Anonymous wrote:people do not have a right to live close in


Those areas are expensive and nice for a reason. Plenty of cheap housing 45 min outside DC.

Either buy there or make more money to afford closer in. Stop assaulting those areas in the name of "equity"

Hopefully your kids go to private school too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people do not have a right to live close in


Those areas are expensive and nice for a reason. Plenty of cheap housing 45 min outside DC.

Either buy there or make more money to afford closer in. Stop assaulting those areas in the name of "equity"

Nor do people have a right to detached homes. Or to demand that their neighbors have detached homes.

So what kind of close-in high-density housing are you interested in? A $1 million townhouse? Or a $350K 600sq ft condo? Because that will be the pricing for, say, Silver Spring 20910. Much, much higher in Bethesda 20814 of course.

I'm not sure where you're going with that. A few million dollar townhomes is better than a single $2-3 million detached home. More housing at lower prices for more people.

And yes, in the long-term, that's the choice. New construction will always come in at the top of the market, but things level out over time. And once they level out, townhomes are significantly less expensive than detached homes in the same area of similar size and age.

OK, well at least you're honest about acknowledging that any new housing will be very expensive. I'm OK with high-density as long as we don't deceive people into believing it will be inexpensive housing. Elsewhere, people seem to be selling others on false hope that new high-density housing will cater to poor people (https://www.reddit.com/r/MontgomeryCountyMD/comments/1r8x5m6/regular_reminder_about_living_up_to_progressive/).

Of course new housing will be expensive. That's true regardless of the type of housing. And the location.

But failure to build more housing will, overall, lead to shortages and higher prices.

There's no quick fix. Government programs and subsidies can have more immediate effects, but tend to fail over time. Proper market incentives take a long time to level out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No this not good policy this is a giveaway to developers.

I’m not sure why you think a developer won’t buy four lots and put a 5-8 story condo building on a small residential street in a desirable area which will overcrowd schools and traffic and yes will diminish quality of life for everyone.

This is not the way to solve the housing crisis. Boomers are sitting on tons of sfh and could easily be persuaded to downsize with tax/inheritance incentives.

Interesting that the governor carved out an exception for his own historic neighborhood Guilford which has the exact low density and suburban feel he is eliminating for others. As usual the ultra wealthy sell out the below class. They will send their kids to private school and enjoy their nice lawns and parks while everyone is packed in like sardines. The people proposing this are never living in condos but they expect everyone else to.

This bill doesn't allow that. It allows townhomes.

Developers don't need density to make money. They can already flip homes or buy tear-downs. At least with density we end up with more homes for more people.

You end up with undesirable homes because no one wants to live there. Then you lose your tax base. Everyone who is honest with themselves knows that people who can afford nice SFH will not remain around “density”, as illustrated by these comments on Bowie.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUvnlCWgG7A/?igsh=cWE5ODdtcjMzdjR2

No one wants to live there? I thought you said they would lead to overcrowding? And that they would be too expensive?

Anonymous wrote:Someone will have to explain to me how the "conservative," "let the markets work" people are also the people who want to make the whole dang state an HOA.

Markets work better when the goods are relatively known quantities. (Stable) zoning improves the certainty about that which one is buying.

Location matters, and location considerations include the surrounds in which one lives, both immediate (e.g., the homes next door & in the neighborhood), and relatively proximate (e.g., the immediate-area infrastructure, like schools, parks & roads/transportation).

A decision to live in a particular home is among the most consequential one makes. Moreso when buying than renting, of course, but each not only involves a major outlay of personal funds, but also is highly impactful -- time & stress, in addition to that money -- with each move.

Adding to churn by suggesting that people should move if they don't like a proposed or enacted zoning change then presents huge personal, and collectively societal, inefficiency. Comparisons with the housing choices available to those already having decided to move, either to the region or within it, would be asymmetric, and arguments along these lines would need to take that asymmetry well into account.

