaving cars unmoved for weeks/months. Then there will be inevitable where duplexes get turned into party Airbnbs or house a bunch of morons who party all hours at the night because they're stuck in their post college phase and drink everynight.

Stop trying to ruin neighborhoods and homes. Thanks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As a liberal Democrat and long-time Montgomery County resident. I say this most sincerely that the arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes. It’s truly unfortunate.

"The arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes" means "The people elected by voters to hold office in Montgomery County are doing things I don't like." If they were doing things you did like, or even weren't doing things you don't like, you would call it leadership, not arrogance.

I don't know which things you don't like, but there's a good chance they involve increasing the supply of housing or de-prioritizing car transportation.

Ask yourself, is anyone really against either one of those things, or are they against changes that affect their neighborhoods in negative ways? By all means, build density where it makes sense. Don’t try to build density in neighborhoods of single family homes, especially since you don’t have the data to prove that it achieves any of the goals. I mean, if you have proof, let’s see it.

Specifically, some proof that changes in zoning create affordable housing without negatively affecting the quality of life and property values for existing owners of SFH, and some evidence that those changes also prevent gentrification in lower income areas. The ZTA that the council plans to shove through with thrive aren’t studied well, and god knows what is going to happen. Probably worse for both higher value and lower income areas. Don’t worry, they’ll pass a bunch of bad local transit plans like the University B corridor plan and then use them as some justification for bad housing planning. It will be a masterpiece of MoCo scheming, the developers will be the only ones that profit.

Plenty of backslapping for all.

This going to be the like the monorail episode of the simpsons.

Yes. For example, building duplexes in neighborhoods of "single family homes" makes sense. And only affects neighborhoods in a "negative way" if you're a person who's terrified of people who live in duplexes.

No. We all know the inevitable where a single duplex gets rented out to multiple people who then drive multiple cars per duplex. They have nowhere to park and start parking their cars all over the neighborhood, junking up the place, making neighborhoods run down, and leaving cars unmoved for weeks/months. Then there will be inevitable where duplexes get turned into party Airbnbs or house a bunch of morons who party all hours at the night because they're stuck in their post college phase and drink everynight.

Stop trying to ruin neighborhoods and homes. Thanks.

Well, there you go. Another person who would undoubtedly be happier living somewhere that is not in Montgomery County.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As a liberal Democrat and long-time Montgomery County resident. I say this most sincerely that the arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes. It’s truly unfortunate.

"The arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes" means "The people elected by voters to hold office in Montgomery County are doing things I don't like." If they were doing things you did like, or even weren't doing things you don't like, you would call it leadership, not arrogance.

I don't know which things you don't like, but there's a good chance they involve increasing the supply of housing or de-prioritizing car transportation.

Ask yourself, is anyone really against either one of those things, or are they against changes that affect their neighborhoods in negative ways? By all means, build density where it makes sense. Don’t try to build density in neighborhoods of single family homes, especially since you don’t have the data to prove that it achieves any of the goals. I mean, if you have proof, let’s see it.

Specifically, some proof that changes in zoning create affordable housing without negatively affecting the quality of life and property values for existing owners of SFH, and some evidence that those changes also prevent gentrification in lower income areas. The ZTA that the council plans to shove through with thrive aren’t studied well, and god knows what is going to happen. Probably worse for both higher value and lower income areas. Don’t worry, they’ll pass a bunch of bad local transit plans like the University B corridor plan and then use them as some justification for bad housing planning. It will be a masterpiece of MoCo scheming, the developers will be the only ones that profit.

Plenty of backslapping for all.

This going to be the like the monorail episode of the simpsons.

Yes. For example, building duplexes in neighborhoods of "single family homes" makes sense. And only affects neighborhoods in a "negative way" if you're a person who's terrified of people who live in duplexes.

No. We all know the inevitable where a single duplex gets rented out to multiple people who then drive multiple cars per duplex. They have nowhere to park and start parking their cars all over the neighborhood, junking up the place, making neighborhoods run down, and leaving cars unmoved for weeks/months. Then there will be inevitable where duplexes get turned into party Airbnbs or house a bunch of morons who party all hours at the night because they're stuck in their post college phase and drink everynight.

Stop trying to ruin neighborhoods and homes. Thanks.

Well, there you go. Another person who would undoubtedly be happier living somewhere that is not in Montgomery County.

Go junkify up another area of the country. So many people around here got good educations and worked hard for what they have. Sorry that you feel entitled to it. You want to ruin what other people worked for because it is the easier way out. How about we park cars in front of your home for weeks on end that are leaking oil and antifreeze, or put the cars up on blocks while we take 4 weeks to repair it in front of your house. You are free to move if you don't like housing costs. No one is entitled to live where they want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. As a liberal Democrat and long-time Montgomery County resident. I say this most sincerely that the arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes. It’s truly unfortunate.

"The arrogance of the political establishment in Montgomery County is leading to negative outcomes" means "The people elected by voters to hold office in Montgomery County are doing things I don't like." If they were doing things you did like, or even weren't doing things you don't like, you would call it leadership, not arrogance.

