Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

To repeat: Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

Regardless of who owns it.

Lots of things affect you, and everybody else too. You can have opinions about anything you want. You can even have opinions about things that don't affect you!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

To repeat: Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

Regardless of who owns it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

Presumably, you favor gentrification even in face of opposition from residents of those areas. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want those types of neighborhoods. Pretty simple. And there is no economic or policy reason to change that.

Some people do. Some people support change. Some people don't really care either way. And there are plenty of good economic and policy reasons to get rid of zoning laws that forbid all housing types except one, in most parts of Montgomery County.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

Presumably, you favor gentrification even in face of opposition from residents of those areas. People who live in SFH neighborhoods want those types of neighborhoods. Pretty simple. And there is no economic or policy reason to change that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

To repeat: nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. What you want is to be able to forbid other people from building multi-unit housing on property they own.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Multifamily housing affects my property values, traffic, safety, availability of recreational resources and schools. So yes, multifamily housing affects me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Nobody is stopping you from driving your hybrid, and nobody is forcing you to build multi-unit housing on property you own. So you don't have to worry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

But I like to drive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“disadvantages” of living in the suburbs? When in reality, they’re precisely the reasons that people CHOOSE to live in the suburbs? I for one, LIKE that my neighborhood has streets you can’t drive through, lacks sidewalks, lacks public transit, has big yards and is mostly houses with few commercial establishments. I don’t want to be able to walk to a bar or 7-eleven, and I don’t want anyone walking from those places to walk through my neighborhood.

So basically cul de sac street patters force people to drive more, and also to stymie walking as you can't get from one place to another without going though someone's yard. Grid patterns are MUCH more efficient.
Lacking sidewalks means it is less safe for pedestrians or little kids on bikes.
Lack of public traffic means people have to drive. From an equity standpoint, it is simply more expensive thus shutting out people who can't even consider living there.
Few commercial establishments means you have to basically drive everywhere everytime you need anything.

It is an incredibly wasteful and unsustainable way of life if you actually think about it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

I like driving my hybrid and will continue to do so. MoCo has plenty of space along the Pike to build all sorts of apartments, condos, and townhouses. There is an incredible amount of underutilized land. No need to change the SFH areas. Those residents want SFHs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

The planners are not "pushing" "market urbanism".

Why isn't there more diversity of thought among doctors? Every doctor I go to seems to recommend a colonoscopy, a mammogram, a Pap smear, blood pressure/cholesterol/diabetes tests...

There’s that planner arrogance. It’s amazing how the planners know more about firefighting than fire science PhDs and fire chiefs. They know more about ideal class sizes and school management than education PhDs. They know more about labor economics than economics PhDs. They know more about building design than architects. It’s really a shame we can’t spread all of that expertise among these other disciplines instead of having it all concentrated in planning where they only get to deal with each of these issues part time. The truth is that planners become planners because they couldn’t pass the upper level math courses required for economics, architecture, or engineering degrees. Ask me how I know.

What are you talking about? Planners don't make decisions about firefighting, class sizes, school managements, or labor economics. Planners make recommendations based on turn radii for fire trucks, numbers of students who live in given housing types in given areas, and building heights allowed in the zoning code.

The planners in Montgomery County have repeatedly made recommendations on all of these things, and usually those recommendations have been contrary to those of the actual experts. If something becomes a meme on urbanist Twitter, it will show up in a Montgomery Planning document later.

Maybe you're referring to a different Montgomery County, like Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, or Montgomery County, Alabama.

I do agree with you that in Montgomery County, Maryland, planners make recommendations, not decisions.

Stop gaslighting people. Planning delayed the construction of the elementary schools in Stonegate and Clarksburg because they thought they knew more about schools than MCPS and Casey Anderson and Gwen Wright told the fire department to have smaller trucks and allow taller buildings made out of wood. These positions came up as recommendations from staff. Because they knew better. They always know better. Meanwhile the county’s growth lags behind the region. Might be time to recognize that the planners aren’t geniuses and the current approach isn’t working. We would be a lot better off if planning had less involvement in development. Just get out of the way. Let builders build, let MCPS run the schools, and let the fire chief run the fire department.

Recommendations. And they make perfect sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m the oddball who doesn’t mind urbanization of the suburbs and would welcome it in my neighborhood, which is close the beltway and the red line.

The problem with the planners is that they think they are the experts on everything: what buildings should be made of, taxes, school design, school capacity, the size of fire trucks, etc. They don’t live in these neighborhoods (and often live in even more expensive places) and don’t listen to anyone even though their ideas haven’t worked (houses more expensive, no job growth, traffic worse than ever).

Given that many planners have both undergrad and masters that are related to the field or the discplines bolded, and in some cases PhDs, I would suggest that they are actually expert in some or most of these things.

Planning is an actual discipline. It isn't some Art History major taking a municipal job on a whim. You wouldn't want a planner to conduct a medical operation just like you wouldn't want a doctor trying a supreme court case. Why wouldn't you expect the planners to have some background and basis in the history of cities, how zoning works, transportation, sustainability, materials, tax policy, etc? Because, they do. Ask me how I know.

Then why do we get so much groupthink out of planners? A multidisciplinary education and profession should yield more diversity of thought. But they all seem to regurgitate the same talking points, which is what you’d expect if everyone read the same blogs but wasn’t actually expert in any of these things.

More importantly, why have the results been so poor? You can’t look anywhere around here and say market urbanism (which is what the planners are pushing) has benefited renters or purchasers. It hasn’t even benefited developers, who have to spend too much money and time placating planning staffs.

Maybe it’s because climate change and unaffordable housing are the two biggest problems facing us, and the answers converge when it comes to planning?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think that a lot of people are confusing planners, who have some expertise, with people on the MoCo planning board, who clearly are political creatures with political agendas. Planners and their studies were ignored at various stages of Thrive development in favor of a
political agenda pushed through by the now resigned planning board and MCC. Now the YIMBYs are again trying to fill the board with people that agree with their bad political agenda. It’s sleazy, really, if you follow them.

All of us are either political creatures with political agendas - or completely uninvolved, uninformed, and unaware. Those are the choices. Housing is a political issue. Land use is a political issue. Transportation is a political issue. Education is a political issue. The environment is a political issue.

It is not sleazy to apply to be on the Planning Board, and it is also not sleazy to express your support for people who have applied to be on the Planning Board. Or, I suppose, your opposition. "Dear County Council, Please do NOT appoint [person], they support things I oppose. Sincerely, a Montgomery County resident"

Your objection isn't sleaze, it's that the County Council appointed people you don't support.

^^^or, more likely, one person you don't support. Who has professional expertise.