Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

Yes, you're a housing denialist.

Also, one third of households in Montgomery County rent.

Alright if you say so. YIMBYism is your religion and you are making very wide teaching statements with no evidence to support them. Anytime people point out a reasonable concern or disagreement you just ignore them or attempt to change the topic.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

Yes, you're a housing denialist.

Also, one third of households in Montgomery County rent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

This is not some infallible scientific theory like evolution. It is an argument over whether it’s even accurate to categorize the current situation as a crisis. You are standing on very flimsy ground claiming this is a “crisis” when the data on the actual cost of homeownership suggest otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Oh look, a housing denialist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

There is no “housing crisis” that is mostly ploy by the real estate industry to push a political agenda. The Inflation adjusted cost of homeownership is actually similar or slightly lower than 40 years ago (after adjusting for mortgage interest rates, average home square footage and household size). Yes there is some room for improvement with affordability, but it is hysterical and misleading to call this a crisis. Price to income ratio is bad metric to determine affordability when monthly payments actually determine what most people can afford.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

It is implicit in their argument. Everyone realizes we have a housing crisis and their solution is to not build anything. NIMBYs gonna NIMBY all day.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem upzoning is supposed to be solving in not enough starter homes. The county council will make this worse if they allow single family houses to be replaced by 1 or 2 bedroom apartments.

These are also starter homes.

They will be mostly rentals and will not provide opportunities for families to buy starter homes.

They will be homes.

As would apartments in large high rises within a quarter mile of a Metro. Plenty more, in fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem upzoning is supposed to be solving in not enough starter homes. The county council will make this worse if they allow single family houses to be replaced by 1 or 2 bedroom apartments.

These are also starter homes.

They will be mostly rentals and will not provide opportunities for families to buy starter homes.

They will be homes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem upzoning is supposed to be solving in not enough starter homes. The county council will make this worse if they allow single family houses to be replaced by 1 or 2 bedroom apartments.

These are also starter homes.

They will be mostly rentals and will not provide opportunities for families to buy starter homes.

Anonymous wrote:The problem upzoning is supposed to be solving in not enough starter homes. The county council will make this worse if they allow single family houses to be replaced by 1 or 2 bedroom apartments.

These are also starter homes.

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

This will work so well. YIMBYs are very foolish if they think zoning reform will reduce school segregation. It’s actually likely that this policy will worsen segregation because affluent parents will remove their children from public schools or relocate. The reality is that most affluent parents will not let their kid attend a high FARMs school. The % of the student body that is low income is directly correlated with academic performance, school safety and the frequency of behavioral issues. Parents will not risk their children’s safety or academic outcomes for an abstract ideal of socioeconomic diversity in schools. A decline in the average school performance will cause an exodus from public schools and these affluent parents will enroll in private schools (that are on average even more segregated) than public schools.

The problem upzoning is supposed to be solving in not enough starter homes. The county council will make this worse if they allow single family houses to be replaced by 1 or 2 bedroom apartments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Walk us through how you reached the conclusion that PP said prices would moderate if no housing is produced.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding schools, this is an exact quote from a MOCO YIMBY Facebook admin - I did not change or embellish it in any way. No more good or bad schools for your neighborhood, good schools in certain locations are BAD, we need to water them al down so that they are equal, no matter how unfair that actually is.


Looks like Fairfax will review its school boudaries every 5 years. MoCo has faced fierce resistance to reviewing its school boudaries and hasn't implemented any such policy yet.

The post's quote from opponents of school boundary review outlines why it needs to be done:

" “Everybody I know when they are buying a house, if the school is not the top factor, it’s one of them,” she said. “People made really big life choices under the assumption that their kid would go to that school.”"

People have notions about which schools are "good" and which are "bad" and how schools achieve "good" rankings is by having a lot of wealthy kids (and very few poor kids) attend them. So this propagates out to housing prices in various neighborhoods ("good" school districts are in demand) and reinforces community level segregation, which is one of the key problems YIMBYs want to solve.

I literally see nothing wrong with the above.
I say this as a parent who absolutely decided where to buy a house in large part based on school cluster. But I also see how in the aggregate those choices do lead to the issues described.

Yeah. Perhaps that is a false flag troll post. The larger problem that the density push isn't addressing is the current state of infrastructure, including school capacity versus the plan's impacts. But those pushing it would like to deflect from that concern by suggesting it is related to some we-must-keep-those-kind-of-people-out initiative.

What’s really offensive about this approach is that even the YIMBYs know that all of the new residents will be above median income because if they’re not then the projects won’t pencil, nothing will get built, and there will be no new residents. The YIMBYs love to try to play the shame card and then they turn around and say the new housing was never intended to be affordable when they get called on breaking their affordable housing promises.

I guess according to your logic, then, we can build 0 houses and magically prices will moderate?

How, exactly, will that happen, genius? Do you understand supply and demand?

Does anyone have takeaways from the meeting today where this was discussed?