Reply to MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "MOCO - County Wide Upzoning, Everywhere"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Either the cost of living in one of the units in the multi-unit residential building (two-unit, three-unit, four-unit) will be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will be more affordable - and the residents will be "takers".

Or the cost of living in one of those units will not be less than the cost of living in a single-unit residential building - i.e., it will not be more affordable - in which case the residents will be "makers".

But what people seem to be arguing is both: the multi-unit housing cost will not be more affordable, AND the residents will be "takers". Pick one.

I'm using this Ayn Rand "takers"/"makers" thinking purely for the sake of argument. My personal opinion is that this thinking is trash, economically, socially, and morally.[/quote]

Having worked for Montgomery County DHHS for almost 10 years, I am willing to bet the people these multi dwelling units will attract will 100% be takers. They will be an economic net negative. [/quote]

In other words, according to you, the rezoning proposal will result in more affordable housing. Great!

Although your opinion is much like a podiatrist explaining that, in their experience, everyone has foot problems.[/quote]

Yes. I believe the housing will be more affordable. No question. I just don’t want to hear how this program will bring more money to the county. I’m doubting it will. [b]It will cost all of us more in the long run.[/b]

Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining. [/quote]

Are you including the people who will have housing they can afford, or at least housing they can better afford, in your idea of "us"?[/quote]

By “us” I mean the county. [/quote]

The county, meaning the residents of the county?[/quote]

You are absolutely ridiculous and hav contributed nothing of substance to this discussion. The YIMBYs on this thread do nothing more than gaslight concern residents and make fallacious arguments why everyone else is crazy. Anytime someone points out a reason why they are wrong they just ignore it entirely, change the topic, or devolve into a diatribe about the moral superiority of their irrational beliefs. [/quote]

MOCO alone cannot solve any of the social issues you guys claim to be concerned about. Growth needs to be balanced to ensure there are enough high income taxpayers (that generally provide surplus tax revenue)  to offset the  lower income taxpayers generally create a fiscal deficit. This policy does not make any attempt increase the  housing supply for high end residential .[b] It will reduce the supply of SFHs that high income taxpayers typically live in[/b], but increase the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers. This will be an unmitigated fiscal disaster for MOCO. [/quote]

You can discuss this with the poster who keeps insisting that the zoning proposal will primarily "ruin" lower-income areas.

Also, as far as I'm concerned, increasing the supply of housing for lower income taxpayers would actually be a good thing, not a disaster.[/quote]

It will absolutely be a fiscal disaster. It may be a good thing otherwise, but not economically. [/quote]

I don't see how it's bad for the county economy if the lower-income people who support the economy are able to afford housing.[/quote]

[b]I didn't say bad for the "economy", I said bad for the MOCO government funding.[/b]  Retaining and increasing the number of high income residents is beneficial for everyone because they provide surplus tax revenue to fund local government services. This benefits low income taxpayers as well. All I am saying is that a more granular zoning change that promotes balanced and fiscally sustainable growth would be a better policy for the count. It would be a better idea to Allow quadplex and triplex buildings within walking instance of metro stations to increase affordability for moderate income households and also allow the combination single family of lots to make small townhome communities within walking distance of metro stations. Outside of this area, do not eliminate single family zoning, but instead upzone all of the neighborhoods inside the beltway to increase the supply of single family homes. Everything that is currently R-90 inside the beltway should be rezoned to R-60, to encourage subdivision of larger existing lots. They should create a new SFH zoning category R-120 and rezone all of the R-200 areas inside the beltway to this new zoning category.[/quote]

MoCo government funding is related to the economy. The economy is related to MoCo government funding.[/quote]

This is a silly statement.

MoCo government funding is directly derived from household incomes and property values. From a revenue standpoint, those are the only things that matter. Long gone are the days when we had healthy private sector employment. Most people who live in MoCo leave each day to go to work, meaning that we already have a surplus of workers. There are a lot of things wrong with the MoCo economy but lack of workers isn’t one of them. [/quote]

Agree. Which is why I keep saying we are going to attract those who are a drain on the economy, not those who are going to strengthen it.

MoCo had robust services for undocumented immigrants. That is who we will be attracting. No one wants to admit that. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics