Reply to No good options for MoCo?

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "No good options for MoCo?"

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]I agree, there are no good options. We have three candidates for county executive that are similar enough that for me I’m going to pick the lesser of three evils. Which to me is not Jwando or Glass. [b]Of the three and Friedson seems to be the most levelheaded and the one who’s least likely to dig us deeper in a hole as much as the other two[/b].[/quote]

Curious why you think that.  I'm looking for level-headed, but concluded that Glass most fit that bill.[/quote]

I'm not PP, and don't know what their opinion is based on, but I work with Council and agree with this take. Friedson is the most practical/realistic of the three. For what it's worth. [/quote]

Thanks for this.  Can you give an example?[/quote]

Sorry, no, don't want to out myself. You'll just have to decide to trust a random internet stranger. Or not 😂 And I don't mean this as a dig at Evan or to suggest that he's off the wall or anything. I very honestly have not decided which of them to vote for yet. But yes, Andrew is, in my opinion, the more logical one.[/quote]

I disagree. How is it logical to vote for spending increases and oppose revenue to fund them? How is it logical to disinvest in growth? How is it logical to crusade against taxes and then turn around and spend surpluses on subsidies for corporations? How logical is it to pay companies to create jobs at 75 percent AMI and then create [b]a housing program whose minimum income requirement is 120 percent AMI[/b]? His record does not support who he claims to be. [/quote]

Which program are you referring to?[/quote]

Attainable Housing Strategies Initiative:

The workforce housing program places controls on properties to, generally, maintain their affordability for at least 20 years for those with incomes at or below 120 percent of the area-wide median income (AMI), currently at $157,440 for a couple.

This is the same income level that developers build for anyway, so I’m not sure why it needed incentives in the first place. [/quote]

Really?  Sincere question.  That's who can afford a new $800k townhouse these days?  [/quote]

Everyone seems to want instant gratification these days of being able to buy something close-in when in their 20s. Even in the 1970s and 1980s, my parents rented the crappiest apartment they could find, saved aggressively while having kids, then bought their Bethesda home about a decade later with an interest rate around 15%. The strategy has always been to rent somewhere inexpensive, save aggressively, and you'll be able to afford an $800K mortgage, maybe not in your 20s but likely in your 30s. The YIMBYs want to spend money on expensive nights out, concerts, designer clothes, manicures, groceries from Whole Foods, etc., and then claim that the world is stacked against them. Nothing is easy -- either find a job to support your expensive lifestyle, or cut back on expenses. Moving to a less expensive part of the country is also an option, and I have friends who have done that, taken pay cuts, and been able to afford beautiful houses on their lower salaries. No matter who gets elected to county exec, the idea that the YIMBYs will get the housing choices they want at the prices they want is so dumb as to be laughable. Their energy would be better spent charting out how they can put themselves on a path to afford what's available.[/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