Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many NIMBYs here concerned about "affordable" housing, yet not a single one is talking about raising taxes to pay for these subsidized units. Because yes, they need taxes to subsidize them, because nothing is free.

It's almost as if "affordable" is a fake argument, used to stop any housing construction.

Hmmmm, but why would people be so disingenuous? Hmmmm.

We’ve spent all our subsidy money on market rate housing and on bailing out land speculators, at Friedson’s urging, so unfortunately we don’t have the money to subsidize enough affordable housing. Maybe your heroes the developers will take lower profits.

Hint: a developer built your home. And .... GASP .... they even made a profit doing so! Should we tear down your house and take away their evil profits?

No? Oh, why not?

A developer did not build my home. So GFY

When the US needed more housing in the 50s, they built affordable homes and affordable communities. Smaller, affordable homes. Not giant McMansions squeezed onto small lots, and not outrageously priced town homes. The people buying these smaller homes can afford to pay the taxes, which has a lower assessed value. Entire communities across the US were built on that model. Not the gigantic housing models that half of MoCo cannot afford.

Wow so you are an outlier, congrats. The argument remains, which you have failed at countering entirely.

Are you comparing 2025 to the 1950s? You understand it's not 1950 anymore? By chance, can you remember any significant events before 1950 that led to a huge surge in American manufacturing and home building? Anything? Maybe, an international war that left America in a unique position from a fiscal/engineering/manufacturing perspective?

Jesus, this is like debating a wall.

Also, hint - land use regulations in your precious 1950s were much, much more lax than they are today. You are dunking on yourself kid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many NIMBYs here concerned about "affordable" housing, yet not a single one is talking about raising taxes to pay for these subsidized units. Because yes, they need taxes to subsidize them, because nothing is free.

It's almost as if "affordable" is a fake argument, used to stop any housing construction.

Hmmmm, but why would people be so disingenuous? Hmmmm.

We’ve spent all our subsidy money on market rate housing and on bailing out land speculators, at Friedson’s urging, so unfortunately we don’t have the money to subsidize enough affordable housing. Maybe your heroes the developers will take lower profits.

Please look up the typical profit margin of these "evil developers" and get back to me.

Oh, wait, you won't, because they are in line with most industries because they are not monopolies and there is abundant competition in the space.

Please tell me how much "profit" a homeowner in their 60s is sitting on due to land appreciation? Millions. And you think "developers" are the enemy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many NIMBYs here concerned about "affordable" housing, yet not a single one is talking about raising taxes to pay for these subsidized units. Because yes, they need taxes to subsidize them, because nothing is free.

It's almost as if "affordable" is a fake argument, used to stop any housing construction.

Hmmmm, but why would people be so disingenuous? Hmmmm.

We’ve spent all our subsidy money on market rate housing and on bailing out land speculators, at Friedson’s urging, so unfortunately we don’t have the money to subsidize enough affordable housing. Maybe your heroes the developers will take lower profits.

Hint: a developer built your home. And .... GASP .... they even made a profit doing so! Should we tear down your house and take away their evil profits?

No? Oh, why not?

A developer did not build my home. So GFY

When the US needed more housing in the 50s, they built affordable homes and affordable communities. Smaller, affordable homes. Not giant McMansions squeezed onto small lots, and not outrageously priced town homes. The people buying these smaller homes can afford to pay the taxes, which has a lower assessed value. Entire communities across the US were built on that model. Not the gigantic housing models that half of MoCo cannot afford.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many NIMBYs here concerned about "affordable" housing, yet not a single one is talking about raising taxes to pay for these subsidized units. Because yes, they need taxes to subsidize them, because nothing is free.

It's almost as if "affordable" is a fake argument, used to stop any housing construction.

Hmmmm, but why would people be so disingenuous? Hmmmm.

We’ve spent all our subsidy money on market rate housing and on bailing out land speculators, at Friedson’s urging, so unfortunately we don’t have the money to subsidize enough affordable housing. Maybe your heroes the developers will take lower profits.

Hint: a developer built your home. And .... GASP .... they even made a profit doing so! Should we tear down your house and take away their evil profits?

No? Oh, why not?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many NIMBYs here concerned about "affordable" housing, yet not a single one is talking about raising taxes to pay for these subsidized units. Because yes, they need taxes to subsidize them, because nothing is free.

It's almost as if "affordable" is a fake argument, used to stop any housing construction.

Hmmmm, but why would people be so disingenuous? Hmmmm.

