More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if you NIMBYs spent more time voting and less time arguing online. You lost, get over it. Cities need to grow, you aren't entitled to your "home value" or whatever else nonsense you come up with.

Move to some generic suburb and leave the cool cities for us please.

This thread is about MoCo, where YIMBYs have delivered declining growth and skyrocketing housing costs. Is the problem that YIMBYism doesn’t actually deliver on its promises or are our YIMBYs just really incompetent?

Dude every housing development is held up in years of litigation for "environmental" reasons. MoCO is nowhere near the top when it comes to new housing per capita.

Are you a troll account or just misinformed?

No, very few are held up in litigation. That’s a myth. There are two things that hold up development. One is the slow planning process. We have that to entertain the bureaucrats and so that the land use lawyers can run up higher bills. The bigger thing is the developers themselves. They get their plans approved and then they don’t build because they’re concerned the market is soft. When developers say they can’t get financing, that’s code for “if I build this right now, prices will go down, and obviously we can’t have that.” I’d wager that there are more requests to extend plan validity granted each year in Montgomery County than there lawsuits, let alone successful lawsuits.

Yes, so we need types of housing to be allowed to be build so more people can build them. What don't you understand? Young people won't want to live in generic, poorly built suburb houses with ugly lawns. This is why prices continue to go up.

Please look at what New Zealand did and how dramatically it lowered rent growth.

Nimby's gonna nimby!

Prices are going up because there’s no demand? Can you explain more?

Prices are going up because we don't have enough housing. Upzoning solve that. Not that hard!

No it won’t. There, problem solved.

Now go build where it is properly zoned and maybe concentrate on converting commercial to mixed use.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if you NIMBYs spent more time voting and less time arguing online. You lost, get over it. Cities need to grow, you aren't entitled to your "home value" or whatever else nonsense you come up with.

Move to some generic suburb and leave the cool cities for us please.

This thread is about MoCo, where YIMBYs have delivered declining growth and skyrocketing housing costs. Is the problem that YIMBYism doesn’t actually deliver on its promises or are our YIMBYs just really incompetent?

Dude every housing development is held up in years of litigation for "environmental" reasons. MoCO is nowhere near the top when it comes to new housing per capita.

Are you a troll account or just misinformed?

No, very few are held up in litigation. That’s a myth. There are two things that hold up development. One is the slow planning process. We have that to entertain the bureaucrats and so that the land use lawyers can run up higher bills. The bigger thing is the developers themselves. They get their plans approved and then they don’t build because they’re concerned the market is soft. When developers say they can’t get financing, that’s code for “if I build this right now, prices will go down, and obviously we can’t have that.” I’d wager that there are more requests to extend plan validity granted each year in Montgomery County than there lawsuits, let alone successful lawsuits.

Yes, so we need types of housing to be allowed to be build so more people can build them. What don't you understand? Young people won't want to live in generic, poorly built suburb houses with ugly lawns. This is why prices continue to go up.

Please look at what New Zealand did and how dramatically it lowered rent growth.

Nimby's gonna nimby!

Prices are going up because there’s no demand? Can you explain more?

Prices are going up because we don't have enough housing. Upzoning solve that. Not that hard!

The PP said that prices were going up because there’s no demand. I’m wondering how that works. Can you explain?

If zoning were actually causing MoCo’s low housing production you’d be right. If you think zoning is suppressing housing production, you haven’t spent much time thinking about how housing production works.

The root cause of low production is lack of job creation and deteriorating access to jobs in other jurisdictions. if you solve just one of those and end developers’ price collusion, housing production will skyrocket.

[Anonymous]

Prices go up for detached SFHs in areas of increasing density because that is what most prefer.

NIMBYs love pretending to be daft just to question the obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Prices go up for detached SFHs in areas of increasing density because that is what most prefer.

NIMBYs love pretending to be daft just to question the obvious.

How are the YIMBYs going to address the shortage of detached SFHs in areas of increasing density?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prices go up for detached SFHs in areas of increasing density because that is what most prefer.

NIMBYs love pretending to be daft just to question the obvious.

How are the YIMBYs going to address the shortage of detached SFHs in areas of increasing density?

By suggesting that such can be found farther out, and that we should be encouraging job creation to go along with well-managed housing development in those locations to acieve similar aims to those publicly espoused by YIMBYs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prices go up for detached SFHs in areas of increasing density because that is what most prefer.

NIMBYs love pretending to be daft just to question the obvious.

How are the YIMBYs going to address the shortage of detached SFHs in areas of increasing density?

