Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sounds like a Gen Z progressive with limited life experience

Or a clueless resident of TP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sounds like a Gen Z progressive with limited life experience

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sure is. Please answer it.

DP. They get the idea from the fact that people can and do lobby their elected officials against zoning changes and from their HOAs which have rules about how you can modify your property. It's not likely you'll find a property in MoCo that doesn't have restrictions on how you can use/modify it. And that's not inherently a bad thing - we don't want our neighborhoods to become unlivable, for example through more housing than can be supported by existing roads/transit, or by activities that cause pollution/noise - the problem is these processes are the reason why housing supply is way too low and those of us who aren't yet homeowners have a really tough time buying, why our schools are so segregated and why we have a massive affordable housing crisis driving homelessness and that's a total disgrace.

But you mostly answered a different question, namely, Why does government regulate land use?

Whereas the question I'm hoping people will answer is, Why do people believe that people who live in a particular neighborhood should have regulatory power over land use in that particular neighborhood? They live in the neighborhood, they don't like duplexes, so duplexes should be forbidden????

Well, the government represents the interests of the people. The people (typically current residents) lobby the government to restrict land use and developers lobby for the opposite. They do so for a variety of reasons, some of which you and I will agree with and some not. That's how the world works right now. If you think the government should just stop listening to constituents, that's certainly a perspective many people have, but it's unrealistic in a democracy.

Yep. ALL of the people, not just the ones who happen to own property in a given neighborhood, don't like duplexes, and have the time, energy, and desire to lobby the government.

But seriously, why do you feel entitled to say, "I live in this neighborhood, I don't like duplexes, therefore the government should forbid duplexes in my neighborhood"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sure is. Please answer it.

DP. They get the idea from the fact that people can and do lobby their elected officials against zoning changes and from their HOAs which have rules about how you can modify your property. It's not likely you'll find a property in MoCo that doesn't have restrictions on how you can use/modify it. And that's not inherently a bad thing - we don't want our neighborhoods to become unlivable, for example through more housing than can be supported by existing roads/transit, or by activities that cause pollution/noise - the problem is these processes are the reason why housing supply is way too low and those of us who aren't yet homeowners have a really tough time buying, why our schools are so segregated and why we have a massive affordable housing crisis driving homelessness and that's a total disgrace.

But you mostly answered a different question, namely, Why does government regulate land use?

Whereas the question I'm hoping people will answer is, Why do people believe that people who live in a particular neighborhood should have regulatory power over land use in that particular neighborhood? They live in the neighborhood, they don't like duplexes, so duplexes should be forbidden????

Well, the government represents the interests of the people. The people (typically current residents) lobby the government to restrict land use and developers lobby for the opposite. They do so for a variety of reasons, some of which you and I will agree with and some not. That's how the world works right now. If you think the government should just stop listening to constituents, that's certainly a perspective many people have, but it's unrealistic in a democracy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. Under Elrich, we are losing good police officers.

You know, I understand why the morale of good police officers might be low at this point, but the problem is not Elrich. The problem is their brother and sister police officers who do bad stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sure is. Please answer it.

DP. They get the idea from the fact that people can and do lobby their elected officials against zoning changes and from their HOAs which have rules about how you can modify your property. It's not likely you'll find a property in MoCo that doesn't have restrictions on how you can use/modify it. And that's not inherently a bad thing - we don't want our neighborhoods to become unlivable, for example through more housing than can be supported by existing roads/transit, or by activities that cause pollution/noise - the problem is these processes are the reason why housing supply is way too low and those of us who aren't yet homeowners have a really tough time buying, why our schools are so segregated and why we have a massive affordable housing crisis driving homelessness and that's a total disgrace.

But you mostly answered a different question, namely, Why does government regulate land use?

Whereas the question I'm hoping people will answer is, Why do people believe that people who live in a particular neighborhood should have regulatory power over land use in that particular neighborhood? They live in the neighborhood, they don't like duplexes, so duplexes should be forbidden????

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sure is. Please answer it.

