MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council President Friedson to Hold Media Availability on July 8 at 11:30 a.m.

For Immediate Release: Friday, July 5, 2024

ROCKVILLE, Md., July 5, 2024—On Monday, July 8 at 11:30 a.m., Montgomery County Council President Andrew Friedson will hold a media availability to discuss various Council matters, including the Council’s scheduled vote on the appointment of the County’s new fire chief.

Council President Friedson will also discuss the Council's upcoming committee meetings on planning-related matters, including the Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative recommended by the Montgomery County Planning Board and the Great Seneca Plan: Connecting Life and Science.

The Council President’s media availability will be held via Zoom and is for members of the news media. The public can view the media availability on the Council’s Facebook page (@MontgomeryCountyMdCouncil).

Members of the news media must RSVP before 10 a.m. on July 8 to Lucia Jimenez at [e-mail] to receive the Zoom login information.

Are you one of the "Rally To Save Your Beautiful Single Family Home Neighborhoods" people?

Unofficially, but thanks for the heads up! It’s never too early to get organized.

Also, not sure about public access to this, but:

The Planning, Housing and Parks (PHP) Committee will meet at 1:30 p.m. to continue to review the Planning Department’s Attainable Housing Strategies Draft Report and the Great Seneca Master Plan: Connecting Life and Science.

The members of the PHP Committee include Chair and Council President Andrew Friedson and Councilmembers Fani-González and Will Jawando.

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

If I had your record of results I would want to change the subject too. Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad? You promised all of these things would be better. Now you’re put off whenever someone wants to cash those checks you’ve written.

Who is this "you" you're addressing? Whoever it is, it's not me.

Where do you - you, personally - think SFHs should be built?

If you’ve advocated for the developer subsidies, the tax breaks, or this upzoning proposal, I’m talking about you personally. If you haven’t then I’m not sure why you responded to this post. Answer my questions first and then I’ll answer yours.

Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad?

I have not advocated for changes in impact fees. I don't think they're part of the problem, so I don't think changes to them are part of the solution. I am advocating for the zoning proposal. Why hasn't the zoning proposal done anything yet? For one thing, because it hasn't even been enacted yet.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

Why does Planning think the zoning proposal won’t do much (certainly not enough to change price trends) once it’s enacted?

I haven't heard anyone say this. However, assuming they have said this - ask Planning. Don't ask me, I don't work for Planning.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

It’s in the reports. Why do you think you know better than Planning?

Where is it in the reports? I am not going to go trawling through all of the reports to look for something that some anonymous poster claimed was there.

^^^Also, where do you think SFHs should be built? I am asking for your personal opinion, so it should be an easy question for you to answer.

Do you think it’s important for growth in all types of housing? That’s the county’s policy. Do you agree or disagree?

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

If I had your record of results I would want to change the subject too. Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad? You promised all of these things would be better. Now you’re put off whenever someone wants to cash those checks you’ve written.

Who is this "you" you're addressing? Whoever it is, it's not me.

Where do you - you, personally - think SFHs should be built?

If you’ve advocated for the developer subsidies, the tax breaks, or this upzoning proposal, I’m talking about you personally. If you haven’t then I’m not sure why you responded to this post. Answer my questions first and then I’ll answer yours.

Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad?

I have not advocated for changes in impact fees. I don't think they're part of the problem, so I don't think changes to them are part of the solution. I am advocating for the zoning proposal. Why hasn't the zoning proposal done anything yet? For one thing, because it hasn't even been enacted yet.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

Why does Planning think the zoning proposal won’t do much (certainly not enough to change price trends) once it’s enacted?

I haven't heard anyone say this. However, assuming they have said this - ask Planning. Don't ask me, I don't work for Planning.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

It’s in the reports. Why do you think you know better than Planning?

Where is it in the reports? I am not going to go trawling through all of the reports to look for something that some anonymous poster claimed was there.

^^^Also, where do you think SFHs should be built? I am asking for your personal opinion, so it should be an easy question for you to answer.

Do you think it’s important for growth in all types of housing? That’s the county’s policy. Do you agree or disagree?

Housing has to be somewhere. Where do you think SFHs should be built?

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

If I had your record of results I would want to change the subject too. Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad? You promised all of these things would be better. Now you’re put off whenever someone wants to cash those checks you’ve written.

Who is this "you" you're addressing? Whoever it is, it's not me.

Where do you - you, personally - think SFHs should be built?

If you’ve advocated for the developer subsidies, the tax breaks, or this upzoning proposal, I’m talking about you personally. If you haven’t then I’m not sure why you responded to this post. Answer my questions first and then I’ll answer yours.

Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad?