By suggesting that such can be found farther out, and that we should be encouraging job creation to go along with well-managed housing development in those locations to acieve similar aims to those publicly espoused by YIMBYs.

In MoCo the YIMBYs have advocated banning development farther out, and they’ve gotten their way by banning new houses in vast stretches of the county or otherwise making it commercially infeasible to build new SFH (attached and detached). That’s one reason the housing market is broken.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prices go up for detached SFHs in areas of increasing density because that is what most prefer.

NIMBYs love pretending to be daft just to question the obvious.

How are the YIMBYs going to address the shortage of detached SFHs in areas of increasing density?

By suggesting that such can be found farther out, and that we should be encouraging job creation to go along with well-managed housing development in those locations to acieve similar aims to those publicly espoused by YIMBYs.

In MoCo the YIMBYs have advocated banning development farther out, and they’ve gotten their way by banning new houses in vast stretches of the county or otherwise making it commercially infeasible to build new SFH (attached and detached). That’s one reason the housing market is broken.

The Ag Reserve was created in 1980. Forty-four (44) years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if you NIMBYs spent more time voting and less time arguing online. You lost, get over it. Cities need to grow, you aren't entitled to your "home value" or whatever else nonsense you come up with.

Move to some generic suburb and leave the cool cities for us please.

This thread is about MoCo, where YIMBYs have delivered declining growth and skyrocketing housing costs. Is the problem that YIMBYism doesn’t actually deliver on its promises or are our YIMBYs just really incompetent?

Dude every housing development is held up in years of litigation for "environmental" reasons. MoCO is nowhere near the top when it comes to new housing per capita.

Are you a troll account or just misinformed?

No, very few are held up in litigation. That’s a myth. There are two things that hold up development. One is the slow planning process. We have that to entertain the bureaucrats and so that the land use lawyers can run up higher bills. The bigger thing is the developers themselves. They get their plans approved and then they don’t build because they’re concerned the market is soft. When developers say they can’t get financing, that’s code for “if I build this right now, prices will go down, and obviously we can’t have that.” I’d wager that there are more requests to extend plan validity granted each year in Montgomery County than there lawsuits, let alone successful lawsuits.

Yes, so we need types of housing to be allowed to be build so more people can build them. What don't you understand? Young people won't want to live in generic, poorly built suburb houses with ugly lawns. This is why prices continue to go up.

Please look at what New Zealand did and how dramatically it lowered rent growth.

Nimby's gonna nimby!

Some will. Some won't. It would be good if the full range of housing types were allowed by zoning.

They are, that's why we have zoning. Are the townhomes and condos in the area imaginary? What you are saying is that all types should be allowed everywhere, and that's silly.

No, they aren't. We have attached and detached single family buildings. And we have large and very large multifamily buildings. But we don't have small multifamily buildings. The zoning code doesn't allow it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if you NIMBYs spent more time voting and less time arguing online. You lost, get over it. Cities need to grow, you aren't entitled to your "home value" or whatever else nonsense you come up with.

Move to some generic suburb and leave the cool cities for us please.

This thread is about MoCo, where YIMBYs have delivered declining growth and skyrocketing housing costs. Is the problem that YIMBYism doesn’t actually deliver on its promises or are our YIMBYs just really incompetent?

Dude every housing development is held up in years of litigation for "environmental" reasons. MoCO is nowhere near the top when it comes to new housing per capita.

Are you a troll account or just misinformed?

No, very few are held up in litigation. That’s a myth. There are two things that hold up development. One is the slow planning process. We have that to entertain the bureaucrats and so that the land use lawyers can run up higher bills. The bigger thing is the developers themselves. They get their plans approved and then they don’t build because they’re concerned the market is soft. When developers say they can’t get financing, that’s code for “if I build this right now, prices will go down, and obviously we can’t have that.” I’d wager that there are more requests to extend plan validity granted each year in Montgomery County than there lawsuits, let alone successful lawsuits.

Yes, so we need types of housing to be allowed to be build so more people can build them. What don't you understand? Young people won't want to live in generic, poorly built suburb houses with ugly lawns. This is why prices continue to go up.

Please look at what New Zealand did and how dramatically it lowered rent growth.

Nimby's gonna nimby!

Some will. Some won't. It would be good if the full range of housing types were allowed by zoning.

They are, that's why we have zoning. Are the townhomes and condos in the area imaginary? What you are saying is that all types should be allowed everywhere, and that's silly.

No, they aren't. We have attached and detached single family buildings. And we have large and very large multifamily buildings. But we don't have small multifamily buildings. The zoning code doesn't allow it.

You mean that you can’t build small apartment buildings by right in SFH neighborhoods, which is what this entire thread is about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prices go up for detached SFHs in areas of increasing density because that is what most prefer.

