Anonymous
03/05/2024 23:21
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why why density everywhere is a goal? People are fleeing this region! Population is not increasing.
You're saying this, based on what?
Density everywhere is not the goal. Density near transit is the goal, for obvious reasons.
I don't see the obvious reasons. Things seem fine as they are. Moco does not need to double or triple it's population. doing so would be awful.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 22:15
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:How are SFHs subsidized? It keeps getting stated as fact with no explanation.
It’s the YIMBY way.
Waiting for an answer on the subsidies.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 21:46
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why why density everywhere is a goal? People are fleeing this region! Population is not increasing.
You're saying this, based on what?
Density everywhere is not the goal. Density near transit is the goal, for obvious reasons.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 21:42
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
I don't understand why why density everywhere is a goal? People are fleeing this region! Population is not increasing.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 21:10
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:How are SFHs subsidized? It keeps getting stated as fact with no explanation.
It’s the YIMBY way.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 21:10
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.
This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.
Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.
That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".
Link? Citation?
If you’re not familiar with the literature you should probably bow out of the conversation and you definitely should refrain from doing any advocacy.
So, it doesn’t exist in any credible format.
It does. It has a fancy cover and everything and is available on the planning website.
LMAO, again, so nothing credible at all. Well, we can all consider the turd. well polished, I guess.
Really, go find it yourself. We’re not your research assistants.
It’s pretty apparent that you lack the qualifications.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 21:02
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
How are SFHs subsidized? It keeps getting stated as fact with no explanation.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 20:13
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:MoCo voters, are you tired of being suckers yet?
https://moco360.media/2024/03/05/county-council-loosens-parking-requirements-for-developments-near-public-transit/
Great news! Thank you for posting.
Prediction: YIMBYs will still be blaming parking minimums for high rents three years from now even though parking in most of these areas was already optional because the parking lot district tax was already zero.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 19:10
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:MoCo voters, are you tired of being suckers yet?
https://moco360.media/2024/03/05/county-council-loosens-parking-requirements-for-developments-near-public-transit/
Great news! Thank you for posting.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 19:03
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Hmm maybe there will be a lawsuit over the parking minimum repeal.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 17:39
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.
This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.
Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.
That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".
Link? Citation?
If you’re not familiar with the literature you should probably bow out of the conversation and you definitely should refrain from doing any advocacy.
So, it doesn’t exist in any credible format.
It does. It has a fancy cover and everything and is available on the planning website.
LMAO, again, so nothing credible at all. Well, we can all consider the turd. well polished, I guess.
Really, go find it yourself. We’re not your research assistants.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 17:10
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:MoCo voters, are you tired of being suckers yet?
https://moco360.media/2024/03/05/county-council-loosens-parking-requirements-for-developments-near-public-transit/
I am so excited this passed!
Anonymous
03/05/2024 17:09
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.
This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.
Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.
That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".
Link? Citation?
If you’re not familiar with the literature you should probably bow out of the conversation and you definitely should refrain from doing any advocacy.
So, it doesn’t exist in any credible format.
It does. It has a fancy cover and everything and is available on the planning website.
LMAO, again, so nothing credible at all. Well, we can all consider the turd. well polished, I guess.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 17:04
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Lot's of NIMBY Karens in this thread.
This stuff is gonna change, people. Duplexes aren't scary, Karens. Get over it.
Duplexes aren’t commercially viable in most places (and especially the places where YIMBYs most want them built) according to the planning board’s own study. Yet they keep throwing duplexes out as a solution. It makes you wonder if anyone actually wants to solve the housing crisis or just keep talking about it.
That's not for the government to decide. That's for the market to decide. SFHs get so much subsidy from the town (at the expense of renters and apartments). End that, and see what is "commercially viable".
Link? Citation?
If you’re not familiar with the literature you should probably bow out of the conversation and you definitely should refrain from doing any advocacy.
So, it doesn’t exist in any credible format.
It does. It has a fancy cover and everything and is available on the planning website.
Anonymous
03/05/2024 17:03
Subject: Montgomery for All Missing Middle presentation
MoCo voters, are you tired of being suckers yet?
https://moco360.media/2024/03/05/county-council-loosens-parking-requirements-for-developments-near-public-transit/
https://moco360.media/2024/03/05/county-council-loosens-parking-requirements-for-developments-near-public-transit/