Looks like CC Historic District is Dead

[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:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

Chef's kiss +1000

They are very picky about neighborhoods they want to move into, cheaply--they think that building tons of 1 bedroom condo will allow them to live in the nicest parts of DC for 1500 a month. Not going to happen.

It will if you can the oldsters out lf their SFHs and into the condos. That's the next step.

You people simply want to utilize the state to force your will on others — at their expense for your benefit. Same as it always was with you people.

In academia, i.e., in urban planning and public policy, the single family home is simply not viable as a housing type going forward, especially near cities. That has been the case for about 15 years in the top programs. Most of those students are now planners (many working for government agencies), politicians, community activists and organizers, housing advocates, renters, etc.

Transportation planning has not quite caught up yet, since 6 lane arterials are still built to the standards of sprawling suburbia. But freeways are finally coming down in a few cities, under Buttigieg, and road narrowing projects, with dedicated bike lanes are moving forward in cities and older suburbs where single family homes are being phased out.

This is such a bunch of nonsense.

Alright well you guys can live in your cramped apartments, deal with the rampant crime and weed smokers. I will continue to live in my nice SFH with a large yard. I have to worry about getting murdered on public transit or assaulted walking around my neighborhood. Have fun with your UN resolutions lifestyle lifestyle and don’t force It on everyone else. This is not appealing to most Americans.

you can’t both argue that the market should decide (apartments “are not appealing to American consumers”) and that it should not decide (ie keep zoning restrictions). lift zoning restrictions and we’ll see what American consumers actually want.

I didn’t say that. I’m telling you let local communities democratically vote on what works best for them. I don’t agree with the top down decision making that is being forced on local communities by urbanists. Some communities will want high density and others won’t.

That’s a crazy suggestion and is the reason you have zoning. You can’t govern through hyper local decision-making. That’s like putting every local issue to a ballot and would be a disaster.

You do realize that there are hundreds of local decisions that have nothing to do with housing and zoning, right?

It’s a decision that affects everyone in the county, and affects the things that are at very center of the choice that they made to live in a community, their housing. Housing, roads, schools, the nature of why they chose to live where they live. If anything deserves input from voters, it’s this. We voted these people into office, and they should be held accountable for their decisions. Not one of them ran on a platform of that included upzoning.

Now we know how little they think about the good of the residents we can treat them accordingly in the next elections, but until we have that chance, we should have the opportunity out to vote on actions that might negatively affect the county and our neighborhoods.

Except there could be 10 other people behind you that are angry about 10 different issues.

So, you are saying that this issue gets direct input, but not the others?

BTW, this thread is about Chevy Chase, DC. What “county” are you talking about? I guarantee if you put upzoning on a ballot initiative it would win easily.

Yes, DC is a little weird because it’s government structure is unique. I’m not saying zoning measures should be decided via ballot measures. I’m saying that the city, or county should determine zoning through locally elected representatives. I don’t think the state or federal government should interfere with local land use decisions. I don’t think zoning reforms as implemented at the state level by California or Washington are a good idea. Washington DC only has one level of local government so the only practical way to have local land use is at the council member level. However, I am concerned that Bowser and the council are prioritizing the interests of developers rather than focusing on DC residents.

The problem is that even if a county or even a neighborhood wants more housing, unless the state passes laws you get a small number of people holding up development with crazy lawsuits.

There was a plot of land in Berkeley that everyone was fine developing, but just like 5 disgruntled homeowners sued and held up development for like a decade.

That was one of the major cases cited by CA about why there needed to be state laws to make things happen.

[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:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

Chef's kiss +1000

They are very picky about neighborhoods they want to move into, cheaply--they think that building tons of 1 bedroom condo will allow them to live in the nicest parts of DC for 1500 a month. Not going to happen.

It will if you can the oldsters out lf their SFHs and into the condos. That's the next step.

You people simply want to utilize the state to force your will on others — at their expense for your benefit. Same as it always was with you people.

