Reply to More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "More MOCO Upzoning - Starting in Silver Spring"

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]Imagine if you NIMBYs spent more time voting and less time arguing online. You lost, get over it. Cities need to grow, you aren't entitled to your "home value" or whatever else nonsense you come up with.

Move to some generic suburb and leave the cool cities for us please. :)[/quote]

This thread is about MoCo, where YIMBYs have delivered declining growth and skyrocketing housing costs. Is the problem that YIMBYism doesn’t actually deliver on its promises or are our YIMBYs just really incompetent?[/quote]

Dude every housing development is held up in years of litigation for "environmental" reasons. MoCO is nowhere near the top when it comes to new housing per capita.

Are you a troll account or just misinformed?  :roll: [/quote]

No, very few are held up in litigation. That’s a myth. There are two things that hold up development. One is the slow planning process. We have that to entertain the bureaucrats and so that the land use lawyers can run up higher bills. The bigger thing is the developers themselves. They get their plans approved and then they don’t build because they’re concerned the market is soft. When developers say they can’t get financing, that’s code for “if I build this right now, prices will go down, and obviously we can’t have that.” I’d wager that there are more requests to extend plan validity granted each year in Montgomery County than there lawsuits, let alone successful lawsuits. [/quote]

Yes, so we need types of housing to be allowed to be build so more people can build them. What don't you understand?[b] Young people won't want to live in generic, poorly built suburb houses with ugly lawns.[/b] This is why prices continue to go up.

Please look at what New Zealand did and how dramatically it lowered rent growth.

Nimby's gonna nimby![/quote]

Some will. Some won't. It would be good if the full range of housing types were allowed by zoning.[/quote]
[b]
They are, that's why we have zoning. [/b] Are the townhomes and condos in the area imaginary? What you are saying is that all types should be allowed everywhere, and that's silly.[/quote]

No, they aren't. We have attached and detached single family buildings. And we have large and very large multifamily buildings. But we don't have small multifamily buildings. The zoning code doesn't allow it.[/quote]

You mean that you can’t build small apartment buildings by right in SFH neighborhoods, which is what this entire thread is about.[/quote]

"With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly r******d by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that, in such sections, very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities -- until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances."

From Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). That's what you're saying.[/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