Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Metropolitan DC Local Politics
Reply to "MoCo Council Vote Today"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
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][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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If anyone wants to understand why this country doesn't build ANYTHING any more (high speed rail, infrastructure, clean energy, new cities) you just have to listen to these NIMBYs. Just so disappointing to see a bunch of old people hold the country hostage while more and more people struggle. Typical boomers.[/quote] THERE IS A TON OF CHEAP LAND IN THE COUNTY...just not in Bethesda or Chevy Chase. Plenty of middle class homes under 750k. People just think because they make 125k a year they are too good for them[/quote] The further away homes are from jobs, the more transportation infrastructure is needed. [b]The NIMBY's in this country don't want to expand roads or public transportation, either. [/b] By all means, go to meetings saying you want to expand into the ag reserve, build out light rail and bus, and widen Darnestown Rd, Georgia Ave, University Blvd, and Connecticut Ave. See how much support you get.[/quote] If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that upcounty residents, who YIMBYs often paint as being very NIMBY, want more roads. They really wanted M-83 but the YIMBYs on the council voted against it. On top of that, the YIMBYs have bled infrastructure funding with their tax breaks for developers. [/quote] The downcounty residents are the NIMBY's.. Look how hard they fight the purple line.[/quote] Case in point: The purple line is getting built. Another YIMBY win. [/quote] The purple line was tremendously delayed. And look at M-83. Or the CCT. Or the Montrose Parkway extension. There hasn't been any significant change in zoning to encourage increasing density at scale. This ZTA demonstrates that quite well. You're up in arms over a relatively small increase in density in only about 1% of the lots in the county.[/quote] None of this changes the fact that the YIMBYs have been on the winning side of every major land use vote at the council. The only thing I’m up in arms about is YIMBYs’ refusal to take any responsibility for the state of the county’s economy and housing market. If you keep winning you actually have to fix things. Smart growth hasn’t fixed the housing market or the budget or economic growth or any of the other things that have been promised over the years. It’s made them worse. [/quote] The county hasn't pursued growth. Everything gets wrapped up in battles limiting what ultimately happens. So we just end up with bits of infill development where there happens to be land, some redevelopment of strip malls, and some sprawl mostly up 270. Look at this case. We started with something that was already limited in scope and density, and then the proposal was watered down to the point that very few lots can take advantage of the changes.[/quote] I agree that the county hasn’t pursued growth. YIMBY policies have rewarded rent seekers, so the market seeks rents instead of growth. [/quote] I don't even believe there are YIMBY people who do not have a financial stake in the game. I know a few big real estate developers and they live in big custom homes in upper MoCo, Great Falls, Potomac or even in DC. They aren't sitting next to you at the BCC back to school night. They may own land/homes in your area, but that's for the full purpose of resell and development. It's a cover and a farce. They really do not care about the long term livability of a neighborhood. They have plan B & C. [/quote] Hmm, I'm a YIMBY homeowner. I guess I'm a shill because I want more neighbors to experience our great city? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: [/quote] You might come to regret your support for this one day when the MOCOs poorly thought out land use reforms result in a dispensary right next to your house.[/quote] "Let's build a small apartment building in a handful of areas" "YOU ARE TuRnIn MY HoUse INTO A MetH LAB!!!!!"[/quote] "Let's keep the detached SFH zoning upon which residents relied when making their highly consequential and difficult from which to extricate life decisions. Incentivised increased construction rates and crowding present burdens to current residents, and infill at increased densities without adequate infrastructure presents burdens for new and old, alike. And it's not like we're compensating any of those in the 'handful of areas' who will bear the brunt." "YOU ARE FEARMONGERING RACISTS WHO DON'T DESERVE ANY CONSIDERATION! WHAT ABOUT THE POOR, POOR NURSES AND TEACHERS??!!" (...whom this won't really help, but pay no attention to that!)[/quote] You people keep yapping about "infrastructure". You do realize we know how to build things in this country, right? Jesus, get over it. More sewer/power/dog catchers are possible, stop worrying about tit.[/quote] Or...now follow, here...or, they could actually [i]require[/i] the infrastructure be coincident with the development.[/quote] Oh, you’ll strike a nerve here. They hate any preposterous talk of planning for growth. They just want to, like, let the growth happen, man. The schools will totally just get planned organically! [/quote] YIMBY are the left-wing version of trickle-down-economics. No evidence to support their claims that eliminating zoning will magically solve all of societies issues, but they fervently believe that allowing the wealthy developers to do whatever they want without contributing to funding infrastructure will benefit society. Free-markets don't work for public safety, they don't work for schools, healthcare, or infrastructure planning. Eliminating zoning is just an another form of crony capitalism that benefits the ultra-wealthy mostly at the expense of normal people. [/quote] +1. YIMBYs socialize costs and privatize profit. YIMBY polices over the past 25 years have resulted in a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the super rich and from young people to old people while producing very slow growth. [/quote] Is this a joke? Please tell me you are joking. The NIMBYs are the reason we are in this mess kid. Why do you think old people are hoarding 1.5 million dollar houses while the middle class can't find an apartment? You are so out of touch.