MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[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:

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:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Finally you realize and agree that you’re making housing more expensive. You may be ok with that but I’m not.

There are many, many types of housing. Detached single family houses are not the only type of housing.

What happens in the SFH market affects pricing for other types of housing more than you think. The shortage of SFH is almost certainly driving rents up right now. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe your own theories about luxury apartments driving down rents for Class C apartments.

Well, I certainly agree that the shortage of housing is driving up rents right now. But I don't agree that "housing" means "SFH". They're not synonyms. And, of course, as others have mentioned upthread, in many parts of the county right now, there are a lot of "SFH"s that are actually MFH. I sincerely do not understand this fetishization of the SFH. Maybe it's because of the demographics of the people who live, or are believed to live, in the SFH - and, conversely, the demographics of the people who don't.

So you disagree that building expensive housing (such as SFH or high-end apartments) puts downward pressure on market rents at the lower end of the market? If that’s the case, then you object to theory underlying the county’s entire housing policy, including the upzoning proposal.

You must be responding to a different post, because your response has nothing to do with my post that you're quoting.

Then you don’t understand housing markets or the theory underlying YIMBYism because you definitely disagreed with a fundamental premise of YIMBYism and the core theory the county’s housing policy. The worst shortage right now is SFH. HUD says our apartment market is in balance.

Please explain how I disagreed with something I agree with. Thank you.

You disagreed with the fact that SFH are an important part of the housing stock and that a shortage of SFH has implications for even the lowest priced rentals. All housing is important and interconnected, even SFH.

What I actually said.

Well, I certainly agree that the shortage of housing is driving up rents right now. But I don't agree that "housing" means "SFH". They're not synonyms. And, of course, as others have mentioned upthread, in many parts of the county right now, there are a lot of "SFH"s that are actually MFH. I sincerely do not understand this fetishization of the SFH. Maybe it's because of the demographics of the people who live, or are believed to live, in the SFH - and, conversely, the demographics of the people who don't.

Right. You disagreed that SFH are housing. Maybe you intended to downplay the importance of SFH in the overall housing market because it’s expensive but then you’d still be wrong and in pretty violent disagreement with the theory underlying the county’s housing policy.

No, I didn't. That would be ridiculous. That would be like saying that dress shoes aren't shoes. The housing (or the shoes) is right there in the name. Here, maybe this will help:

But I don't agree that "shoes" means "dress shoes". They're not synonyms. And, of course, as others have mentioned upthread, on many men's feet right now, there are a lot of "dress shoes" that are actually dress sneakers.

Or, for more help:

All SFHs are housing. Not all housing is SFH. There is housing that is not SFH. They are not synonyms.
All dress shoes are shoes. Not all shoes are dress shoes. There are shoes that are not dress shoes. They are not synonyms.

If you don't know about dress sneakers, read this: https://www.menshealth.com/style/g36283507/mens-dress-sneakers/

You ridiculous Yimbys flippantly comparing housing types as if it is something trivial like picking what color shirt people wear for that day. It has a very meaningful impact on the environment, school overcrowding, property tax revenue, noise levels and crime. So don’t pretend like you can just swap housing units out like Legos without any impact on resident health and welfare.

[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:

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:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Finally you realize and agree that you’re making housing more expensive. You may be ok with that but I’m not.

There are many, many types of housing. Detached single family houses are not the only type of housing.

What happens in the SFH market affects pricing for other types of housing more than you think. The shortage of SFH is almost certainly driving rents up right now. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe your own theories about luxury apartments driving down rents for Class C apartments.

Well, I certainly agree that the shortage of housing is driving up rents right now. But I don't agree that "housing" means "SFH". They're not synonyms. And, of course, as others have mentioned upthread, in many parts of the county right now, there are a lot of "SFH"s that are actually MFH. I sincerely do not understand this fetishization of the SFH. Maybe it's because of the demographics of the people who live, or are believed to live, in the SFH - and, conversely, the demographics of the people who don't.

So you disagree that building expensive housing (such as SFH or high-end apartments) puts downward pressure on market rents at the lower end of the market? If that’s the case, then you object to theory underlying the county’s entire housing policy, including the upzoning proposal.

