Why do “YIMBY” urban planners, bloggers & activists constantly cite what they believe are

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

There’s that planner arrogance. It’s amazing how the planners know more about firefighting than fire science PhDs and fire chiefs. They know more about ideal class sizes and school management than education PhDs. They know more about labor economics than economics PhDs. They know more about building design than architects. It’s really a shame we can’t spread all of that expertise among these other disciplines instead of having it all concentrated in planning where they only get to deal with each of these issues part time. The truth is that planners become planners because they couldn’t pass the upper level math courses required for economics, architecture, or engineering degrees. Ask me how I know.

What are you talking about? Planners don't make decisions about firefighting, class sizes, school managements, or labor economics. Planners make recommendations based on turn radii for fire trucks, numbers of students who live in given housing types in given areas, and building heights allowed in the zoning code.

The planners in Montgomery County have repeatedly made recommendations on all of these things, and usually those recommendations have been contrary to those of the actual experts. If something becomes a meme on urbanist Twitter, it will show up in a Montgomery Planning document later.

Maybe you're referring to a different Montgomery County, like Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, or Montgomery County, Alabama.

I do agree with you that in Montgomery County, Maryland, planners make recommendations, not decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

There’s that planner arrogance. It’s amazing how the planners know more about firefighting than fire science PhDs and fire chiefs. They know more about ideal class sizes and school management than education PhDs. They know more about labor economics than economics PhDs. They know more about building design than architects. It’s really a shame we can’t spread all of that expertise among these other disciplines instead of having it all concentrated in planning where they only get to deal with each of these issues part time. The truth is that planners become planners because they couldn’t pass the upper level math courses required for economics, architecture, or engineering degrees. Ask me how I know.

What are you talking about? Planners don't make decisions about firefighting, class sizes, school managements, or labor economics. Planners make recommendations based on turn radii for fire trucks, numbers of students who live in given housing types in given areas, and building heights allowed in the zoning code.

The planners in Montgomery County have repeatedly made recommendations on all of these things, and usually those recommendations have been contrary to those of the actual experts. If something becomes a meme on urbanist Twitter, it will show up in a Montgomery Planning document later.

Maybe you're referring to a different Montgomery County, like Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, or Montgomery County, Alabama.

I do agree with you that in Montgomery County, Maryland, planners make recommendations, not decisions.

Montgomery County, Pa is nice

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

There’s that planner arrogance. It’s amazing how the planners know more about firefighting than fire science PhDs and fire chiefs. They know more about ideal class sizes and school management than education PhDs. They know more about labor economics than economics PhDs. They know more about building design than architects. It’s really a shame we can’t spread all of that expertise among these other disciplines instead of having it all concentrated in planning where they only get to deal with each of these issues part time. The truth is that planners become planners because they couldn’t pass the upper level math courses required for economics, architecture, or engineering degrees. Ask me how I know.

What are you talking about? Planners don't make decisions about firefighting, class sizes, school managements, or labor economics. Planners make recommendations based on turn radii for fire trucks, numbers of students who live in given housing types in given areas, and building heights allowed in the zoning code.

The planners in Montgomery County have repeatedly made recommendations on all of these things, and usually those recommendations have been contrary to those of the actual experts. If something becomes a meme on urbanist Twitter, it will show up in a Montgomery Planning document later.

Maybe you're referring to a different Montgomery County, like Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, or Montgomery County, Alabama.

I do agree with you that in Montgomery County, Maryland, planners make recommendations, not decisions.