DP. They get the idea from the fact that people can and do lobby their elected officials against zoning changes and from their HOAs which have rules about how you can modify your property. It's not likely you'll find a property in MoCo that doesn't have restrictions on how you can use/modify it. And that's not inherently a bad thing - we don't want our neighborhoods to become unlivable, for example through more housing than can be supported by existing roads/transit, or by activities that cause pollution/noise - the problem is these processes are the reason why housing supply is way too low and those of us who aren't yet homeowners have a really tough time buying, why our schools are so segregated and why we have a massive affordable housing crisis driving homelessness and that's a total disgrace.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. Under Elrich, we are losing good police officers.

You know, I understand why the morale of good police officers might be low at this point, but the problem is not Elrich. The problem is their brother and sister police officers who do bad stuff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Sure is. Please answer it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I think the definition of NIMBY is deciding to change the character of other people's neighborhood because it will advance your political career. In the meantime, he gets to keep his big SFH. That is Jawando to the core. I'm not interested in duplexes and fourplexes in my neighborhood. So sue me.

Where do people get the idea that they should have a say over housing types in their neighborhood? Where does this end? I'm not interested in hydrangeas in my neighborhood, so should I get to forbid my neighboring property owners from planting hydrangeas?

Is this a serious question?

Anonymous wrote:

Exactly. Under Elrich, we are losing good police officers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear that the pro Blair group here is that "omg equity I hate it" crowd

David Blair is a bonafide Democrat. Please check out his platform. He believes in equity: https://www.blairformontgomery.com/

Blair on justice and equity in policing, per WaPo:

Blair said he does not see the need for dramatic changes to the county’s police department.

“Are there areas for improvement? Absolutely. But will it be the main focus of my campaign? No,” he said. “Here in Montgomery County, we’ve done a great job . . . We’re an example for the nation on how to police.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear that the pro Blair group here is that "omg equity I hate it" crowd

I don't hate "equity", but there is a point where focusing on it too much hinders the community rather than help it. Covid vaccine rollout in MoCo is one such example.

Yeah if Blair doesn't believe in equity for vaccine distribution I am definitely NOT voting for him. The health department has been administering the doses it receives from the state every week, it isn't slowing down the process for the sake of equity, but it is making an effort to ensure the hardest hit communities (which tend not to have good internet access or ability to work from home and snag appointments all day) can actually get their shots. If David Blair has a problem with that I have a BIG problem with him.

No, MoCo has been much slower to rollout the vaccine phases. They were forced to be on the same phasing as the state, not that this means that people who are not in a certain "equity" group will get the vaccine even if they are eligible.

The way the equity framework is implemented if you are white in a zip code with a high case rate, you won't get priority. That is discriminatory. If I lived in such a zip code, I'd be scared for my life.

Wealthy elderly in non-priority zip codes can just Stay Home until it’s there turn. Not my problem that they feel entitled to go out to restaurants.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty clear that the pro Blair group here is that "omg equity I hate it" crowd

No, but it helps to judge first and ask questions later.

Jawando's version of equity is too facile to do any good. He's in the "no police = equity" instead of doing the hard work of making change from within. And doesn't seem to care what the impact will be to communities of color who actually need police much more than wealthier white people. Map out all the homicides this year, for example....They aren't happening in Potomac.

On what planet do you live? Jawando is the main Councilmember pushing police reform, which folks like you are characterizing as "no police". But in no universe has Jawando proposed eliminating the police department. He actually speaks frequently about how to best track and give police credit for the good work they do, as well as tracking policing data that is in line with best practices.

Also, in case you need a reminder, Will Jawando hasn't expressed interest in running for County Executive. Hans Riemer and Craig Rice have said they're exploring it. Marc Elrich and David Blair have announced.

He's pulling school resource officers out of schools because of 163 arrests out of 163,000 students. Completely ignoring the safety aspect they provide. A smarter move would have been to change the SRO program from within to address racial disparities. It's like cutting off your hand because you keep getting hang nails.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What’s Blair’s stance on normal school in the fall? I’m a single issue voter.

1. The primary election will be in June 2022.
2. The county executive has no authority over the board of education and does not make decisions about opening schools.