You must be responding to a different post, because your response has nothing to do with my post that you're quoting.

Then you don’t understand housing markets or the theory underlying YIMBYism because you definitely disagreed with a fundamental premise of YIMBYism and the core theory the county’s housing policy. The worst shortage right now is SFH. HUD says our apartment market is in balance.

Please explain how I disagreed with something I agree with. Thank you.

You disagreed with the fact that SFH are an important part of the housing stock and that a shortage of SFH has implications for even the lowest priced rentals. All housing is important and interconnected, even SFH.

What I actually said.

Well, I certainly agree that the shortage of housing is driving up rents right now. But I don't agree that "housing" means "SFH". They're not synonyms. And, of course, as others have mentioned upthread, in many parts of the county right now, there are a lot of "SFH"s that are actually MFH. I sincerely do not understand this fetishization of the SFH. Maybe it's because of the demographics of the people who live, or are believed to live, in the SFH - and, conversely, the demographics of the people who don't.

Right. You disagreed that SFH are housing. Maybe you intended to downplay the importance of SFH in the overall housing market because it’s expensive but then you’d still be wrong and in pretty violent disagreement with the theory underlying the county’s housing policy.

No, I didn't. That would be ridiculous. That would be like saying that dress shoes aren't shoes. The housing (or the shoes) is right there in the name. Here, maybe this will help:

But I don't agree that "shoes" means "dress shoes". They're not synonyms. And, of course, as others have mentioned upthread, on many men's feet right now, there are a lot of "dress shoes" that are actually dress sneakers.

Or, for more help:

All SFHs are housing. Not all housing is SFH. There is housing that is not SFH. They are not synonyms.
All dress shoes are shoes. Not all shoes are dress shoes. There are shoes that are not dress shoes. They are not synonyms.

If you don't know about dress sneakers, read this: https://www.menshealth.com/style/g36283507/mens-dress-sneakers/

You ridiculous Yimbys flippantly comparing housing types as if it is something trivial like picking what color shirt people wear for that day. It has a very meaningful impact on the environment, school overcrowding, property tax revenue, noise levels and crime. So don’t pretend like you can just swap housing units out like Legos without any impact on resident health and welfare.

Yes, it does. It absolutely does. You're right. Speaking generally, exclusively-oneplex developments are the worst for the environment.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

No, they don't.

As far as I can tell, your argument boils down to: the Montgomery County Council does not have the legal authority to change the zoning in my neighborhood. But the Montgomery County Council actually does have this legal authority. The broad assent you're referring to? They got that in 2022, when the voters elected them.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

How's that? Your assertion is that it is "more or less the established custom" that the people already residing in an area historically give "broad assent" when SFH zones were first established? And how is that "broad assent" historically demonstrated when changes have occurred?

[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:

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:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Finally you realize and agree that you’re making housing more expensive. You may be ok with that but I’m not.

There are many, many types of housing. Detached single family houses are not the only type of housing.

What happens in the SFH market affects pricing for other types of housing more than you think. The shortage of SFH is almost certainly driving rents up right now. If you don’t believe this then you don’t believe your own theories about luxury apartments driving down rents for Class C apartments.

Well, I certainly agree that the shortage of housing is driving up rents right now. But I don't agree that "housing" means "SFH". They're not synonyms. And, of course, as others have mentioned upthread, in many parts of the county right now, there are a lot of "SFH"s that are actually MFH. I sincerely do not understand this fetishization of the SFH. Maybe it's because of the demographics of the people who live, or are believed to live, in the SFH - and, conversely, the demographics of the people who don't.

So you disagree that building expensive housing (such as SFH or high-end apartments) puts downward pressure on market rents at the lower end of the market? If that’s the case, then you object to theory underlying the county’s entire housing policy, including the upzoning proposal.

You must be responding to a different post, because your response has nothing to do with my post that you're quoting.

Then you don’t understand housing markets or the theory underlying YIMBYism because you definitely disagreed with a fundamental premise of YIMBYism and the core theory the county’s housing policy. The worst shortage right now is SFH. HUD says our apartment market is in balance.