NIMBYs love pretending to be daft just to question the obvious.

How are the YIMBYs going to address the shortage of detached SFHs in areas of increasing density?

By suggesting that such can be found farther out, and that we should be encouraging job creation to go along with well-managed housing development in those locations to acieve similar aims to those publicly espoused by YIMBYs.

In MoCo the YIMBYs have advocated banning development farther out, and they’ve gotten their way by banning new houses in vast stretches of the county or otherwise making it commercially infeasible to build new SFH (attached and detached). That’s one reason the housing market is broken.

The Ag Reserve was created in 1980. Forty-four (44) years ago.

And it’s been revised through the years with the effect of making it even harder to build anything there.

You conveniently didn’t even address the most damaging thing that YIMBYs have done: making it commercially infeasible to build new SFH (attached and detached) where it’s allowed and where the available land is. It’s official policy, in the Growth and Infrastructure Policy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if you NIMBYs spent more time voting and less time arguing online. You lost, get over it. Cities need to grow, you aren't entitled to your "home value" or whatever else nonsense you come up with.

Move to some generic suburb and leave the cool cities for us please.

This thread is about MoCo, where YIMBYs have delivered declining growth and skyrocketing housing costs. Is the problem that YIMBYism doesn’t actually deliver on its promises or are our YIMBYs just really incompetent?

Dude every housing development is held up in years of litigation for "environmental" reasons. MoCO is nowhere near the top when it comes to new housing per capita.

Are you a troll account or just misinformed?

No, very few are held up in litigation. That’s a myth. There are two things that hold up development. One is the slow planning process. We have that to entertain the bureaucrats and so that the land use lawyers can run up higher bills. The bigger thing is the developers themselves. They get their plans approved and then they don’t build because they’re concerned the market is soft. When developers say they can’t get financing, that’s code for “if I build this right now, prices will go down, and obviously we can’t have that.” I’d wager that there are more requests to extend plan validity granted each year in Montgomery County than there lawsuits, let alone successful lawsuits.

Yes, so we need types of housing to be allowed to be build so more people can build them. What don't you understand? Young people won't want to live in generic, poorly built suburb houses with ugly lawns. This is why prices continue to go up.

Please look at what New Zealand did and how dramatically it lowered rent growth.

Nimby's gonna nimby!

Some will. Some won't. It would be good if the full range of housing types were allowed by zoning.

They are, that's why we have zoning. Are the townhomes and condos in the area imaginary? What you are saying is that all types should be allowed everywhere, and that's silly.

No, they aren't. We have attached and detached single family buildings. And we have large and very large multifamily buildings. But we don't have small multifamily buildings. The zoning code doesn't allow it.

Allowing small multifamily in single family residential zoned areas of MOCO is a handout to developers & wealthy real estate investors disguised as an affordable housing agenda. It would effectively increase the allowable density in vast portions of the county by 4-8x. We don't have room for this many additional drivers on our roads or students in our schools. Developers should not be allowed to redevelop neighborhoods by-right and quadruple density while forcing county taxpayers to absorb the entire cost of infrastructure improvements and new schools. These YIMBY orgs are funded by special interest groups (real estate developers, construction industry) that want to eliminate zoning altogether. This is not an organic movement with broad public support and it is primarily driven by full-time salaried psuedo-lobbyists that work for non-profits. They are working on behalf of special interest groups to boost their profits and they don't care how it impacts communities. YIMBYs want to circumvent the democratic process and eliminate local community control over the zoning process to force a one-size fits all solution on the entire country. Do not fall for their lies, they will destroy your neighborhoods to benefit wealthy special interest groups.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prices go up for detached SFHs in areas of increasing density because that is what most prefer.

NIMBYs love pretending to be daft just to question the obvious.

How are the YIMBYs going to address the shortage of detached SFHs in areas of increasing density?

By suggesting that such can be found farther out, and that we should be encouraging job creation to go along with well-managed housing development in those locations to acieve similar aims to those publicly espoused by YIMBYs.

It is false that MoCo’s YIMBYs espouse anything about job creation. The Thrive draft that planning sent to the Council did not include a chapter on jobs. The Council said that wasn’t right and sent it back. Planning had to hire consultants to write that chapter because they lacked the expertise to do it themselves. And by well-managed housing development in those locations, you either mean banning it or taxing it to death.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prices go up for detached SFHs in areas of increasing density because that is what most prefer.

NIMBYs love pretending to be daft just to question the obvious.

How are the YIMBYs going to address the shortage of detached SFHs in areas of increasing density?