We’ve spent all our subsidy money on market rate housing and on bailing out land speculators, at Friedson’s urging, so unfortunately we don’t have the money to subsidize enough affordable housing. Maybe your heroes the developers will take lower profits.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many NIMBYs here concerned about "affordable" housing, yet not a single one is talking about raising taxes to pay for these subsidized units. Because yes, they need taxes to subsidize them, because nothing is free.

It's almost as if "affordable" is a fake argument, used to stop any housing construction.

Hmmmm, but why would people be so disingenuous? Hmmmm.

We’ve spent all our subsidy money on market rate housing and on bailing out land speculators, at Friedson’s urging, so unfortunately we don’t have the money to subsidize enough affordable housing. Maybe your heroes the developers will take lower profits.

Anonymous wrote:So many NIMBYs here concerned about "affordable" housing, yet not a single one is talking about raising taxes to pay for these subsidized units. Because yes, they need taxes to subsidize them, because nothing is free.

It's almost as if "affordable" is a fake argument, used to stop any housing construction.

Hmmmm, but why would people be so disingenuous? Hmmmm.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thing is going to pass, isn't it?

Bring on the lawsuits!

The BS about passing this to make the county more affordable for firefighters is beyond risible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mekgNARX-gg

Yeah. Friedson's "compromise" is not between his aims and those of current residents in areas he and Fani-González target. There's been almost nothing to address those concerns.

His interests are those of developers who fund his campaign and his hoped-for appeal to county residents in areas less well off for county-wide or state/federal office, where he'll wave his hands trying to claim he's done something for them when the effects of what he's proposed are not likely to help many outside of those lining his pockets.

It's his compromise versus the larger Thrive 2050 and AHS initiatives. With all the heavy opposition in the fall, he needed to pare down the scope to divide and conquer -- screwing over fewer at a time to facilitate passage with less notice. He readily affirms that more is coming.

And it's his compromise with the less adventuresome councilmembers who all support increased densities in existing neighborhoods, anyway, but don't want to have to take too much blowback. Jawondo and Sayles fundamentally only question the lack of focus on development being truly affordable, with Jawondo's opposition in other areas being meant to grandstand to Friedson's detriment in their primary battle for county executive.

Ah yes, those evil developers doing evil things like ... building housing for families.

You people are silly.

And right on time, the YIMBYs, who learned to keep their heads down to minimize notice until they got what they wanted, chime in.

Developers, real estate agents and others who will benefit from the increased activity are "evil" in their disproportionate government sway to the detriment of current residents via thier political contributions. Suggesting that the objection is to their day-to-day work activity is a strawman.

You understand that this isn't some secret cabal of rich people/developers/etc? Right? The majority of people in the state think we need more housing. You are vastly, vastly outnumbered. But yeah, keep telling yourself you are fighting some good fight. I'll enjoy the popcorn while you lose.

People do think we need more housing available for purchase at lower prices than is available today. You do understand that this bill doesn’t do that, right? But just keeping pitching this stuff forward and hope you cash out before people catch on, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thing is going to pass, isn't it?

Bring on the lawsuits!

The BS about passing this to make the county more affordable for firefighters is beyond risible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mekgNARX-gg

Yeah. Friedson's "compromise" is not between his aims and those of current residents in areas he and Fani-González target. There's been almost nothing to address those concerns.

His interests are those of developers who fund his campaign and his hoped-for appeal to county residents in areas less well off for county-wide or state/federal office, where he'll wave his hands trying to claim he's done something for them when the effects of what he's proposed are not likely to help many outside of those lining his pockets.

It's his compromise versus the larger Thrive 2050 and AHS initiatives. With all the heavy opposition in the fall, he needed to pare down the scope to divide and conquer -- screwing over fewer at a time to facilitate passage with less notice. He readily affirms that more is coming.

And it's his compromise with the less adventuresome councilmembers who all support increased densities in existing neighborhoods, anyway, but don't want to have to take too much blowback. Jawondo and Sayles fundamentally only question the lack of focus on development being truly affordable, with Jawondo's opposition in other areas being meant to grandstand to Friedson's detriment in their primary battle for county executive.

Ah yes, those evil developers doing evil things like ... building housing for families.

You people are silly.

And right on time, the YIMBYs, who learned to keep their heads down to minimize notice until they got what they wanted, chime in.

Developers, real estate agents and others who will benefit from the increased activity are "evil" in their disproportionate government sway to the detriment of current residents via thier political contributions. Suggesting that the objection is to their day-to-day work activity is a strawman.