I have not advocated for changes in impact fees. I don't think they're part of the problem, so I don't think changes to them are part of the solution. I am advocating for the zoning proposal. Why hasn't the zoning proposal done anything yet? For one thing, because it hasn't even been enacted yet.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

Why does Planning think the zoning proposal won’t do much (certainly not enough to change price trends) once it’s enacted?

I haven't heard anyone say this. However, assuming they have said this - ask Planning. Don't ask me, I don't work for Planning.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

It’s in the reports. Why do you think you know better than Planning?

Where is it in the reports? I am not going to go trawling through all of the reports to look for something that some anonymous poster claimed was there.

^^^Also, where do you think SFHs should be built? I am asking for your personal opinion, so it should be an easy question for you to answer.

Do you think it’s important for growth in all types of housing? That’s the county’s policy. Do you agree or disagree?

Housing has to be somewhere. Where do you think SFHs should be built?

The goal here is to reduce the quantity of SFH in MC. You may have missed the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council President Friedson to Hold Media Availability on July 8 at 11:30 a.m.

For Immediate Release: Friday, July 5, 2024

ROCKVILLE, Md., July 5, 2024—On Monday, July 8 at 11:30 a.m., Montgomery County Council President Andrew Friedson will hold a media availability to discuss various Council matters, including the Council’s scheduled vote on the appointment of the County’s new fire chief.

Council President Friedson will also discuss the Council's upcoming committee meetings on planning-related matters, including the Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative recommended by the Montgomery County Planning Board and the Great Seneca Plan: Connecting Life and Science.

The Council President’s media availability will be held via Zoom and is for members of the news media. The public can view the media availability on the Council’s Facebook page (@MontgomeryCountyMdCouncil).

Members of the news media must RSVP before 10 a.m. on July 8 to Lucia Jimenez at [e-mail] to receive the Zoom login information.

Are you one of the "Rally To Save Your Beautiful Single Family Home Neighborhoods" people?

Unofficially, but thanks for the heads up! It’s never too early to get organized.

Also, not sure about public access to this, but:

The Planning, Housing and Parks (PHP) Committee will meet at 1:30 p.m. to continue to review the Planning Department’s Attainable Housing Strategies Draft Report and the Great Seneca Master Plan: Connecting Life and Science.

The members of the PHP Committee include Chair and Council President Andrew Friedson and Councilmembers Fani-González and Will Jawando.

They meet in public, PP. You can attend in person, or you can watch live, or you can watch later. Go to the County Council website for more information. This is basic information that all advocates on local issues should know about, even NIMBYs.

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

If I had your record of results I would want to change the subject too. Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad? You promised all of these things would be better. Now you’re put off whenever someone wants to cash those checks you’ve written.

Who is this "you" you're addressing? Whoever it is, it's not me.

Where do you - you, personally - think SFHs should be built?

If you’ve advocated for the developer subsidies, the tax breaks, or this upzoning proposal, I’m talking about you personally. If you haven’t then I’m not sure why you responded to this post. Answer my questions first and then I’ll answer yours.

Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad?

I have not advocated for changes in impact fees. I don't think they're part of the problem, so I don't think changes to them are part of the solution. I am advocating for the zoning proposal. Why hasn't the zoning proposal done anything yet? For one thing, because it hasn't even been enacted yet.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

Why does Planning think the zoning proposal won’t do much (certainly not enough to change price trends) once it’s enacted?

I haven't heard anyone say this. However, assuming they have said this - ask Planning. Don't ask me, I don't work for Planning.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

It’s in the reports. Why do you think you know better than Planning?

Where is it in the reports? I am not going to go trawling through all of the reports to look for something that some anonymous poster claimed was there.

^^^Also, where do you think SFHs should be built? I am asking for your personal opinion, so it should be an easy question for you to answer.

Do you think it’s important for growth in all types of housing? That’s the county’s policy. Do you agree or disagree?

Housing has to be somewhere. Where do you think SFHs should be built?

The goal here is to reduce the quantity of SFH in MC. You may have missed the point.

Why is it so hard for you to answer the question? Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

If I had your record of results I would want to change the subject too. Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad? You promised all of these things would be better. Now you’re put off whenever someone wants to cash those checks you’ve written.

Who is this "you" you're addressing? Whoever it is, it's not me.

Where do you - you, personally - think SFHs should be built?

If you’ve advocated for the developer subsidies, the tax breaks, or this upzoning proposal, I’m talking about you personally. If you haven’t then I’m not sure why you responded to this post. Answer my questions first and then I’ll answer yours.

Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad?

I have not advocated for changes in impact fees. I don't think they're part of the problem, so I don't think changes to them are part of the solution. I am advocating for the zoning proposal. Why hasn't the zoning proposal done anything yet? For one thing, because it hasn't even been enacted yet.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

Why does Planning think the zoning proposal won’t do much (certainly not enough to change price trends) once it’s enacted?