There is a public cost associated with the government/society adopting rules/practices that afford the relative certaintly that make markets work well. The associated benefit, of course, tends to accrue to the players in the market, and these tend to be the wealthy (shocker!). This often is ignored by conservatives, who equally, if not more, often ignore that the "great hand" is not some beneficent entity, but a dispassionate collective mechanic that, itself, moves towards that which the market environment, including any conditions established by the government, tends to dictate. We can change the conditions to the good, but it would be important to have some consensus about that good rather than adopt a position of hubris in thinking that we independently know what is best for others.

-- Not a conservative

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No this not good policy this is a giveaway to developers.

I’m not sure why you think a developer won’t buy four lots and put a 5-8 story condo building on a small residential street in a desirable area which will overcrowd schools and traffic and yes will diminish quality of life for everyone.

This is not the way to solve the housing crisis. Boomers are sitting on tons of sfh and could easily be persuaded to downsize with tax/inheritance incentives.

Interesting that the governor carved out an exception for his own historic neighborhood Guilford which has the exact low density and suburban feel he is eliminating for others. As usual the ultra wealthy sell out the below class. They will send their kids to private school and enjoy their nice lawns and parks while everyone is packed in like sardines. The people proposing this are never living in condos but they expect everyone else to.

This bill doesn't allow that. It allows townhomes.

Developers don't need density to make money. They can already flip homes or buy tear-downs. At least with density we end up with more homes for more people.

You end up with undesirable homes because no one wants to live there. Then you lose your tax base. Everyone who is honest with themselves knows that people who can afford nice SFH will not remain around “density”, as illustrated by these comments on Bowie.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DUvnlCWgG7A/?igsh=cWE5ODdtcjMzdjR2

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people do not have a right to live close in


Those areas are expensive and nice for a reason. Plenty of cheap housing 45 min outside DC.

Either buy there or make more money to afford closer in. Stop assaulting those areas in the name of "equity"

Nor do people have a right to detached homes. Or to demand that their neighbors have detached homes.

So what kind of close-in high-density housing are you interested in? A $1 million townhouse? Or a $350K 600sq ft condo? Because that will be the pricing for, say, Silver Spring 20910. Much, much higher in Bethesda 20814 of course.

I'm not sure where you're going with that. A few million dollar townhomes is better than a single $2-3 million detached home. More housing at lower prices for more people.

And yes, in the long-term, that's the choice. New construction will always come in at the top of the market, but things level out over time. And once they level out, townhomes are significantly less expensive than detached homes in the same area of similar size and age.

OK, well at least you're honest about acknowledging that any new housing will be very expensive. I'm OK with high-density as long as we don't deceive people into believing it will be inexpensive housing. Elsewhere, people seem to be selling others on false hope that new high-density housing will cater to poor people (https://www.reddit.com/r/MontgomeryCountyMD/comments/1r8x5m6/regular_reminder_about_living_up_to_progressive/).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people do not have a right to live close in


Those areas are expensive and nice for a reason. Plenty of cheap housing 45 min outside DC.

Either buy there or make more money to afford closer in. Stop assaulting those areas in the name of "equity"

Nor do people have a right to detached homes. Or to demand that their neighbors have detached homes.

So what kind of close-in high-density housing are you interested in? A $1 million townhouse? Or a $350K 600sq ft condo? Because that will be the pricing for, say, Silver Spring 20910. Much, much higher in Bethesda 20814 of course.

I'm not sure where you're going with that. A few million dollar townhomes is better than a single $2-3 million detached home. More housing at lower prices for more people.

And yes, in the long-term, that's the choice. New construction will always come in at the top of the market, but things level out over time. And once they level out, townhomes are significantly less expensive than detached homes in the same area of similar size and age.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:people do not have a right to live close in


Those areas are expensive and nice for a reason. Plenty of cheap housing 45 min outside DC.

Either buy there or make more money to afford closer in. Stop assaulting those areas in the name of "equity"

Nor do people have a right to detached homes. Or to demand that their neighbors have detached homes.

So what kind of close-in high-density housing are you interested in? A $1 million townhouse? Or a $350K 600sq ft condo? Because that will be the pricing for, say, Silver Spring 20910. Much, much higher in Bethesda 20814 of course.