In academia, i.e., in urban planning and public policy, the single family home is simply not viable as a housing type going forward, especially near cities. That has been the case for about 15 years in the top programs. Most of those students are now planners (many working for government agencies), politicians, community activists and organizers, housing advocates, renters, etc.

Transportation planning has not quite caught up yet, since 6 lane arterials are still built to the standards of sprawling suburbia. But freeways are finally coming down in a few cities, under Buttigieg, and road narrowing projects, with dedicated bike lanes are moving forward in cities and older suburbs where single family homes are being phased out.

This is such a bunch of nonsense.

Alright well you guys can live in your cramped apartments, deal with the rampant crime and weed smokers. I will continue to live in my nice SFH with a large yard. I have to worry about getting murdered on public transit or assaulted walking around my neighborhood. Have fun with your UN resolutions lifestyle lifestyle and don’t force It on everyone else. This is not appealing to most Americans.

you can’t both argue that the market should decide (apartments “are not appealing to American consumers”) and that it should not decide (ie keep zoning restrictions). lift zoning restrictions and we’ll see what American consumers actually want.

I didn’t say that. I’m telling you let local communities democratically vote on what works best for them. I don’t agree with the top down decision making that is being forced on local communities by urbanists. Some communities will want high density and others won’t.

That’s a crazy suggestion and is the reason you have zoning. You can’t govern through hyper local decision-making. That’s like putting every local issue to a ballot and would be a disaster.

You do realize that there are hundreds of local decisions that have nothing to do with housing and zoning, right?

It’s a decision that affects everyone in the county, and affects the things that are at very center of the choice that they made to live in a community, their housing. Housing, roads, schools, the nature of why they chose to live where they live. If anything deserves input from voters, it’s this. We voted these people into office, and they should be held accountable for their decisions. Not one of them ran on a platform of that included upzoning.

Now we know how little they think about the good of the residents we can treat them accordingly in the next elections, but until we have that chance, we should have the opportunity out to vote on actions that might negatively affect the county and our neighborhoods.

Except there could be 10 other people behind you that are angry about 10 different issues.

So, you are saying that this issue gets direct input, but not the others?

BTW, this thread is about Chevy Chase, DC. What “county” are you talking about? I guarantee if you put upzoning on a ballot initiative it would win easily.

Yes, DC is a little weird because it’s government structure is unique. I’m not saying zoning measures should be decided via ballot measures. I’m saying that the city, or county should determine zoning through locally elected representatives. I don’t think the state or federal government should interfere with local land use decisions. I don’t think zoning reforms as implemented at the state level by California or Washington are a good idea. Washington DC only has one level of local government so the only practical way to have local land use is at the council member level. However, I am concerned that Bowser and the council are prioritizing the interests of developers rather than focusing on DC residents.

The problem is that even if a county or even a neighborhood wants more housing, unless the state passes laws you get a small number of people holding up development with crazy lawsuits.

There was a plot of land in Berkeley that everyone was fine developing, but just like 5 disgruntled homeowners sued and held up development for like a decade.

That was one of the major cases cited by CA about why there needed to be state laws to make things happen.

Yes, it makes sense to change the ridiculous regulations regarding state environmental reviews and stuff like that are allowing people to stop development that local communities actually want. I don’t agree with the whole housing element thing CA is doing though. States and the federal government should interfere with the types of housing a locality allows or force communities to zone for density they don’t want.

[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:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

Chef's kiss +1000

They are very picky about neighborhoods they want to move into, cheaply--they think that building tons of 1 bedroom condo will allow them to live in the nicest parts of DC for 1500 a month. Not going to happen.

It will if you can the oldsters out lf their SFHs and into the condos. That's the next step.

You people simply want to utilize the state to force your will on others — at their expense for your benefit. Same as it always was with you people.

