Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

That is also Friedson's purpose.

You forgot about the land use lawyers, who also donate to Friedson. They have an interest in maintaining a lengthy, overly complex, and burdensome land use regulatory process. Ever see Friedson talk about wholesale reform of the planning process? Of course not, because it would hurt Lerch, Early and Brewer. Casey Anderson didn't make it a priority either because it would make undermined his kingdom.

Some of Friedson's early money came from shell companies controlled by CSG/GGW donors, and of course a lot of his donors do not declare their employer affiliation when they donate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

What donors are these exactly? JBG Smith and Chevy Chase Land Co only donate cursory amounts to CSG. FRIT doesn’t donate anything. None of these companies donate a penny to GGW. CSGs entire purpose is to maximize developer profits by ensuring that development rights and new construction is only built where developers already own land and that there are subsidies that maximize the profit potential of those parcels while preventing competition by promoting policies that block potential cheaper and more affordable development where developers do not own land. It’s pretty simple.

Anonymous wrote:Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Friedson is doing work for his donors, not Dan Reed. Many of Friedson's donors also are supporting CSG and GGW, so that's why they appear to be in step.

Anonymous wrote:I live in South Four Corners, and learned about Thrive Montgomery 2050 a few days ago. Does anyone know what is the plan for South Four Corners and the Colesville/University interstection area near Blair High School?

The plan is to add housing without adding any schools, roads, or jobs. It will almost all be market rate, but the council will subsidize anyway, so expect your taxes to go up so that developers can make more money.

I live in South Four Corners, and learned about Thrive Montgomery 2050 a few days ago. Does anyone know what is the plan for South Four Corners and the Colesville/University interstection area near Blair High School?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only compared to the Moco Council, would Friedsen be considered a moderate of any kind.

He's a rich liberal, who sucks up to the YIMBY/thrive obsessed hive, when it won't affect him personally.

Yet compared to the rest of the group, hes practically a DINO.

He’s created an impression of himself that does not seem backed by facts or evidence. I think people want to see in him something that does not exist. Where he differentiates himself from his colleagues is that he is not out there pretending to be an activist. But nearly all votes on the Council are unanimous. I would really like to see how he is being a moderate on actual substance as a matter of principle and even more importantly, how he is influencing anything the Council does in a moderate direction.

Right- he skips performative things like drag queen story hour, but at the end of the day hes in lockstep on just about every issue.

The only CM that seems to regularly sets themselves apart to take a moderate stand on some, but not many issues is Katz.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Only compared to the Moco Council, would Friedsen be considered a moderate of any kind.

He's a rich liberal, who sucks up to the YIMBY/thrive obsessed hive, when it won't affect him personally.

Yet compared to the rest of the group, hes practically a DINO.

He’s created an impression of himself that does not seem backed by facts or evidence. I think people want to see in him something that does not exist. Where he differentiates himself from his colleagues is that he is not out there pretending to be an activist. But nearly all votes on the Council are unanimous. I would really like to see how he is being a moderate on actual substance as a matter of principle and even more importantly, how he is influencing anything the Council does in a moderate direction.

Right- he skips performative things like drag queen story hour, but at the end of the day hes in lockstep on just about every issue.

Friedson loves to suck up to Dan Reed and so does the rest of the council. They pretend he’s an activist when he’s really a real estate agent with his own firm and on the board at coalition for smarter growth.

Anonymous wrote:Only compared to the Moco Council, would Friedsen be considered a moderate of any kind.

He's a rich liberal, who sucks up to the YIMBY/thrive obsessed hive, when it won't affect him personally.

Yet compared to the rest of the group, hes practically a DINO.

He’s created an impression of himself that does not seem backed by facts or evidence. I think people want to see in him something that does not exist. Where he differentiates himself from his colleagues is that he is not out there pretending to be an activist. But nearly all votes on the Council are unanimous. I would really like to see how he is being a moderate on actual substance as a matter of principle and even more importantly, how he is influencing anything the Council does in a moderate direction.