By suggesting that such can be found farther out, and that we should be encouraging job creation to go along with well-managed housing development in those locations to acieve similar aims to those publicly espoused by YIMBYs.

It is false that MoCo’s YIMBYs espouse anything about job creation. The Thrive draft that planning sent to the Council did not include a chapter on jobs. The Council said that wasn’t right and sent it back. Planning had to hire consultants to write that chapter because they lacked the expertise to do it themselves. And by well-managed housing development in those locations, you either mean banning it or taxing it to death.

Not only did it not say anything about jobs, it actually actively promoted loss of jobs and business through closure of quarries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Prices go up for detached SFHs in areas of increasing density because that is what most prefer.

NIMBYs love pretending to be daft just to question the obvious.

How are the YIMBYs going to address the shortage of detached SFHs in areas of increasing density?

By suggesting that such can be found farther out, and that we should be encouraging job creation to go along with well-managed housing development in those locations to acieve similar aims to those publicly espoused by YIMBYs.

In MoCo the YIMBYs have advocated banning development farther out, and they’ve gotten their way by banning new houses in vast stretches of the county or otherwise making it commercially infeasible to build new SFH (attached and detached). That’s one reason the housing market is broken.

The Ag Reserve was created in 1980. Forty-four (44) years ago.

And it’s been revised through the years with the effect of making it even harder to build anything there.

You conveniently didn’t even address the most damaging thing that YIMBYs have done: making it commercially infeasible to build new SFH (attached and detached) where it’s allowed and where the available land is. It’s official policy, in the Growth and Infrastructure Policy.

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Imagine if you NIMBYs spent more time voting and less time arguing online. You lost, get over it. Cities need to grow, you aren't entitled to your "home value" or whatever else nonsense you come up with.

Move to some generic suburb and leave the cool cities for us please.

This thread is about MoCo, where YIMBYs have delivered declining growth and skyrocketing housing costs. Is the problem that YIMBYism doesn’t actually deliver on its promises or are our YIMBYs just really incompetent?

Dude every housing development is held up in years of litigation for "environmental" reasons. MoCO is nowhere near the top when it comes to new housing per capita.

Are you a troll account or just misinformed?

No, very few are held up in litigation. That’s a myth. There are two things that hold up development. One is the slow planning process. We have that to entertain the bureaucrats and so that the land use lawyers can run up higher bills. The bigger thing is the developers themselves. They get their plans approved and then they don’t build because they’re concerned the market is soft. When developers say they can’t get financing, that’s code for “if I build this right now, prices will go down, and obviously we can’t have that.” I’d wager that there are more requests to extend plan validity granted each year in Montgomery County than there lawsuits, let alone successful lawsuits.

Yes, so we need types of housing to be allowed to be build so more people can build them. What don't you understand? Young people won't want to live in generic, poorly built suburb houses with ugly lawns. This is why prices continue to go up.

Please look at what New Zealand did and how dramatically it lowered rent growth.

Nimby's gonna nimby!

Some will. Some won't. It would be good if the full range of housing types were allowed by zoning.

They are, that's why we have zoning. Are the townhomes and condos in the area imaginary? What you are saying is that all types should be allowed everywhere, and that's silly.

No, they aren't. We have attached and detached single family buildings. And we have large and very large multifamily buildings. But we don't have small multifamily buildings. The zoning code doesn't allow it.

Allowing small multifamily in single family residential zoned areas of MOCO is a handout to developers & wealthy real estate investors disguised as an affordable housing agenda. It would effectively increase the allowable density in vast portions of the county by 4-8x. We don't have room for this many additional drivers on our roads or students in our schools. Developers should not be allowed to redevelop neighborhoods by-right and quadruple density while forcing county taxpayers to absorb the entire cost of infrastructure improvements and new schools. These YIMBY orgs are funded by special interest groups (real estate developers, construction industry) that want to eliminate zoning altogether. This is not an organic movement with broad public support and it is primarily driven by full-time salaried psuedo-lobbyists that work for non-profits. They are working on behalf of special interest groups to boost their profits and they don't care how it impacts communities. YIMBYs want to circumvent the democratic process and eliminate local community control over the zoning process to force a one-size fits all solution on the entire country. Do not fall for their lies, they will destroy your neighborhoods to benefit wealthy special interest groups.

The what now? Here is who has control over the zoning process: the Montgomery County Planning Board, and the Montgomery County Council.

Here is who doesn't: the Kemp Mill Civic Association, the Upper Sligo Civic Association, the Glenview Neighborhood Association, the Sligo Woods Civic Association, the Northwood Four Corners Civic Association...