In academia, i.e., in urban planning and public policy, the single family home is simply not viable as a housing type going forward, especially near cities. That has been the case for about 15 years in the top programs. Most of those students are now planners (many working for government agencies), politicians, community activists and organizers, housing advocates, renters, etc.

Transportation planning has not quite caught up yet, since 6 lane arterials are still built to the standards of sprawling suburbia. But freeways are finally coming down in a few cities, under Buttigieg, and road narrowing projects, with dedicated bike lanes are moving forward in cities and older suburbs where single family homes are being phased out.

This is such a bunch of nonsense.

Alright well you guys can live in your cramped apartments, deal with the rampant crime and weed smokers. I will continue to live in my nice SFH with a large yard. I have to worry about getting murdered on public transit or assaulted walking around my neighborhood. Have fun with your UN resolutions lifestyle lifestyle and don’t force It on everyone else. This is not appealing to most Americans.

you can’t both argue that the market should decide (apartments “are not appealing to American consumers”) and that it should not decide (ie keep zoning restrictions). lift zoning restrictions and we’ll see what American consumers actually want.

I didn’t say that. I’m telling you let local communities democratically vote on what works best for them. I don’t agree with the top down decision making that is being forced on local communities by urbanists. Some communities will want high density and others won’t.

That’s a crazy suggestion and is the reason you have zoning. You can’t govern through hyper local decision-making. That’s like putting every local issue to a ballot and would be a disaster.

You do realize that there are hundreds of local decisions that have nothing to do with housing and zoning, right?

It’s a decision that affects everyone in the county, and affects the things that are at very center of the choice that they made to live in a community, their housing. Housing, roads, schools, the nature of why they chose to live where they live. If anything deserves input from voters, it’s this. We voted these people into office, and they should be held accountable for their decisions. Not one of them ran on a platform of that included upzoning.

Now we know how little they think about the good of the residents we can treat them accordingly in the next elections, but until we have that chance, we should have the opportunity out to vote on actions that might negatively affect the county and our neighborhoods.

Except there could be 10 other people behind you that are angry about 10 different issues.

So, you are saying that this issue gets direct input, but not the others?

BTW, this thread is about Chevy Chase, DC. What “county” are you talking about? I guarantee if you put upzoning on a ballot initiative it would win easily.

Yes, DC is a little weird because it’s government structure is unique. I’m not saying zoning measures should be decided via ballot measures. I’m saying that the city, or county should determine zoning through locally elected representatives. I don’t think the state or federal government should interfere with local land use decisions. I don’t think zoning reforms as implemented at the state level by California or Washington are a good idea. Washington DC only has one level of local government so the only practical way to have local land use is at the council member level. However, I am concerned that Bowser and the council are prioritizing the interests of developers rather than focusing on DC residents.

The problem is that even if a county or even a neighborhood wants more housing, unless the state passes laws you get a small number of people holding up development with crazy lawsuits.

There was a plot of land in Berkeley that everyone was fine developing, but just like 5 disgruntled homeowners sued and held up development for like a decade.

That was one of the major cases cited by CA about why there needed to be state laws to make things happen.

Yes, it makes sense to change the ridiculous regulations regarding state environmental reviews and stuff like that are allowing people to stop development that local communities actually want. I don’t agree with the whole housing element thing CA is doing though. States and the federal government should interfere with the types of housing a locality allows or force communities to zone for density they don’t want.

Should not interfere*

[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:

Anonymous wrote:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

Chef's kiss +1000

They are very picky about neighborhoods they want to move into, cheaply--they think that building tons of 1 bedroom condo will allow them to live in the nicest parts of DC for 1500 a month. Not going to happen.

It will if you can the oldsters out lf their SFHs and into the condos. That's the next step.

You people simply want to utilize the state to force your will on others — at their expense for your benefit. Same as it always was with you people.