Anonymous wrote:Only compared to the Moco Council, would Friedsen be considered a moderate of any kind.

He's a rich liberal, who sucks up to the YIMBY/thrive obsessed hive, when it won't affect him personally.

Yet compared to the rest of the group, hes practically a DINO.

True.

Only compared to the Moco Council, would Friedsen be considered a moderate of any kind.

He's a rich liberal, who sucks up to the YIMBY/thrive obsessed hive, when it won't affect him personally.

Yet compared to the rest of the group, hes practically a DINO.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Kensington. Albornoz lives in Parkwood, is his neighborhood exempt?

Kensington does not have its own independent planning permission. However, a portion of Kensington is historically protected. Same with Garrett Park. Downtown Kensington is considerd a small growth center in Thrive, but Connecticut is a growth corridor. So neighborhoods like Chevy Chase View could see changes but not Parkwood. Like Garrett Park, a transit density overlay would not apply to Kensington because the area around the train station is historically protected.

It really disgusts me that Albornoz has no chance of getting a quadplex next door to his big, beautiful house. The council is completely corrupt.

His house would be totally protected. His neighbors on Connecticut could get up-zoned though.

Most likely areas to get upzoned first would be within a mile adjacent red and purple line stops and edge neighborhoods near the large growth centers, e.g. downtown Bethesda, downtown Silver Spring, Wheaton, and White Flint. It is interesting how these decisions have been made. For example, Old Georgetown Rd was not a growth corridor, despite connecting downtown Bethesda to Pike and Rose, but Randolph Rd and University Blvd are. Kind of gives the game away.

Whatever happened with Friedson trying to protect all of River Road? I live in District 1 and he's our rep but never did anything for his inside the Beltway constituents, only for his Potomac friends. I know our neighborhood will be upzoned immediately. It ticks me off since our lots are so small. I'm sure they'll concrete in the front yard for parking even after all this talk about walkability.

Friedson is a manchild that lacks leadership qualities and as a result is incapable of representing his constituents. Seems to prefer spending his time sucking up to Takoma Park and Silver Spring residents. Just totally and completely ineffectual and unfortunately we are probably stuck with him for 8 more years because his gravy train, Franchot, won’t be governor.

I totally agree he is a manchild, but he doesn't suck up to Silver Spring residents that's for sure.

Try to get this level of responsiveness from him on a matter important to his district that doesn’t involve sucking up to theses awful urbanist/cyclist types. Let me know how it goes. But the real proof of his incompetence is his inability to protect his own turf, eg River Rd and redistricting. He’s done a poor job representing both his district and even more amazingly his own interests.

He also just loves to suck up to another Silver Spring guy who regularly calls all his constituents racist. Now go and check his communication with actual constituents. You’ll have a hard time finding any and when he does it’s typically adversarial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Kensington. Albornoz lives in Parkwood, is his neighborhood exempt?

Kensington does not have its own independent planning permission. However, a portion of Kensington is historically protected. Same with Garrett Park. Downtown Kensington is considerd a small growth center in Thrive, but Connecticut is a growth corridor. So neighborhoods like Chevy Chase View could see changes but not Parkwood. Like Garrett Park, a transit density overlay would not apply to Kensington because the area around the train station is historically protected.

It really disgusts me that Albornoz has no chance of getting a quadplex next door to his big, beautiful house. The council is completely corrupt.

His house would be totally protected. His neighbors on Connecticut could get up-zoned though.

Most likely areas to get upzoned first would be within a mile adjacent red and purple line stops and edge neighborhoods near the large growth centers, e.g. downtown Bethesda, downtown Silver Spring, Wheaton, and White Flint. It is interesting how these decisions have been made. For example, Old Georgetown Rd was not a growth corridor, despite connecting downtown Bethesda to Pike and Rose, but Randolph Rd and University Blvd are. Kind of gives the game away.