I haven't heard anyone say this. However, assuming they have said this - ask Planning. Don't ask me, I don't work for Planning.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

It’s in the reports. Why do you think you know better than Planning?

Because housing policy and planning is not a science. It simply represents the personal views of the staff. No more, no less.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council President Friedson to Hold Media Availability on July 8 at 11:30 a.m.

For Immediate Release: Friday, July 5, 2024

ROCKVILLE, Md., July 5, 2024—On Monday, July 8 at 11:30 a.m., Montgomery County Council President Andrew Friedson will hold a media availability to discuss various Council matters, including the Council’s scheduled vote on the appointment of the County’s new fire chief.

Council President Friedson will also discuss the Council's upcoming committee meetings on planning-related matters, including the Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative recommended by the Montgomery County Planning Board and the Great Seneca Plan: Connecting Life and Science.

The Council President’s media availability will be held via Zoom and is for members of the news media. The public can view the media availability on the Council’s Facebook page (@MontgomeryCountyMdCouncil).

Members of the news media must RSVP before 10 a.m. on July 8 to Lucia Jimenez at [e-mail] to receive the Zoom login information.

Are you one of the "Rally To Save Your Beautiful Single Family Home Neighborhoods" people?

Unofficially, but thanks for the heads up! It’s never too early to get organized.

Also, not sure about public access to this, but:

The Planning, Housing and Parks (PHP) Committee will meet at 1:30 p.m. to continue to review the Planning Department’s Attainable Housing Strategies Draft Report and the Great Seneca Master Plan: Connecting Life and Science.

The members of the PHP Committee include Chair and Council President Andrew Friedson and Councilmembers Fani-González and Will Jawando.

They meet in public, PP. You can attend in person, or you can watch live, or you can watch later. Go to the County Council website for more information. This is basic information that all advocates on local issues should know about, even NIMBYs.

Yes, of course, I just didn’t know the details offhand and was hoping that anyone interested would be able to provide them. I know that it’s hard to grasp, but many of us NIMBYs have to work during the day and we can’t rearrange meetings to attend amateur policy fantasy camp. We have mortgage payments to make, you know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Good grief. Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? If so, where do you think those SFHs should be built?

I don't think it will go over well if you tell your county council members that, in your opinion, they should prioritize their constituents who can afford SFHs over their constituents who can't. But you know best.

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

If I had your record of results I would want to change the subject too. Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad? You promised all of these things would be better. Now you’re put off whenever someone wants to cash those checks you’ve written.

Who is this "you" you're addressing? Whoever it is, it's not me.

Where do you - you, personally - think SFHs should be built?

If you’ve advocated for the developer subsidies, the tax breaks, or this upzoning proposal, I’m talking about you personally. If you haven’t then I’m not sure why you responded to this post. Answer my questions first and then I’ll answer yours.

Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad?

I have not advocated for changes in impact fees. I don't think they're part of the problem, so I don't think changes to them are part of the solution. I am advocating for the zoning proposal. Why hasn't the zoning proposal done anything yet? For one thing, because it hasn't even been enacted yet.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

Why does Planning think the zoning proposal won’t do much (certainly not enough to change price trends) once it’s enacted?

I haven't heard anyone say this. However, assuming they have said this - ask Planning. Don't ask me, I don't work for Planning.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

It’s in the reports. Why do you think you know better than Planning?

Because housing policy and planning is not a science. It simply represents the personal views of the staff. No more, no less.

No, it’s analysis based on data and other facts and represents the professional view of the agency. That’s a really important difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Council President Friedson to Hold Media Availability on July 8 at 11:30 a.m.

For Immediate Release: Friday, July 5, 2024

ROCKVILLE, Md., July 5, 2024—On Monday, July 8 at 11:30 a.m., Montgomery County Council President Andrew Friedson will hold a media availability to discuss various Council matters, including the Council’s scheduled vote on the appointment of the County’s new fire chief.

Council President Friedson will also discuss the Council's upcoming committee meetings on planning-related matters, including the Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative recommended by the Montgomery County Planning Board and the Great Seneca Plan: Connecting Life and Science.

The Council President’s media availability will be held via Zoom and is for members of the news media. The public can view the media availability on the Council’s Facebook page (@MontgomeryCountyMdCouncil).

Members of the news media must RSVP before 10 a.m. on July 8 to Lucia Jimenez at [e-mail] to receive the Zoom login information.

Are you one of the "Rally To Save Your Beautiful Single Family Home Neighborhoods" people?

Unofficially, but thanks for the heads up! It’s never too early to get organized.