In academia, i.e., in urban planning and public policy, the single family home is simply not viable as a housing type going forward, especially near cities. That has been the case for about 15 years in the top programs. Most of those students are now planners (many working for government agencies), politicians, community activists and organizers, housing advocates, renters, etc.

Transportation planning has not quite caught up yet, since 6 lane arterials are still built to the standards of sprawling suburbia. But freeways are finally coming down in a few cities, under Buttigieg, and road narrowing projects, with dedicated bike lanes are moving forward in cities and older suburbs where single family homes are being phased out.

This is such a bunch of nonsense.

Alright well you guys can live in your cramped apartments, deal with the rampant crime and weed smokers. I will continue to live in my nice SFH with a large yard. I have to worry about getting murdered on public transit or assaulted walking around my neighborhood. Have fun with your UN resolutions lifestyle lifestyle and don’t force It on everyone else. This is not appealing to most Americans.

you can’t both argue that the market should decide (apartments “are not appealing to American consumers”) and that it should not decide (ie keep zoning restrictions). lift zoning restrictions and we’ll see what American consumers actually want.

I didn’t say that. I’m telling you let local communities democratically vote on what works best for them. I don’t agree with the top down decision making that is being forced on local communities by urbanists. Some communities will want high density and others won’t.

That’s a crazy suggestion and is the reason you have zoning. You can’t govern through hyper local decision-making. That’s like putting every local issue to a ballot and would be a disaster.

You do realize that there are hundreds of local decisions that have nothing to do with housing and zoning, right?

It’s a decision that affects everyone in the county, and affects the things that are at very center of the choice that they made to live in a community, their housing. Housing, roads, schools, the nature of why they chose to live where they live. If anything deserves input from voters, it’s this. We voted these people into office, and they should be held accountable for their decisions. Not one of them ran on a platform of that included upzoning.

Now we know how little they think about the good of the residents we can treat them accordingly in the next elections, but until we have that chance, we should have the opportunity out to vote on actions that might negatively affect the county and our neighborhoods.

Except there could be 10 other people behind you that are angry about 10 different issues.

So, you are saying that this issue gets direct input, but not the others?

BTW, this thread is about Chevy Chase, DC. What “county” are you talking about? I guarantee if you put upzoning on a ballot initiative it would win easily.

Yes, DC is a little weird because it’s government structure is unique. I’m not saying zoning measures should be decided via ballot measures. I’m saying that the city, or county should determine zoning through locally elected representatives. I don’t think the state or federal government should interfere with local land use decisions. I don’t think zoning reforms as implemented at the state level by California or Washington are a good idea. Washington DC only has one level of local government so the only practical way to have local land use is at the council member level. However, I am concerned that Bowser and the council are prioritizing the interests of developers rather than focusing on DC residents.

The problem is that even if a county or even a neighborhood wants more housing, unless the state passes laws you get a small number of people holding up development with crazy lawsuits.

There was a plot of land in Berkeley that everyone was fine developing, but just like 5 disgruntled homeowners sued and held up development for like a decade.

That was one of the major cases cited by CA about why there needed to be state laws to make things happen.

Yes, it makes sense to change the ridiculous regulations regarding state environmental reviews and stuff like that are allowing people to stop development that local communities actually want. I don’t agree with the whole housing element thing CA is doing though. States and the federal government should interfere with the types of housing a locality allows or force communities to zone for density they don’t want.

Should not interfere*

The top down policy measures usually cannot effectively consider factors specific local communities. There are some communities in California that are very high risk for fires and they cannot expand their roadways due to geographic limitations. Increasing density in some of these communities is a terrible idea because we don’t want another camp fire incident where people cannot evacuate in time.

[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:here's the best piece I've read on the proposal. Quite glad it's dead. Racists gonna racist. https://ggwash.org/view/93212/chevy-chase-historic-district-applicants-admit-what-its-actually-about

I dunno. Seems like the only people who are really into increasing density are white people who are *desperate* to move into overwhelmingly white neighborhoods. There's already lots of affordable housing in majority black neighborhoods that they like to pretend doesn't exist.