I don't know which things you don't like, but there's a good chance they involve increasing the supply of housing or de-prioritizing car transportation.

Ask yourself, is anyone really against either one of those things, or are they against changes that affect their neighborhoods in negative ways? By all means, build density where it makes sense. Don’t try to build density in neighborhoods of single family homes, especially since you don’t have the data to prove that it achieves any of the goals. I mean, if you have proof, let’s see it.

Specifically, some proof that changes in zoning create affordable housing without negatively affecting the quality of life and property values for existing owners of SFH, and some evidence that those changes also prevent gentrification in lower income areas. The ZTA that the council plans to shove through with thrive aren’t studied well, and god knows what is going to happen. Probably worse for both higher value and lower income areas. Don’t worry, they’ll pass a bunch of bad local transit plans like the University B corridor plan and then use them as some justification for bad housing planning. It will be a masterpiece of MoCo scheming, the developers will be the only ones that profit.

Plenty of backslapping for all.

This going to be the like the monorail episode of the simpsons.

Yes. For example, building duplexes in neighborhoods of "single family homes" makes sense. And only affects neighborhoods in a "negative way" if you're a person who's terrified of people who live in duplexes.

No. We all know the inevitable where a single duplex gets rented out to multiple people who then drive multiple cars per duplex. They have nowhere to park and start parking their cars all over the neighborhood, junking up the place, making neighborhoods run down, and leaving cars unmoved for weeks/months. Then there will be inevitable where duplexes get turned into party Airbnbs or house a bunch of morons who party all hours at the night because they're stuck in their post college phase and drink everynight.

Stop trying to ruin neighborhoods and homes. Thanks.

Well, there you go. Another person who would undoubtedly be happier living somewhere that is not in Montgomery County.

Go junkify up another area of the country. So many people around here got good educations and worked hard for what they have. Sorry that you feel entitled to it. You want to ruin what other people worked for because it is the easier way out. How about we park cars in front of your home for weeks on end that are leaking oil and antifreeze, or put the cars up on blocks while we take 4 weeks to repair it in front of your house. You are free to move if you don't like housing costs. No one is entitled to live where they want.

I'm the PP you're responding to. I like living in Montgomery County. It sounds like you don't like living in Montgomery County. That's why I suggested you consider moving.

[Anonymous]

It's a classic tale of pork politics. The politicians hand out free cash and housing to gather votes in Silver Spring drained from most other parts of the county. Silver Spring has the highest amount of registered voters.

Although it's successfully pulling low income residents from DC and PG, there aren't enough free services to go around and the low income residents aren't great tax revenue generators; so the solution is raise taxes so even more HOC programs can be funded and draw even more low income residents into the county.

Unfortunately over time this strategy is backfiring. Over time this raises the crime related incident rates and, voila! Now the higher income residents see the area as a safety issue and I think we're starting to see the first signs of high-income resident pullout?

Only time will tell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a classic tale of pork politics. The politicians hand out free cash and housing to gather votes in Silver Spring drained from most other parts of the county. Silver Spring has the highest amount of registered voters.

Although it's successfully pulling low income residents from DC and PG, there aren't enough free services to go around and the low income residents aren't great tax revenue generators; so the solution is raise taxes so even more HOC programs can be funded and draw even more low income residents into the county.

Unfortunately over time this strategy is backfiring. Over time this raises the crime related incident rates and, voila! Now the higher income residents see the area as a safety issue and I think we're starting to see the first signs of high-income resident pullout?

Only time will tell.

Who is handing out free cash and housing, to whom? The politicians are draining housing from most other parts of the county? Voters in Silver Spring are...voting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's a classic tale of pork politics. The politicians hand out free cash and housing to gather votes in Silver Spring drained from most other parts of the county. Silver Spring has the highest amount of registered voters.

Although it's successfully pulling low income residents from DC and PG, there aren't enough free services to go around and the low income residents aren't great tax revenue generators; so the solution is raise taxes so even more HOC programs can be funded and draw even more low income residents into the county.

Unfortunately over time this strategy is backfiring. Over time this raises the crime related incident rates and, voila! Now the higher income residents see the area as a safety issue and I think we're starting to see the first signs of high-income resident pullout?

Only time will tell.

As we can see, the strategy also increases costs not just in housing but elsewhere. More unprepared students makes schools more expensive and it also requires dedicating more resources to criminal justice.

[Anonymous]

If the zoning laws are changed, what would stop a neighborhood from creating an HOA that prohibits multifamily properties?

Generally trying to learn.

I would imagine many neighborhoods would be all for that and the residents would gladly sign on the dotted line/pay up.

[Anonymous]

Fleeing or being pushed out? There’s a huge difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the zoning laws are changed, what would stop a neighborhood from creating an HOA that prohibits multifamily properties?

Generally trying to learn.

I would imagine many neighborhoods would be all for that and the residents would gladly sign on the dotted line/pay up.

This suggests you have never tried to organize people for anything. If you have a child in school, how about starting with the PTA? You will learn a lot.