Please explain how I disagreed with something I agree with. Thank you.

You disagreed with the fact that SFH are an important part of the housing stock and that a shortage of SFH has implications for even the lowest priced rentals. All housing is important and interconnected, even SFH.

What I actually said.

Well, I certainly agree that the shortage of housing is driving up rents right now. But I don't agree that "housing" means "SFH". They're not synonyms. And, of course, as others have mentioned upthread, in many parts of the county right now, there are a lot of "SFH"s that are actually MFH. I sincerely do not understand this fetishization of the SFH. Maybe it's because of the demographics of the people who live, or are believed to live, in the SFH - and, conversely, the demographics of the people who don't.

Right. You disagreed that SFH are housing. Maybe you intended to downplay the importance of SFH in the overall housing market because it’s expensive but then you’d still be wrong and in pretty violent disagreement with the theory underlying the county’s housing policy.

No, I didn't. That would be ridiculous. That would be like saying that dress shoes aren't shoes. The housing (or the shoes) is right there in the name. Here, maybe this will help:

But I don't agree that "shoes" means "dress shoes". They're not synonyms. And, of course, as others have mentioned upthread, on many men's feet right now, there are a lot of "dress shoes" that are actually dress sneakers.

Or, for more help:

All SFHs are housing. Not all housing is SFH. There is housing that is not SFH. They are not synonyms.
All dress shoes are shoes. Not all shoes are dress shoes. There are shoes that are not dress shoes. They are not synonyms.

If you don't know about dress sneakers, read this: https://www.menshealth.com/style/g36283507/mens-dress-sneakers/

You should think about how you can communicate more clearly because it sure sounds like you’re discounting the importance of SFH supply and pricing in the overall housing mix. You’re probably wrong about this, and it will have pretty grave consequences for housing affordability across the board.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

No, they don't.

As far as I can tell, your argument boils down to: the Montgomery County Council does not have the legal authority to change the zoning in my neighborhood. But the Montgomery County Council actually does have this legal authority. The broad assent you're referring to? They got that in 2022, when the voters elected them.

Umm...yes they do. Are we going to just go back and forth with no-yes-no-yes, or are we going to get to an understanding of different bases for "right"? And there you (and as far as I can see, many of those supporting your point of view) go again with misrepresentation of an opposing argument as a chief method of rhetorical banter.

It's not that the Council can't do this. There are many, many things that they (and many elected bodies) can do but should not.

The broad assent of established custom in zoning exceptions that is part of the reasonable expectation of those who had chosen to reside in an area of particular zoning is broad assent of that neighborhood (or neighborhoods, depending on the property requesting exception and the nature of the exception) -- those most directly impacted by a proposed change, not any assent that might be implied by the results of a county-wide election.

In any case, the councilmembers elected didn't put forth a campaign platform to permit such sweeping zoning change as we see suggested now (not even detailed in Thrive). Additionally, as mentioned multiple times in this topic, election of a representative does not imply support for every decision that individual might make.

Representatives may be wanton in their disregard for constituent interest, of course. They may do so for a variety of motivations -- donor influence, personal gain, a stand on principle, etc. If principle is suggested as the case, here, then "they have the legal authority" is moot as a justification, and their stand to defend that principle would need to address their personal calculus of relative rights previously mentioned.

[Anonymous]

If you want to sit around feeling aggrieved/exploited/oppressed because the Montgomery County Council votes to change zoning in a way you don't like (which they haven't yet, but they almost certainly will), I can't stop you. Maybe you should consider running for county council yourself in 2028.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

No, they don't.

As far as I can tell, your argument boils down to: the Montgomery County Council does not have the legal authority to change the zoning in my neighborhood. But the Montgomery County Council actually does have this legal authority. The broad assent you're referring to? They got that in 2022, when the voters elected them.

Umm...yes they do. Are we going to just go back and forth with no-yes-no-yes, or are we going to get to an understanding of different bases for "right"? And there you (and as far as I can see, many of those supporting your point of view) go again with misrepresentation of an opposing argument as a chief method of rhetorical banter.

It's not that the Council can't do this. There are many, many things that they (and many elected bodies) can do but should not.

