Reply to MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values

Forum Index » Real Estate

Reply to "MoCo “Attainable Housing” plan and property values"

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]This legislation CANNOT pass! It so destructive to communities and families.
I really want to understand the rationale, but all I see is a Council trying to fix a problem by creating another, bigger problem. The worse thing of all is that the influx of new residents, should it sadly come to pass, would be met with anonimity by the original residents for what their homes and presence represent: A silencing of communities which have been disregarded, the loss of neighborhoods that were once tranquil enclaves of family homes.[/quote]
The rationale is simple: there is a housing shortage and they’re using the best policy lever available: allow people to subdivide their lots. 
This is fine and a better way than using eminent domain to bulldoze your house [/quote]

OK thanks GGW. They're not "allowing people to subdivide their lots". They are allowing developers to devalue your property and make a ton of money (which they will take outside the county since they don't live here). MoCo residents living in their own homes are screwed. This plan is completely overboard. I cannot imagine a quadplex in R-60 neighborhoods with a parking pad out front. It is going to suck hard for all of us. Once the first one comes along, the neighborhood will look like crap pretty quickly.[/quote]
If I sell my land to a developer and I make money, that trade is consensual and beneficial. Nothing wrong with that. You have (rightfully) no business interfering with that trade. Unless you’re a busybody, which appears you are[/quote]

lol, Houston welcomes you:
https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bxs4896/files/images/Southmore%20then%20and%20now%20side%20by%20side.jpg
[/quote]
Your response is bad and sad. Why doesn’t Maryland encourage trade between two consensual parties? This is still America, as far as I know. We value commerce and development. If you want a quiet fishing village go to Europe, which is an outdoor museum with nothing interesting modern happening. [/quote]

This is a ridiculous response… move to Europe lol. Property rights are not unlimited because there are costs incurred by the larger community. New housing units requires schools capacity, generate traffic, use local government services, impact the water  and air pollution, create noise. Zoning exists to protect the property rights (use and enjoyment) nearby of properties. This logic of “property rights” meaning I can do absolutely whatever I want, is a very simplistic understanding of the world that doesn’t mesh with reality. Use of an individual property incurs costs to the neighbors and the local government, so there is a legitimate basis to regulate them. [/quote]
Spoken like a true Pinko. [/quote]

I like your cold war era vocab, I have not heard that one if a few decades. Alright well under your logic, people should be allowed to put an open air industrial waste facility next to a school or a residential neighborhood because of "property rights". This is not a reasonable interpretation of property rights that most people would agree with. Increasing the zoned density of existing communities by 4-8x throughout the entire county is also not considered a reasonable interpretation of property rights by [b]most people[/b]. [/quote]

I agree with you that the "property rights" argument (at least without an awful lot of nuance) is unpersuasive in this argument.

[b]However, less persuasive is arguments about what "most people" want.  There is no evidence to support that.[/b]  The best you can say is that you assume most people think the way you think, or that "Most people you have talked to have told you they agree with your view" which itself is also not great evidence that they actually do agree with you...[/quote]

That is true, we do not know that, thank you for acknowledging.  This is why any implementation of this plan should wait until residents have a chance to vote on it, which is really the only reliable way to determine support.  The council is, of course, free to refine the plans in the meantime and then present a final plan to be put to vote.[/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