Stop gaslighting people. Planning delayed the construction of the elementary schools in Stonegate and Clarksburg because they thought they knew more about schools than MCPS and Casey Anderson and Gwen Wright told the fire department to have smaller trucks and allow taller buildings made out of wood. These positions came up as recommendations from staff. Because they knew better. They always know better. Meanwhile the county’s growth lags behind the region. Might be time to recognize that the planners aren’t geniuses and the current approach isn’t working. We would be a lot better off if planning had less involvement in development. Just get out of the way. Let builders build, let MCPS run the schools, and let the fire chief run the fire department.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

There’s that planner arrogance. It’s amazing how the planners know more about firefighting than fire science PhDs and fire chiefs. They know more about ideal class sizes and school management than education PhDs. They know more about labor economics than economics PhDs. They know more about building design than architects. It’s really a shame we can’t spread all of that expertise among these other disciplines instead of having it all concentrated in planning where they only get to deal with each of these issues part time. The truth is that planners become planners because they couldn’t pass the upper level math courses required for economics, architecture, or engineering degrees. Ask me how I know.

What are you talking about? Planners don't make decisions about firefighting, class sizes, school managements, or labor economics. Planners make recommendations based on turn radii for fire trucks, numbers of students who live in given housing types in given areas, and building heights allowed in the zoning code.

The planners in Montgomery County have repeatedly made recommendations on all of these things, and usually those recommendations have been contrary to those of the actual experts. If something becomes a meme on urbanist Twitter, it will show up in a Montgomery Planning document later.

Maybe you're referring to a different Montgomery County, like Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, or Montgomery County, Alabama.

I do agree with you that in Montgomery County, Maryland, planners make recommendations, not decisions.

Stop gaslighting people. Planning delayed the construction of the elementary schools in Stonegate and Clarksburg because they thought they knew more about schools than MCPS and Casey Anderson and Gwen Wright told the fire department to have smaller trucks and allow taller buildings made out of wood. These positions came up as recommendations from staff. Because they knew better. They always know better. Meanwhile the county’s growth lags behind the region. Might be time to recognize that the planners aren’t geniuses and the current approach isn’t working. We would be a lot better off if planning had less involvement in development. Just get out of the way. Let builders build, let MCPS run the schools, and let the fire chief run the fire department.

Gaslighting doesn't mean what you think it means.

The MCPS Planning Department is still planning schools as though it were 1980 and every student will arrive either in a school bus or a car. Neither the Planning Department nor the Planning Board has any authority over the MCPS Planning Department.

We're requiring overly large streets to accommodate fire trucks of ever-increasing size. Neither the Planning Department nor the Planning Board has any authority over fire department procurement.

Building heights are governed by zoning codes. Building materials are covered by building codes. Neither the Planning Department nor the Planning Board has any authority over the zoning code and does not even make any recommendations about building codes.

You want Planning to have less involvement in development? Then you should support their efforts to make requirements more flexible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

There’s that planner arrogance. It’s amazing how the planners know more about firefighting than fire science PhDs and fire chiefs. They know more about ideal class sizes and school management than education PhDs. They know more about labor economics than economics PhDs. They know more about building design than architects. It’s really a shame we can’t spread all of that expertise among these other disciplines instead of having it all concentrated in planning where they only get to deal with each of these issues part time. The truth is that planners become planners because they couldn’t pass the upper level math courses required for economics, architecture, or engineering degrees. Ask me how I know.

What are you talking about? Planners don't make decisions about firefighting, class sizes, school managements, or labor economics. Planners make recommendations based on turn radii for fire trucks, numbers of students who live in given housing types in given areas, and building heights allowed in the zoning code.

The planners in Montgomery County have repeatedly made recommendations on all of these things, and usually those recommendations have been contrary to those of the actual experts. If something becomes a meme on urbanist Twitter, it will show up in a Montgomery Planning document later.

Maybe you're referring to a different Montgomery County, like Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, or Montgomery County, Alabama.

I do agree with you that in Montgomery County, Maryland, planners make recommendations, not decisions.

Stop gaslighting people. Planning delayed the construction of the elementary schools in Stonegate and Clarksburg because they thought they knew more about schools than MCPS and Casey Anderson and Gwen Wright told the fire department to have smaller trucks and allow taller buildings made out of wood. These positions came up as recommendations from staff. Because they knew better. They always know better. Meanwhile the county’s growth lags behind the region. Might be time to recognize that the planners aren’t geniuses and the current approach isn’t working. We would be a lot better off if planning had less involvement in development. Just get out of the way. Let builders build, let MCPS run the schools, and let the fire chief run the fire department.

Gaslighting doesn't mean what you think it means.

The MCPS Planning Department is still planning schools as though it were 1980 and every student will arrive either in a school bus or a car. Neither the Planning Department nor the Planning Board has any authority over the MCPS Planning Department.

We're requiring overly large streets to accommodate fire trucks of ever-increasing size. Neither the Planning Department nor the Planning Board has any authority over fire department procurement.

Building heights are governed by zoning codes. Building materials are covered by building codes. Neither the Planning Department nor the Planning Board has any authority over the zoning code and does not even make any recommendations about building codes.

You want Planning to have less involvement in development? Then you should support their efforts to make requirements more flexible. [/quote

It’s funny how they don’t push very hard on land use approval reform. They have a working group stocked with land use lawyers, the only other people who win in the current system.

I support getting rid of zoning and ending planning’s development review process. It’s a waste of time and money.

You’re right that the planning department had no authority over these other things. They should stop wasting other people’s time and making them reply to nonsense. Remember that time they withheld approval of the forest conservation plan for Stonegate because they wanted a school design that was more dangerous for walkers? They made the architect come to a meeting and do a presentation on how dumb planning’s idea was. Planning then approved the forest conservation plan without changes because it wasn’t defective in the first place.

[Anonymous]

I do not know about Stonegate. I do know about Clarksburg ES #9, which they were right about. The MCPS Planning Department consistently designs schools - or has the architects design schools - to be dangerous for walkers.

[Anonymous]

^^^Dufief, too. And Woodward. And Crown. And Seneca Valley. And Northwood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

There’s that planner arrogance. It’s amazing how the planners know more about firefighting than fire science PhDs and fire chiefs. They know more about ideal class sizes and school management than education PhDs. They know more about labor economics than economics PhDs. They know more about building design than architects. It’s really a shame we can’t spread all of that expertise among these other disciplines instead of having it all concentrated in planning where they only get to deal with each of these issues part time. The truth is that planners become planners because they couldn’t pass the upper level math courses required for economics, architecture, or engineering degrees. Ask me how I know.

What are you talking about? Planners don't make decisions about firefighting, class sizes, school managements, or labor economics. Planners make recommendations based on turn radii for fire trucks, numbers of students who live in given housing types in given areas, and building heights allowed in the zoning code.

The planners in Montgomery County have repeatedly made recommendations on all of these things, and usually those recommendations have been contrary to those of the actual experts. If something becomes a meme on urbanist Twitter, it will show up in a Montgomery Planning document later.

Maybe you're referring to a different Montgomery County, like Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, or Montgomery County, Alabama.

I do agree with you that in Montgomery County, Maryland, planners make recommendations, not decisions.

Stop gaslighting people. Planning delayed the construction of the elementary schools in Stonegate and Clarksburg because they thought they knew more about schools than MCPS and Casey Anderson and Gwen Wright told the fire department to have smaller trucks and allow taller buildings made out of wood. These positions came up as recommendations from staff. Because they knew better. They always know better. Meanwhile the county’s growth lags behind the region. Might be time to recognize that the planners aren’t geniuses and the current approach isn’t working. We would be a lot better off if planning had less involvement in development. Just get out of the way. Let builders build, let MCPS run the schools, and let the fire chief run the fire department.

Recommendations. And they make perfect sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:


The only people who drive around my neighborhood are people who live here. Not much traffic by our house.

Oh sweetheart no. You regularly have UPS, USPS, FedEx, Amazon, and other drivers routinely driving your neighborhood streets, not counting the Uber, Lyft, and food delivery drivers. While each of them is picking up on when you are and are not home, their phones, whether they understand or not, have mapped a lot of information about your house. Your little cul de sac is known, categorized, and appropriately weighted by companies you cannot even begin to image exist. You no far less than you imagine and have far more exposure to targeting than you would like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The only people who drive around my neighborhood are people who live here. Not much traffic by our house.