The broad assent of established custom in zoning exceptions that is part of the reasonable expectation of those who had chosen to reside in an area of particular zoning is broad assent of that neighborhood (or neighborhoods, depending on the property requesting exception and the nature of the exception) -- those most directly impacted by a proposed change, not any assent that might be implied by the results of a county-wide election.

In any case, the councilmembers elected didn't put forth a campaign platform to permit such sweeping zoning change as we see suggested now (not even detailed in Thrive). Additionally, as mentioned multiple times in this topic, election of a representative does not imply support for every decision that individual might make.

Representatives may be wanton in their disregard for constituent interest, of course. They may do so for a variety of motivations -- donor influence, personal gain, a stand on principle, etc. If principle is suggested as the case, here, then "they have the legal authority" is moot as a justification, and their stand to defend that principle would need to address their personal calculus of relative rights previously mentioned.

Can you elaborate on this broad assent of the people in the neighborhood thing? And how it is an established custom?
And then how whatever that is is different than what is happening now? Maybe some facts that support a conclusion of "wanton disregard for constituent interests"?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

How's that? Your assertion is that it is "more or less the established custom" that the people already residing in an area historically give "broad assent" when SFH zones were first established? And how is that "broad assent" historically demonstrated when changes have occurred?

No, the custom is gaining that neighborhood assent when granting an exception to established zoning. Establishment of zoning and re-zoning, as has happened in the past, typically requires similar processes to ensure community buy-in (and as a proper check on the powers afforded to elected officials and their appointees).

The approach of the ZTA (amending the wording of existing zoning to effect change) sidesteps such established and reasonable expectation. The lower bar of a ZTA should be seen as consistent with far less substantial change than is being proposed.

Given the relative obviousness, here, and the extensive prior discussion, I suggest you are being deliberately daft in an attempt to confuse/misrepresent.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

How's that? Your assertion is that it is "more or less the established custom" that the people already residing in an area historically give "broad assent" when SFH zones were first established? And how is that "broad assent" historically demonstrated when changes have occurred?

No, the custom is gaining that neighborhood assent when granting an exception to established zoning. Establishment of zoning and re-zoning, as has happened in the past, typically requires similar processes to ensure community buy-in (and as a proper check on the powers afforded to elected officials and their appointees).

The approach of the ZTA (amending the wording of existing zoning to effect change) sidesteps such established and reasonable expectation. The lower bar of a ZTA should be seen as consistent with far less substantial change than is being proposed.

Given the relative obviousness, here, and the extensive prior discussion, I suggest you are being deliberately daft in an attempt to confuse/misrepresent.

Helpful, and different than what you originally wrote. So the clarification was needed.
So when an exception is granted to established zoning, how is that broad assent established?

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

How's that? Your assertion is that it is "more or less the established custom" that the people already residing in an area historically give "broad assent" when SFH zones were first established? And how is that "broad assent" historically demonstrated when changes have occurred?

No, the custom is gaining that neighborhood assent when granting an exception to established zoning. Establishment of zoning and re-zoning, as has happened in the past, typically requires similar processes to ensure community buy-in (and as a proper check on the powers afforded to elected officials and their appointees).

The approach of the ZTA (amending the wording of existing zoning to effect change) sidesteps such established and reasonable expectation. The lower bar of a ZTA should be seen as consistent with far less substantial change than is being proposed.

Given the relative obviousness, here, and the extensive prior discussion, I suggest you are being deliberately daft in an attempt to confuse/misrepresent.

PP here. I should address this I guess. I did not pick up on a extensive prior discussion of the concept of an established custom of broad assent specifically by the neighborhood at issue in prior discussion. I heard people assert that the community doesn't want this, and that the County is doing something that they know the community doesn't want. But there hasn't been much on probing how customary it is to establish that assent.

I don't know if you are the poster who has posted before about "the Questioner" and how bad faith should be assumed. I asked that poster to give an example of where a question WAS appropriate. I'm still curious.

I also think it is a sad world view to assume that everybody comes to an issue with a firmly established stance on one end of the spectrum and can't seek information and discussion to gain clarity and refine that view. Believe it or not, that is what I am doing. And my view actually did change on a few points as a result of this thread.