What about Derwood? I am within a mile of the Shady Grove stop. We are in a SFH community on about 1/4 acre each. Or is that too far out?

I imagine that you are probably safe. Their focus in Derwood right now is moving the MCPS bus depot so that they can give it away to a developer, which is across the street from that new Westside development. Probably also upzoning the car dealerships in the area. I think they would want to protect developer profit at Westside and until the bus depot is redeveloped so I doubt they would do anything to the adjacent SFH neighborhood. Probably only that corner near Redlands and Crabs Branch, but there is already stuff there that would be hard to redevelop, including the MVA, a church and existing apartments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Kensington. Albornoz lives in Parkwood, is his neighborhood exempt?

Kensington does not have its own independent planning permission. However, a portion of Kensington is historically protected. Same with Garrett Park. Downtown Kensington is considerd a small growth center in Thrive, but Connecticut is a growth corridor. So neighborhoods like Chevy Chase View could see changes but not Parkwood. Like Garrett Park, a transit density overlay would not apply to Kensington because the area around the train station is historically protected.

It really disgusts me that Albornoz has no chance of getting a quadplex next door to his big, beautiful house. The council is completely corrupt.

His house would be totally protected. His neighbors on Connecticut could get up-zoned though.

Most likely areas to get upzoned first would be within a mile adjacent red and purple line stops and edge neighborhoods near the large growth centers, e.g. downtown Bethesda, downtown Silver Spring, Wheaton, and White Flint. It is interesting how these decisions have been made. For example, Old Georgetown Rd was not a growth corridor, despite connecting downtown Bethesda to Pike and Rose, but Randolph Rd and University Blvd are. Kind of gives the game away.

What about Derwood? I am within a mile of the Shady Grove stop. We are in a SFH community on about 1/4 acre each. Or is that too far out?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What about Kensington. Albornoz lives in Parkwood, is his neighborhood exempt?

Kensington does not have its own independent planning permission. However, a portion of Kensington is historically protected. Same with Garrett Park. Downtown Kensington is considerd a small growth center in Thrive, but Connecticut is a growth corridor. So neighborhoods like Chevy Chase View could see changes but not Parkwood. Like Garrett Park, a transit density overlay would not apply to Kensington because the area around the train station is historically protected.

It really disgusts me that Albornoz has no chance of getting a quadplex next door to his big, beautiful house. The council is completely corrupt.

His house would be totally protected. His neighbors on Connecticut could get up-zoned though.

Most likely areas to get upzoned first would be within a mile adjacent red and purple line stops and edge neighborhoods near the large growth centers, e.g. downtown Bethesda, downtown Silver Spring, Wheaton, and White Flint. It is interesting how these decisions have been made. For example, Old Georgetown Rd was not a growth corridor, despite connecting downtown Bethesda to Pike and Rose, but Randolph Rd and University Blvd are. Kind of gives the game away.

Whatever happened with Friedson trying to protect all of River Road? I live in District 1 and he's our rep but never did anything for his inside the Beltway constituents, only for his Potomac friends. I know our neighborhood will be upzoned immediately. It ticks me off since our lots are so small. I'm sure they'll concrete in the front yard for parking even after all this talk about walkability.

Friedson is a manchild that lacks leadership qualities and as a result is incapable of representing his constituents. Seems to prefer spending his time sucking up to Takoma Park and Silver Spring residents. Just totally and completely ineffectual and unfortunately we are probably stuck with him for 8 more years because his gravy train, Franchot, won’t be governor.

I totally agree he is a manchild, but he doesn't suck up to Silver Spring residents that's for sure.

Try to get this level of responsiveness from him on a matter important to his district that doesn’t involve sucking up to theses awful urbanist/cyclist types. Let me know how it goes. But the real proof of his incompetence is his inability to protect his own turf, eg River Rd and redistricting. He’s done a poor job representing both his district and even more amazingly his own interests.