[/quote] I’m pretty sure that a developer sitting on a $22 million vacant lot with an approved plan for a high rise is having a bigger impact on housing supply than someone living in one single family house (which is, you know, the main purpose of a house, giving someone a place to live). The simple fact is that the NIMBYs haven’t made policy here. The YIMBYs, like Andrew Friedson, Hans Riemer, George Leventhal, Casey Anderson, and Artie Harris have been on the winning side of all the votes. [/quote] It's amazing what NIMBYism will do to people! You all seem to think you are the most qualified people to determine how much "infrastructure" is needed for *anything*. More so than the experts and officials who... have that job. Amazing.[/quote] Personally I just rely on the student generation estimates that MCPS and Planning have developed, even though they usually undershoot. The county hasn’t been delivering enough seats. That’s an objective fact. Also it’s planning that decided to second guess MCPS on what level of school overcrowding was too much, because they think being an urban planner makes someone an expert in everything when actually it just means you couldn’t pass the advanced math needed for a degree in architecture or economics. [/quote] It makes 0 economic sense to preemptively build a school or whatever other type of "infrastructure" before apartments are built. It takes years for the need to materialize, if at all. This is not a serious discussion at all. If a county needs a larger school, one will be built. Yes, it will take time and it will be imperfect. But guess what? That is literally how it has happened in this country for hundreds of years. You and your special little neighborhood are not unique. Neighborhoods and schools change, more at 11.[/quote] It makes all kinds of sense, economic and otherwise. It may not make sense for the develppment industry, of course. And the "preemptively" straw man is decidedly old hat in these discussions. The idea, much like the one they conveniently discarded with accessory dwelling units, is simply to ensure the local schools are not overcrowded and that the local infrastructure/public services are not overtaxed. That can mean holding off on development until the requisite school (and other) infrastructure is [i]programmed and funded[/i] to be available [i]coincident[/i] with the need when increased resident density arrives, not some if-you-build-it-they-will-come infrastructure cart before the population horse. Why should the failures of the past to ensure adequate public facilities and services guide the present? That's like saying, "Well, we never had a country without a monarch before, so why should we push for a democracy?" :roll: As for "If a county needs a larger school, one will be built," we can only laugh at the naivety (or, more likely, jaundiced presentation) of that statement. Just look around at the lumpy overcapacities and whacky boundaries that have been allowed to develop here and elsewhere due to under-investment, poor placement and the terrible afterthought planning that tends to dictate such outcomes. Indeed, it is not unique, but as it is clearly bad, there's no basis in the lack of uniqueness observation to support continuation of such practices. But I suppose providing good living conditions, both for current residents and those moving in, shouldn't get in the way of "progress..." :roll:[/quote] Because [b]you people[/b] don't care about "infrastructure", you care about excluding homes. End of story. If you are looking for a perfect school population and boundary, go to a private school. Public schools have to deal with people moving all the time, if you've spent any time at all researching this you'd know that.[/quote] That presentation of an (incorrect) assumption is about all folks need to see to know you are coming from a morally bankrupt position.[/quote] I want more housing for more people in more areas. You all want to pull up the ladder from behind you. Thanks, but no thanks.[/quote] Most people are not opposed to building more housing. They have issues with the scale of proposed zoning changes. The purpose of zoning is to protect health and welfare of residents. Just throwing your hands up in the air and saying there is a “housing crisis” so we should deregulate everything and allow anarchy is not a serious solution. School capacity matters, so do impervious surfaces, pollution levels and noise pollution, access to natural light. The market does not prevent your neighbors from blocking most of the sunlight to your home with a 50 foot zero setback apartment building, nor does it penalize your neighbors for polluting the air you breathe or the water you drink. Markets do not prevent schools or roads from being overcrowded. YIMBYS are ignoring very real costs to residents and they support these policies because they hate single family homes. [/quote] Except the scale of the changes is extremely limited.[/quote] Unless developers are allowed to consolidate three lots and build a regular-sized apartment building on a service road. [/quote] Three lots isn't very big with setbacks, nor is 40 feet particularly tall, and this ZTA requires the front lot line to be on the major road. [/quote] Some of the lots are already bigger than an acre without consolidation. This started with house-sized multiplexes and no consolidation. [/quote] Where is there a single family home on a 1 acre lot that is covered by this ZTA? [/quote] Why does anyone need to consolidate at all if the intent is house-sized multiplexes? [/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