Chef's kiss +1000

They are very picky about neighborhoods they want to move into, cheaply--they think that building tons of 1 bedroom condo will allow them to live in the nicest parts of DC for 1500 a month. Not going to happen.

It will if you can the oldsters out lf their SFHs and into the condos. That's the next step.

You people simply want to utilize the state to force your will on others — at their expense for your benefit. Same as it always was with you people.

In academia, i.e., in urban planning and public policy, the single family home is simply not viable as a housing type going forward, especially near cities. That has been the case for about 15 years in the top programs. Most of those students are now planners (many working for government agencies), politicians, community activists and organizers, housing advocates, renters, etc.

Transportation planning has not quite caught up yet, since 6 lane arterials are still built to the standards of sprawling suburbia. But freeways are finally coming down in a few cities, under Buttigieg, and road narrowing projects, with dedicated bike lanes are moving forward in cities and older suburbs where single family homes are being phased out.

This is such a bunch of nonsense.

Alright well you guys can live in your cramped apartments, deal with the rampant crime and weed smokers. I will continue to live in my nice SFH with a large yard. I have to worry about getting murdered on public transit or assaulted walking around my neighborhood. Have fun with your UN resolutions lifestyle lifestyle and don’t force It on everyone else. This is not appealing to most Americans.

you can’t both argue that the market should decide (apartments “are not appealing to American consumers”) and that it should not decide (ie keep zoning restrictions). lift zoning restrictions and we’ll see what American consumers actually want.

I didn’t say that. I’m telling you let local communities democratically vote on what works best for them. I don’t agree with the top down decision making that is being forced on local communities by urbanists. Some communities will want high density and others won’t.

That’s a crazy suggestion and is the reason you have zoning. You can’t govern through hyper local decision-making. That’s like putting every local issue to a ballot and would be a disaster.

You do realize that there are hundreds of local decisions that have nothing to do with housing and zoning, right?

It’s a decision that affects everyone in the county, and affects the things that are at very center of the choice that they made to live in a community, their housing. Housing, roads, schools, the nature of why they chose to live where they live. If anything deserves input from voters, it’s this. We voted these people into office, and they should be held accountable for their decisions. Not one of them ran on a platform of that included upzoning.

Now we know how little they think about the good of the residents we can treat them accordingly in the next elections, but until we have that chance, we should have the opportunity out to vote on actions that might negatively affect the county and our neighborhoods.

Except there could be 10 other people behind you that are angry about 10 different issues.

So, you are saying that this issue gets direct input, but not the others?

BTW, this thread is about Chevy Chase, DC. What “county” are you talking about? I guarantee if you put upzoning on a ballot initiative it would win easily.

Yes, DC is a little weird because it’s government structure is unique. I’m not saying zoning measures should be decided via ballot measures. I’m saying that the city, or county should determine zoning through locally elected representatives. I don’t think the state or federal government should interfere with local land use decisions. I don’t think zoning reforms as implemented at the state level by California or Washington are a good idea. Washington DC only has one level of local government so the only practical way to have local land use is at the council member level. However, I am concerned that Bowser and the council are prioritizing the interests of developers rather than focusing on DC residents.

The problem is that even if a county or even a neighborhood wants more housing, unless the state passes laws you get a small number of people holding up development with crazy lawsuits.

There was a plot of land in Berkeley that everyone was fine developing, but just like 5 disgruntled homeowners sued and held up development for like a decade.

That was one of the major cases cited by CA about why there needed to be state laws to make things happen.

Yes, it makes sense to change the ridiculous regulations regarding state environmental reviews and stuff like that are allowing people to stop development that local communities actually want. I don’t agree with the whole housing element thing CA is doing though. States and the federal government should interfere with the types of housing a locality allows or force communities to zone for density they don’t want.

Yes that is exactly what states should do.