[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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

How's that? Your assertion is that it is "more or less the established custom" that the people already residing in an area historically give "broad assent" when SFH zones were first established? And how is that "broad assent" historically demonstrated when changes have occurred?

No, the custom is gaining that neighborhood assent when granting an exception to established zoning. Establishment of zoning and re-zoning, as has happened in the past, typically requires similar processes to ensure community buy-in (and as a proper check on the powers afforded to elected officials and their appointees).

The approach of the ZTA (amending the wording of existing zoning to effect change) sidesteps such established and reasonable expectation. The lower bar of a ZTA should be seen as consistent with far less substantial change than is being proposed.

Given the relative obviousness, here, and the extensive prior discussion, I suggest you are being deliberately daft in an attempt to confuse/misrepresent.

Whose custom is this, and since when has it been practiced? How was this assent obtained? Who obtained it? Who counted as being a neighbor, for the purpose of determining assent? Who decided whether or not it was assent? Could you provide one or two examples of this custom? There's certainly no mention of this custom in Royce Hanson's book, published in 2017, and I definitely would expect him to have mentioned it.

https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501705250/suburb/#bookTabs=1

[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:

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:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

How's that? Your assertion is that it is "more or less the established custom" that the people already residing in an area historically give "broad assent" when SFH zones were first established? And how is that "broad assent" historically demonstrated when changes have occurred?

No, the custom is gaining that neighborhood assent when granting an exception to established zoning. Establishment of zoning and re-zoning, as has happened in the past, typically requires similar processes to ensure community buy-in (and as a proper check on the powers afforded to elected officials and their appointees).

The approach of the ZTA (amending the wording of existing zoning to effect change) sidesteps such established and reasonable expectation. The lower bar of a ZTA should be seen as consistent with far less substantial change than is being proposed.

Given the relative obviousness, here, and the extensive prior discussion, I suggest you are being deliberately daft in an attempt to confuse/misrepresent.

Whose custom is this, and since when has it been practiced? How was this assent obtained? Who obtained it? Who counted as being a neighbor, for the purpose of determining assent? Who decided whether or not it was assent? Could you provide one or two examples of this custom? There's certainly no mention of this custom in Royce Hanson's book, published in 2017, and I definitely would expect him to have mentioned it.

https://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/9781501705250/suburb/#bookTabs=1

^^^and before you start accusing me of bad faith -- I sincerely have no idea what "custom" you are referring to. I can't even imagine how this "custom" would work, assuming it actually involved assent from everyone living in the area. Or even the majority of people living in the area. If it really was a longstanding custom, it should be easy for you to answer these questions and provide some examples.

[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:

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:Twitter thread has great debate on this. This is what’s coming and so blah compared to past builds.
https://t.co/h7csmWmcJ7

Did you actually read the whole thread? The author says that zoning is the problem....

Don’t be ridiculous. Developers would still build this cheap trash if zoning allowed them to build it elsewhere. We don’t need to encourage them to ruin all of America with this junk. They are absolutely terrible to live in. There is no soundproofing, the smell of your neighbors marijuana flows readily through the wall into other units. It should be illegal to build apartment buildings unless they are made of concrete.

Just reading the thread that was posted. This is what it says as one of the causes:

"In American cities, very little land is legal to build multi-family homes on. In San Jose, 94% of residential land is single-family only. Zones where multi-family homes can be built are sparse and thus extremely competitive — only the biggest developers can compete. Once these developers have the plot, they economize. They squeeze the building right up to the boundaries, and build on a scale that small, local developers can't afford. Then they save more money by copy-pasting the designs in every city they operate in."

"zoning laws benefit the scaled developers."

"When America restructured around the motorcar, people moved out to the suburbs and commuted in via the new highways.

"Retail was relegated to operating where people drive rather than live — again because of zoning."

This is all facts. Suburbs are an abomination in human culture. You know when parents tell their kids it’s bad to stay in their rooms all day playing video games? Suburbs are like that but for adults.

Then why do people keep moving to them? And why did you?

Because that's where most of the housing in the US is?