Oh sweetheart no. You regularly have UPS, USPS, FedEx, Amazon, and other drivers routinely driving your neighborhood streets, not counting the Uber, Lyft, and food delivery drivers. While each of them is picking up on when you are and are not home, their phones, whether they understand or not, have mapped a lot of information about your house. Your little cul de sac is known, categorized, and appropriately weighted by companies you cannot even begin to image exist. You no far less than you imagine and have far more exposure to targeting than you would like.

I don’t think that the PP said anything about most of that, just that most of the traffic he sees he can attributed to people that live in his neighborhood…that was an epic (and weird) straw man, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


The only people who drive around my neighborhood are people who live here. Not much traffic by our house.

Oh sweetheart no. You regularly have UPS, USPS, FedEx, Amazon, and other drivers routinely driving your neighborhood streets, not counting the Uber, Lyft, and food delivery drivers. While each of them is picking up on when you are and are not home, their phones, whether they understand or not, have mapped a lot of information about your house. Your little cul de sac is known, categorized, and appropriately weighted by companies you cannot even begin to image exist. You no far less than you imagine and have far more exposure to targeting than you would like.

I don’t think that the PP said anything about most of that, just that most of the traffic he sees he can attributed to people that live in his neighborhood…that was an epic (and weird) straw man, though.

+1 People live in the suburbs because they choose to be mapped for deliveries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

I think that a lot of people are confusing planners, who have some expertise, with people on the MoCo planning board, who clearly are political creatures with political agendas. Planners and their studies were ignored at various stages of Thrive development in favor of a
political agenda pushed through by the now resigned planning board and MCC. Now the YIMBYs are again trying to fill the board with people that agree with their bad political agenda. It’s sleazy, really, if you follow them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think that a lot of people are confusing planners, who have some expertise, with people on the MoCo planning board, who clearly are political creatures with political agendas. Planners and their studies were ignored at various stages of Thrive development in favor of a
political agenda pushed through by the now resigned planning board and MCC. Now the YIMBYs are again trying to fill the board with people that agree with their bad political agenda. It’s sleazy, really, if you follow them.

All of us are either political creatures with political agendas - or completely uninvolved, uninformed, and unaware. Those are the choices. Housing is a political issue. Land use is a political issue. Transportation is a political issue. Education is a political issue. The environment is a political issue.

It is not sleazy to apply to be on the Planning Board, and it is also not sleazy to express your support for people who have applied to be on the Planning Board. Or, I suppose, your opposition. "Dear County Council, Please do NOT appoint [person], they support things I oppose. Sincerely, a Montgomery County resident"

Your objection isn't sleaze, it's that the County Council appointed people you don't support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think that a lot of people are confusing planners, who have some expertise, with people on the MoCo planning board, who clearly are political creatures with political agendas. Planners and their studies were ignored at various stages of Thrive development in favor of a
political agenda pushed through by the now resigned planning board and MCC. Now the YIMBYs are again trying to fill the board with people that agree with their bad political agenda. It’s sleazy, really, if you follow them.

All of us are either political creatures with political agendas - or completely uninvolved, uninformed, and unaware. Those are the choices. Housing is a political issue. Land use is a political issue. Transportation is a political issue. Education is a political issue. The environment is a political issue.

It is not sleazy to apply to be on the Planning Board, and it is also not sleazy to express your support for people who have applied to be on the Planning Board. Or, I suppose, your opposition. "Dear County Council, Please do NOT appoint [person], they support things I oppose. Sincerely, a Montgomery County resident"

Your objection isn't sleaze, it's that the County Council appointed people you don't support.

^^^or, more likely, one person you don't support. Who has professional expertise.