Also, not sure about public access to this, but:

The Planning, Housing and Parks (PHP) Committee will meet at 1:30 p.m. to continue to review the Planning Department’s Attainable Housing Strategies Draft Report and the Great Seneca Master Plan: Connecting Life and Science.

The members of the PHP Committee include Chair and Council President Andrew Friedson and Councilmembers Fani-González and Will Jawando.

They meet in public, PP. You can attend in person, or you can watch live, or you can watch later. Go to the County Council website for more information. This is basic information that all advocates on local issues should know about, even NIMBYs.

Yes, of course, I just didn’t know the details offhand and was hoping that anyone interested would be able to provide them. I know that it’s hard to grasp, but many of us NIMBYs have to work during the day and we can’t rearrange meetings to attend amateur policy fantasy camp. We have mortgage payments to make, you know.

If it were actually amateur policy fantasy camp, you wouldn't be so upset about it. Do you want to be an effective advocate, or not? If you do, then you have to take local government seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Those, though they may be failed promises used to sell constituents on prior pro-developer policy, if true, are among the least of the concerns reasonably expressed about the attainable housing policy currently suggested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

The County's fiscal situation will not get better with upzoning. Reducing the quantity of SFHs is not the answer. Families in SFHs are a net-tax benefit to MC. 3 families living in triplex are likely to be a net-tax loss to MC. They will cost MC more in services than in income and property taxes being paid by them.

Why do you say that?

[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:Arlington resident here. There's so much pure, uncut NIMBYism on display in this thread that it's actually kind of refreshing. NIMBYs in Arlington eventually got wise and stopped saying toxic things like 'People who can't afford a million dollar house don't deserve to live in my neighborhood.' Instead they went on the attack and threw everything but the kitchen sink at the missing middle plan.

That shift is happening in this thread in real time. Posts have gone from "I don't want to live near lower-income people" to bad faith arguments like "It won't be affordable" (they like homes in their neighborhood being expensive) and "SFH prices will go up" (they like their own SFHs being expensive too). Plus heaps of insults too.

To all the MoCo YIMBYs in this thread -- brawling with NIMBYs can help you think through the issues, but but as the public debate goes on, it's less useful for understanding what they really want. Those first reactions will tell you a lot of what you'd want to know. Keep that in mind as you start to hear calls for additional study and delay.

I mean, yes, that's why I'm still in this thread - to find out specifically what some of the opposers are saying, beyond: change bad, multi-unit housing bad, density bad, renters bad, developers bad, Planning Department bad, county council bad, voters bad.

But also yes, anonymous on-line typing isn't effective advocacy, even for NIMBYs. Of course, standing up in person at meetings to compare renters to pernicious infectious diseases also isn't effective advocacy. I was at a Planning Board hearing once where several neighbors stood up and asked for the townhouses in the development to be moved back behind the dumpsters, to protect the SFHs.

Given the many, many posts in this thread that explain opposing or cautionary viewpoints without such boorishness (and without then being addressed with fulsome/non-rhetorical debate, in most cases), yours is the kind of misrepresentation that pegs you as anything but someone who's just here to find out what others think.

+1. I’m still waiting for any of the advocates to explain why compact growth has failed to bring houses down, why housing production is so low, and why the county’s fiscal situation is worse. YIMBYism has been promising to fix all of these things.

Are you the poster who thinks county housing policy should favor building more SFHs? Where do you think those SFHs should be built?

If I had your record of results I would want to change the subject too. Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad? You promised all of these things would be better. Now you’re put off whenever someone wants to cash those checks you’ve written.

Who is this "you" you're addressing? Whoever it is, it's not me.

Where do you - you, personally - think SFHs should be built?

If you’ve advocated for the developer subsidies, the tax breaks, or this upzoning proposal, I’m talking about you personally. If you haven’t then I’m not sure why you responded to this post. Answer my questions first and then I’ll answer yours.

Why hasn’t compact growth brought prices down, why is housing production so low, and why is the budget so bad?

I have not advocated for changes in impact fees. I don't think they're part of the problem, so I don't think changes to them are part of the solution. I am advocating for the zoning proposal. Why hasn't the zoning proposal done anything yet? For one thing, because it hasn't even been enacted yet.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

Why does Planning think the zoning proposal won’t do much (certainly not enough to change price trends) once it’s enacted?

I haven't heard anyone say this. However, assuming they have said this - ask Planning. Don't ask me, I don't work for Planning.

Where do you think SFHs should be built?

It’s in the reports. Why do you think you know better than Planning?

Because housing policy and planning is not a science. It simply represents the personal views of the staff. No more, no less.

No, it’s analysis based on data and other facts and represents the professional view of the agency. That’s a really important difference.

That would be so if they didn't cherry pick the data to analyze.