Oh, okay. Got it. They’re an “abomination” but contain most of the housing in the US. And people voluntarily choose to live there. Logic checks out.

Most of the housing in the U.S. is in suburbs because for 70+ years, a long list of federal, state, and local policies has subsidized housing in the suburbs and discouraged anything else. Please learn some history.

And yes, it is logical that most people live where most of the housing is.

That the weird urbanists think that housing exists in suburbs only because of exogenous policy decisions and not because there is demand for it shows just how disconnected from reality they are.

That you are unaware of 70 years of history shows just how disconnected from reality you are.

Is it even relevant? It’s successful because people want to live there and actively choose to live in a suburban environment. They moved there specifically because it’s restricted to single family homes, because that is what they want. How childish and selfish do you have to be to decide that it should change because you don’t like it?

Yes, people should have housing, no it doesn’t have to be wherever you decide it should be. The sense of entitlement that YImBYs show is embarrassing.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment actively choose to live in a suburban environment? Yes. They had a limited range of options, and from among that limited range of options, they chose the option that worked best for them.

Did everyone living in a suburban environment move there specifically because it's restricted to single family homes? Absolutely not. What an absurd claim. For one thing, the suburban environment has always included multi-unit as well as single-unit housing. A lot of your Montgomery County neighbors live in townhouses, garden apartments, and big multi-unit buildings. Some of them even live in duplexes, triplexes, and quadplexes! For another thing, who are you to say why everyone who lives in a suburban environment lives in a suburban environment? You are not everyone. Everyone is not you.

So you admit that people live in the suburbs because they want to (i.e., there is demand for it), not because government policy forced them to. Great.

Why you feel the need to make the suburbs more like a city and give people even fewer options is beyond me. Except as the other person said, it’s your religion.

I mean, yes, I admit that people are voluntarily living in the suburbs. Suburbs are not forced labor camps. That goes without saying, doesn't it? However, your idea seems to be: if you live in a SFH in a suburb, that means you love everything about your suburb exactly the way it is right now, and you don't want anything to change. And that idea is just wrong.

I don't think allowing duplexes/triplexes/quadplexes would make the suburbs more like a city, and it's a fact that it would give people more options, not fewer.

And those who want a SFH neighborhood will get screwed. And those who remain will lose the opportunity to grow their wealth through their SFH. Owning a unit in a quadplex is simply not going to create wealth for its owner.

Yes, it's true, people who want to live in an area that consists only of housing that is single-unit housing will have fewer areas to choose from.

The way I see it, the primary purpose of housing is housing, not wealth-creation. But it probably helps that I'm not afraid of renters.

Okay. You admitted that this policy will screw the middle class and upper middle class as it will reduce their opportunities to generate wealth through SFH ownership. The rich are far less reliant on their homes for wealth. Home ownership has been pitched for decades as a means to create family wealth for retirement and other purposes. Rather than expand those opportunities to more residents, this policy reduces them. Owning a condo or quadplex has not been shown to create wealth. [Former owner of several condos here.]

Please consider the idea that this is bad housing policy.

As much as it might be bad housing policy, you can’t get around the fact that land is an asset with a fixed supply. It’s going to appreciate, especially when you artificially limit the developable supply. My land will almost certainly be worth more than what I paid for the land and house by the time I sell.

I assume this means "regulate land use"?

You know what artificially limits the developable supply? Zoning most of the county so that the only housing you're allowed to build on it is single-unit housing.

I never said zoning didn’t limit the development potential. But there’s no question that upzoning will also increase the revenue potential for every piece of residential land in the county, which will also increase its value, making SFH even less affordable. We’re so lucky to have you advocating for affordable housing with your mastery of market economics. It would have been a tragedy if you had dedicated your skills to NIMBY causes.

On the one hand, there will be lots more housing built for people to live in, in locations where housing should be built according to county housing, transportation, and environmental policies. On the other hand, there be fewer detached oneplexes than currently, and it might cost more to buy a detached oneplex in some parts of the county. I'm ok with that.

The NIMBYs seem to be doing just fine making the case against NIMBYism for themselves.