You understand that this isn't some secret cabal of rich people/developers/etc? Right? The majority of people in the state think we need more housing. You are vastly, vastly outnumbered. But yeah, keep telling yourself you are fighting some good fight. I'll enjoy the popcorn while you lose.

Not so secret.

Just like most politicians and fat-cat lobbyists, you take something like "the majority of people in the state think we need more housing" from some poll or other (sure, who wouldn't say yes as long as the question wasn't phrased to apply directly to their next-door property?) and turn that into "the majority of people think that the "More Housing N.O.W." legislation is a good way to get there.

You'll sit back and enjoy the bonus you get for your lobbying efforts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thing is going to pass, isn't it?

Bring on the lawsuits!

The BS about passing this to make the county more affordable for firefighters is beyond risible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mekgNARX-gg

Yeah. Friedson's "compromise" is not between his aims and those of current residents in areas he and Fani-González target. There's been almost nothing to address those concerns.

His interests are those of developers who fund his campaign and his hoped-for appeal to county residents in areas less well off for county-wide or state/federal office, where he'll wave his hands trying to claim he's done something for them when the effects of what he's proposed are not likely to help many outside of those lining his pockets.

It's his compromise versus the larger Thrive 2050 and AHS initiatives. With all the heavy opposition in the fall, he needed to pare down the scope to divide and conquer -- screwing over fewer at a time to facilitate passage with less notice. He readily affirms that more is coming.

And it's his compromise with the less adventuresome councilmembers who all support increased densities in existing neighborhoods, anyway, but don't want to have to take too much blowback. Jawondo and Sayles fundamentally only question the lack of focus on development being truly affordable, with Jawondo's opposition in other areas being meant to grandstand to Friedson's detriment in their primary battle for county executive.

Ah yes, those evil developers doing evil things like ... building housing for families.

You people are silly.

The need is for affordable housing. Not to build 900k town homes, and just pack in people. There are plenty of housing options in the 700k plus range.

The developers are not concerned with the needs of actual middle class families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thing is going to pass, isn't it?

Bring on the lawsuits!

The BS about passing this to make the county more affordable for firefighters is beyond risible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mekgNARX-gg

Yeah. Friedson's "compromise" is not between his aims and those of current residents in areas he and Fani-González target. There's been almost nothing to address those concerns.

His interests are those of developers who fund his campaign and his hoped-for appeal to county residents in areas less well off for county-wide or state/federal office, where he'll wave his hands trying to claim he's done something for them when the effects of what he's proposed are not likely to help many outside of those lining his pockets.

It's his compromise versus the larger Thrive 2050 and AHS initiatives. With all the heavy opposition in the fall, he needed to pare down the scope to divide and conquer -- screwing over fewer at a time to facilitate passage with less notice. He readily affirms that more is coming.

And it's his compromise with the less adventuresome councilmembers who all support increased densities in existing neighborhoods, anyway, but don't want to have to take too much blowback. Jawondo and Sayles fundamentally only question the lack of focus on development being truly affordable, with Jawondo's opposition in other areas being meant to grandstand to Friedson's detriment in their primary battle for county executive.

Ah yes, those evil developers doing evil things like ... building housing for families.

You people are silly.

And right on time, the YIMBYs, who learned to keep their heads down to minimize notice until they got what they wanted, chime in.

Developers, real estate agents and others who will benefit from the increased activity are "evil" in their disproportionate government sway to the detriment of current residents via thier political contributions. Suggesting that the objection is to their day-to-day work activity is a strawman.

You understand that this isn't some secret cabal of rich people/developers/etc? Right? The majority of people in the state think we need more housing. You are vastly, vastly outnumbered. But yeah, keep telling yourself you are fighting some good fight. I'll enjoy the popcorn while you lose.

People do think we need more housing available for purchase at lower prices than is available today. You do understand that this bill doesn’t do that, right? But just keeping pitching this stuff forward and hope you cash out before people catch on, right?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thing is going to pass, isn't it?

Bring on the lawsuits!

The BS about passing this to make the county more affordable for firefighters is beyond risible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mekgNARX-gg

Yeah. Friedson's "compromise" is not between his aims and those of current residents in areas he and Fani-González target. There's been almost nothing to address those concerns.

His interests are those of developers who fund his campaign and his hoped-for appeal to county residents in areas less well off for county-wide or state/federal office, where he'll wave his hands trying to claim he's done something for them when the effects of what he's proposed are not likely to help many outside of those lining his pockets.