Anonymous wrote:No this not good policy this is a giveaway to developers.

I’m not sure why you think a developer won’t buy four lots and put a 5-8 story condo building on a small residential street in a desirable area which will overcrowd schools and traffic and yes will diminish quality of life for everyone.

This is not the way to solve the housing crisis. Boomers are sitting on tons of sfh and could easily be persuaded to downsize with tax/inheritance incentives.

Interesting that the governor carved out an exception for his own historic neighborhood Guilford which has the exact low density and suburban feel he is eliminating for others. As usual the ultra wealthy sell out the below class. They will send their kids to private school and enjoy their nice lawns and parks while everyone is packed in like sardines. The people proposing this are never living in condos but they expect everyone else to.

This bill doesn't allow that. It allows townhomes.

Developers don't need density to make money. They can already flip homes or buy tear-downs. At least with density we end up with more homes for more people.

Anonymous wrote:people do not have a right to live close in


Those areas are expensive and nice for a reason. Plenty of cheap housing 45 min outside DC.

Either buy there or make more money to afford closer in. Stop assaulting those areas in the name of "equity"

Nor do people have a right to detached homes. Or to demand that their neighbors have detached homes.

“
Interesting that the governor carved out an exception for his own historic neighborhood Guilford which has the exact low density and suburban feel he is eliminating for others
“

This. The number of MD politicians who this apply to is astounding. Someone should keep a list.

Anonymous wrote:people do not have a right to live close in


Those areas are expensive and nice for a reason. Plenty of cheap housing 45 min outside DC.

Either buy there or make more money to afford closer in. Stop assaulting those areas in the name of "equity"

+1. You don’t even need to travel 45 minutes out. There are plenty of inexpensive houses in silver spring and Rockville, and they’re even close to metro stations. I think the problem is that people want something that looks like it came out of a pottery barn catalog.

At the end of the day, I think this will largely sort itself out even if YIMBYs get their way. There’s only so much demand for expensive condos and townhomes. There’s actually a ton of these on the market, even walkable to metro, and the pool of buyers is not that big. And developers won’t just magically drop prices to make them less expensive (which won’t work because of labor costs plus the cost to acquire teardown properties) — they just won’t build them at all.

Yes. He is trying to do this in more ways than one.....

Maryland sheriffs furious that their governor just killed the 287(g) partnership with ICE.

No more quick handoffs of criminal aliens, now the worst offenders get released into communities.

This isn’t politics; it’s a deliberate choice to put citizens at risk.

Anonymous wrote:No this not good policy this is a giveaway to developers.

I’m not sure why you think a developer won’t buy four lots and put a 5-8 story condo building on a small residential street in a desirable area which will overcrowd schools and traffic and yes will diminish quality of life for everyone.

This is not the way to solve the housing crisis. Boomers are sitting on tons of sfh and could easily be persuaded to downsize with tax/inheritance incentives.

Interesting that the governor carved out an exception for his own historic neighborhood Guilford which has the exact low density and suburban feel he is eliminating for others. As usual the ultra wealthy sell out the below class. They will send their kids to private school and enjoy their nice lawns and parks while everyone is packed in like sardines. The people proposing this are never living in condos but they expect everyone else to.

Yes, rules for thee and not for me....

No this not good policy this is a giveaway to developers.

I’m not sure why you think a developer won’t buy four lots and put a 5-8 story condo building on a small residential street in a desirable area which will overcrowd schools and traffic and yes will diminish quality of life for everyone.

This is not the way to solve the housing crisis. Boomers are sitting on tons of sfh and could easily be persuaded to downsize with tax/inheritance incentives.

Interesting that the governor carved out an exception for his own historic neighborhood Guilford which has the exact low density and suburban feel he is eliminating for others. As usual the ultra wealthy sell out the below class. They will send their kids to private school and enjoy their nice lawns and parks while everyone is packed in like sardines. The people proposing this are never living in condos but they expect everyone else to.