Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Boy, there sure is a lot of talk about "destruction of neighborhoods" here. When I think of destruction of neighborhoods, I think of the flooding in central Europe. I don't think of legalizing duplexes.

That is a natural disaster, this is a disaster by way of government incompetence. However, with this increased density we can expect infrastructure that cannot withstand the influx; and problems like the ones faced by cities like Houston. The flooding there has come, in part, by additional density and struggling infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Boy, there sure is a lot of talk about "destruction of neighborhoods" here. When I think of destruction of neighborhoods, I think of the flooding in central Europe. I don't think of legalizing duplexes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

I feel the same, thanks for putting it into words.

I definitely think that developers are more important than constituents. And, also there's some progressive virtue signaling thrown in there for our politicians.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Sure they are. Large apartments squeezed into small plots, adjacent to modest SFHs, trees cut, street parking overcrowded, schools already overcrowded through the county now have even more students …. That’s destroying a neighborhood. And doing it on the backs of the middle class and working class homeowners because that’s the only group in this county that will be hurt. Half of the county is exempt from this proposal given municipalities and wealthier areas won’t be hurt. Just those in Silver Spring, Wheaton, etc.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

So there are already neighborhoods like that, right here in Montgomery County. They don't seem destroyed to me.

Hahaha. Oh they don't? Have you driven through these places? Would YOU live in them? I have and I wouldn't. They stink. And are unsafe.

The people who actually, currently, live in these neighborhoods, right here in Montgomery County, may feel different about them than you do, when you look out your car window as you're driving through. And guess what? The people who actually, currently, live in these neighborhoods, right here in Montgomery County, are also constituents of the members of the Montgomery County Council.

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Sure they are. Large apartments squeezed into small plots, adjacent to modest SFHs, trees cut, street parking overcrowded, schools already overcrowded through the county now have even more students …. That’s destroying a neighborhood. And doing it on the backs of the middle class and working class homeowners because that’s the only group in this county that will be hurt. Half of the county is exempt from this proposal given municipalities and wealthier areas won’t be hurt. Just those in Silver Spring, Wheaton, etc.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

So there are already neighborhoods like that, right here in Montgomery County. They don't seem destroyed to me.

Hahaha. Oh they don't? Have you driven through these places? Would YOU live in them? I have and I wouldn't. They stink. And are unsafe.

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Sure they are. Large apartments squeezed into small plots, adjacent to modest SFHs, trees cut, street parking overcrowded, schools already overcrowded through the county now have even more students …. That’s destroying a neighborhood. And doing it on the backs of the middle class and working class homeowners because that’s the only group in this county that will be hurt. Half of the county is exempt from this proposal given municipalities and wealthier areas won’t be hurt. Just those in Silver Spring, Wheaton, etc.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

So there are already neighborhoods like that, right here in Montgomery County. They don't seem destroyed to me.

It’s a shame that you think they should be silenced because they disagree with you.

Anonymous wrote:“ All owned by corporations and investors.”. - Yes.

The SFH is also an aspiration. In my view, the MoCo council is telling me all the work I put into moving my family into my SFH neighborhood is worthless. Because someone else cannot do it, what I achieved has no merit at all. And they will partner with developers to destroy our communities.

It’s the ultimate destruction of wealth under a flag of equity, which shows the incompetence and lack of qualification this local government has.

I am not affluent and worked to become a home owner. This is an investment for our family and what we are leaving our children or hoping to sustain us in old age. I am not asking the MoCo Council for a handout but rather to respect and uphold the freedom to build a future. This imposition in neighborhoods is disrespectful and begs the big question to be asked: Why are you disrupting instead of building true prosperity for MoCo. Are developers more important than your constituents? Why are you punishing homeowners that pay YOUR SALARY?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Sure they are. Large apartments squeezed into small plots, adjacent to modest SFHs, trees cut, street parking overcrowded, schools already overcrowded through the county now have even more students …. That’s destroying a neighborhood. And doing it on the backs of the middle class and working class homeowners because that’s the only group in this county that will be hurt. Half of the county is exempt from this proposal given municipalities and wealthier areas won’t be hurt. Just those in Silver Spring, Wheaton, etc.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

So there are already neighborhoods like that, right here in Montgomery County. They don't seem destroyed to me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder how the aging pipes and water mains and sewage treatment facilities, etc. are equipped to deal with such things?

My guess is they are not.

I encourage everyone to drive around some of the neighborhoods where families are quadrupled up and count the cars parked on the streets…and the yards. Ever been to Aspen Hill?

I’d rather the county take leadership on developing or incentivizing the development of intentional communities instead of just letting flippers throw together poorly constructed duplexes and triplexes. So, so, so very stupid.

+1
Fully agreed and applaud the common sense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Argh, we have to have this conversation again?

It is possible to unintentionally encourage effects that are racist through actions that are not intended to.

For instance, policies that prioritize single family home ownership in a place with rapidly scaling home prices encourages racial segregation because of a historical racial wealth gap.

No one is trying to be racist, in fact in many cases the thought is that encouraging home ownership is a way to build wealth. but in a time of rising prices where a buyer has to bring more and more money to the table to buy a house, and BIPoC people may not have the same generational resources (read, parents who don’t need financial support and can actually sometimes give money) as white people, the inequities are perpetuated, and more expensive houses are purchased by those who have more generational resources who tend to be white and richer, blah blah.

Didn’t we have the structural racism talk in 2020?

Policies that are designed to keep neighborhoods SFH and bias to home ownership have an unintended effect of perpetuating housing segregation, which has downstream effects on opportunities (for instance, access to good schools and jobs) for people. Diversifying neighborhoods with different home types (including renters!) is one tool to try to spread the opportunity around to people who don’t have access to generational wealth, and take one step to correcting for systemic racism inherent in society.

So no one is saying that you are racist for saving for and buying a house. What this is saying is that a reason a policy like this is good is because it is one of many steps to break down racial advantages, and opposing it may have the effect of contributing to the perpetuation of racial inequities.

You know what destroys generational wealth for POC, upzoning relatively affordable predominately minority middle class neighborhoods and permanently pricing their children out of single family home ownership. Don't give me this BS about "bias" towards homeownership perpetuating system inequalities. Middle class homeownership is the foundation of financial stability for the average American and the only person that benefits from destroying single family neighborhoods are the large corporate landlords that will benefit from an increase in the supply lifetime renters.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the people who live in the housing also benefit.

It would also be helpful to clarify that the neighborhoods are not being destroyed.

Sure they are. Large apartments squeezed into small plots, adjacent to modest SFHs, trees cut, street parking overcrowded, schools already overcrowded through the county now have even more students …. That’s destroying a neighborhood. And doing it on the backs of the middle class and working class homeowners because that’s the only group in this county that will be hurt. Half of the county is exempt from this proposal given municipalities and wealthier areas won’t be hurt. Just those in Silver Spring, Wheaton, etc.

The hypocrisy is staggering.

So there are already neighborhoods like that, right here in Montgomery County. They don't seem destroyed to me.