It's his compromise versus the larger Thrive 2050 and AHS initiatives. With all the heavy opposition in the fall, he needed to pare down the scope to divide and conquer -- screwing over fewer at a time to facilitate passage with less notice. He readily affirms that more is coming.

And it's his compromise with the less adventuresome councilmembers who all support increased densities in existing neighborhoods, anyway, but don't want to have to take too much blowback. Jawondo and Sayles fundamentally only question the lack of focus on development being truly affordable, with Jawondo's opposition in other areas being meant to grandstand to Friedson's detriment in their primary battle for county executive.

Ah yes, those evil developers doing evil things like ... building housing for families.

You people are silly.

The need is for affordable housing. Not to build 900k town homes, and just pack in people. There are plenty of housing options in the 700k plus range.

The developers are not concerned with the needs of actual middle class families.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thing is going to pass, isn't it?

Bring on the lawsuits!

The BS about passing this to make the county more affordable for firefighters is beyond risible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mekgNARX-gg

Yeah. Friedson's "compromise" is not between his aims and those of current residents in areas he and Fani-González target. There's been almost nothing to address those concerns.

His interests are those of developers who fund his campaign and his hoped-for appeal to county residents in areas less well off for county-wide or state/federal office, where he'll wave his hands trying to claim he's done something for them when the effects of what he's proposed are not likely to help many outside of those lining his pockets.

It's his compromise versus the larger Thrive 2050 and AHS initiatives. With all the heavy opposition in the fall, he needed to pare down the scope to divide and conquer -- screwing over fewer at a time to facilitate passage with less notice. He readily affirms that more is coming.

And it's his compromise with the less adventuresome councilmembers who all support increased densities in existing neighborhoods, anyway, but don't want to have to take too much blowback. Jawondo and Sayles fundamentally only question the lack of focus on development being truly affordable, with Jawondo's opposition in other areas being meant to grandstand to Friedson's detriment in their primary battle for county executive.

Ah yes, those evil developers doing evil things like ... building housing for families.

You people are silly.

And right on time, the YIMBYs, who learned to keep their heads down to minimize notice until they got what they wanted, chime in.

Developers, real estate agents and others who will benefit from the increased activity are "evil" in their disproportionate government sway to the detriment of current residents via thier political contributions. Suggesting that the objection is to their day-to-day work activity is a strawman.

You understand that this isn't some secret cabal of rich people/developers/etc? Right? The majority of people in the state think we need more housing. You are vastly, vastly outnumbered. But yeah, keep telling yourself you are fighting some good fight. I'll enjoy the popcorn while you lose.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thing is going to pass, isn't it?

Bring on the lawsuits!

The BS about passing this to make the county more affordable for firefighters is beyond risible.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mekgNARX-gg

Yeah. Friedson's "compromise" is not between his aims and those of current residents in areas he and Fani-González target. There's been almost nothing to address those concerns.

His interests are those of developers who fund his campaign and his hoped-for appeal to county residents in areas less well off for county-wide or state/federal office, where he'll wave his hands trying to claim he's done something for them when the effects of what he's proposed are not likely to help many outside of those lining his pockets.

It's his compromise versus the larger Thrive 2050 and AHS initiatives. With all the heavy opposition in the fall, he needed to pare down the scope to divide and conquer -- screwing over fewer at a time to facilitate passage with less notice. He readily affirms that more is coming.

And it's his compromise with the less adventuresome councilmembers who all support increased densities in existing neighborhoods, anyway, but don't want to have to take too much blowback. Jawondo and Sayles fundamentally only question the lack of focus on development being truly affordable, with Jawondo's opposition in other areas being meant to grandstand to Friedson's detriment in their primary battle for county executive.

Ah yes, those evil developers doing evil things like ... building housing for families.

You people are silly.

Building housing for families at or above 120 percent AMI, which is who they normally target with new development anyway. The developers got the workforce housing price caps established above what police officers, firefighters, teachers, nurses, and other public service workers actually make. I don’t know that it makes them evil (evil was your word), but it makes this bill pretty much useless to the people the sponsors claim it was intended to help. It’s pretty short-term thinking because this bill will probably cost Friedson the executive race but you all never look past the next land flip anyway. What are you going to do when the government stops bailing you out after your bad land deals?

The price caps, rent control, rules, etc all are bad. We just need more housing. Rent control has never worked. It will never work.