Left unstated:

The county policies (e.g., Thrive) which call for housing to be built in these areas are part of a layered approach to change that tended to keep the full extent of likely conditions obscured, like slowly boiling a frog, which doesn't sense the impact of the increased heat until it is too late. If all had been placed before the electorate with a full view of impacts, those policies would never have been adopted.

This change in surrounding housing types and infrastructure burden will be imposed on those currently living in detached SFH neighborhoods, who had reasonable expectation of continuity of zoning (and zoning definitions) without the assent of thier neighborhood (as would be the case in applications for zoning variances) when making the highly consequential decision to reside there, which came with large associated investments (financial, time, social/community-building, etc.) that would be lost in any move.

Those most impacted are likely to be in less wealthy areas of the county (e.g., Silver Spring more than Bethesda, and certainly more than Potomac) due to the situational benefits for developers (i.e., lower property acquisition cost, etc.).

Ths housing stock sought by those pushing this change could easily be zoned in greenfield development, though it would not then be in the closer-in, already-built-out areas that more clearly are the targets of the change. The housing unit increases sought could more easily be created in areas currently zoned for multi-family/mixed-use, though they would not be of the style sought by those pushing the change.

But developers want what benefits them most, so, instead of pursuing those remedies, they are fulfilling their stereotype by stealing others' milkshake.

Nobody is "stealing your milkshake" or your anything else by changing the zoning law to allow property owners to build more types of housing.

Wonderful how you clipped out the rest of the text, there. I've added it back, as it implicitly refutes your statement that nobody is taking anything from those in existing detached SFH neighborhoods.

The twin lines utilized by those pushing for this change of,

"Nobody is forcing you to give up your detached SFH," and

"You can move if you don't want to live in such conditions"

are bankrupt rhetorical uses of logically fallacious argument. The one ignores the neighborhood, itself, (its detached SFH character and the associated infrastructure that would be more greatly pressured) as part of that which those living there would be forced to give up. The other ignores the burden of a move, both in that which would be lost/diminished in leaving and that which would be paid in obtaining something similar elsewhere. Each ignores any differential right of existing residents.

The existing residents do not have a right to an unchanged neighborhood that meets their personal approval. So nobody is stealing anything from them.

Of course they have a right. The way you say it presents it as hyperbole, of course -- "unchanged" and "personal approval" vs. the previous statement indicating more along the lines of "changes within zoning except with broad assent of the neighborhood," which is, more or less, the established custom (an underpinning of the US legal system in common law). Rights are not absolute, however. Even the right to life can and has been taken away by government in certain circumstances (e.g., executions for particular crimes, which, presumably, were of such consequence to the rights of others as to warrant the removal of the offender's right to life).

The question is always one of relative rights, which supercede others and under which circumstances. As part of this, the particular impacts of abrogation of one set of rights in favor of another must also be considered. A right generally considered superior might be the one abrogated should the effect of abrogation of the "lesser" right be particularly grave while the alternate effect is not.

In this case, development interests certainly are stealing residents' milkshake.

How's that? Your assertion is that it is "more or less the established custom" that the people already residing in an area historically give "broad assent" when SFH zones were first established? And how is that "broad assent" historically demonstrated when changes have occurred?

No, the custom is gaining that neighborhood assent when granting an exception to established zoning. Establishment of zoning and re-zoning, as has happened in the past, typically requires similar processes to ensure community buy-in (and as a proper check on the powers afforded to elected officials and their appointees).

The approach of the ZTA (amending the wording of existing zoning to effect change) sidesteps such established and reasonable expectation. The lower bar of a ZTA should be seen as consistent with far less substantial change than is being proposed.

Given the relative obviousness, here, and the extensive prior discussion, I suggest you are being deliberately daft in an attempt to confuse/misrepresent.

Helpful, and different than what you originally wrote. So the clarification was needed.
So when an exception is granted to established zoning, how is that broad assent established?

Not different. I had said, and you had bolded, "changes within zoning." That is, once zoned (and with consequent decisions having been made based on that zoning, as mentioned previously), requested exceptions within that zoned area typically are vetted with the affected community and typically do not move forward without reasonable assent.