Anonymous wrote:If someone from Chevy Chase doesn't hold up a photo of a 60-year-old Soviet apartment building they printed off of Reddit, at the next listening session, I'm going to be super disappointed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't see a cafe in your picture tho.

How about western european style housing? Is that ok for you? We're going to Haussmann gentrify your 1960s wood-framed drywall hovel

Good luck:

https://www.euronews.com/business/2023/11/04/housing-crisis-are-you-prepared-to-wait-6-months-to-rent-a-studio-in-paris


Guess what, even with alllll of that style of housing they still have housing crises over there. France, Germany, etc….it doesn’t matter. The biggest difference though is that hardly anyone owns unlike in America. They’re at the mercy of landlords who can raise rents. MoCo council wants to gut the middle class and remove their ability to own and build equity. Their feeble minds can’t compute that some people can’t own SFH is and infinitely better scenario for the middle class compared to what they want to bring, which is NO ONE owns except corporate landlords.

Anonymous wrote:I don't see a cafe in your picture tho.

How about western european style housing? Is that ok for you? We're going to Haussmann gentrify your 1960s wood-framed drywall hovel

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone from Chevy Chase doesn't hold up a photo of a 60-year-old Soviet apartment building they printed off of Reddit, at the next listening session, I'm going to be super disappointed.

Can we at least call a spade a spade?

Stop trying to deceive everyone by calling them 'multiplexes', they're kruschevkas, period. MoCo council wants to bring to the county what many communist countries have already done for decades. They want to get rid of American identity and SFHs and replace it with Russian/Chinese/North Korean/Eastern communist Euro style housing. Just be honest about the vision and intent. If the voters want Russian and Chinese style bloc housing, fine. But at least call it exactly what it is.

Anonymous wrote:If someone from Chevy Chase doesn't hold up a photo of a 60-year-old Soviet apartment building they printed off of Reddit, at the next listening session, I'm going to be super disappointed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

We don’t want more people to come, that’s the point. We want our neighborhoods which we purchased into as SFH to remain as such.

Yes, it's clear that you don't want change. Change will happen anyway, though, no matter what the County Council does or doesn't do.

One point of disagreement: You purchased a house. You purchased a property. You did not purchase, or purchase into, a neighborhood.

What? We love change. The neighborhood has gotten better over time. Way better.

It’s because of the change and hard work they’ve put into their homes and neighborhood groups and neighborhood projects that they fight this.

You are a very silly person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

Whether the invasion of small scale neighborhoods with quadplexes tomorrow or in four years, doesn’t matter - most people invest in neighborhoods for a long time.

Also look at how quickly developers have swooped in elsewhere and completely transformed - not always in a good way - neighborhoods.

And yes, my neighbors are much more invested in trees, treating each other with respect, our schools, our community than ANY developer will be. So your straw man falls short.

I hate to state the obvious, but those neighborhoods were built by ... developers.

In a further statement of the obvious: anyone who moves into the housing (built by developers) on your street will be your neighbor.

If you are trying to consider the 1948 developers who developed the 20 acres of my neighborhood to the parasites who will build quadplexes in these small scale neighborhoods, try again.

In 1948 the homes were built on open land, no one’s homes negatively affected. Totally different scenario. Which of course you know, but need to be obtuse in order to further gaslight.

Um. So. Wherever your 20 acres of neighborhood might happen to be, in Montgomery County? There actually were people living there in 1948. And there's a good chance these people weren't so happy about the developers and the development.

White people were moving into the neighborhood in 1948. That's the difference.

Are the gentrifying white YImBYs that want to build their little cafes and ride their bikes around talking about other people gentrifying?

Let us laugh, laugh at the Yuppies, er, YIMBYs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

Whether the invasion of small scale neighborhoods with quadplexes tomorrow or in four years, doesn’t matter - most people invest in neighborhoods for a long time.

Also look at how quickly developers have swooped in elsewhere and completely transformed - not always in a good way - neighborhoods.

And yes, my neighbors are much more invested in trees, treating each other with respect, our schools, our community than ANY developer will be. So your straw man falls short.

I hate to state the obvious, but those neighborhoods were built by ... developers.

In a further statement of the obvious: anyone who moves into the housing (built by developers) on your street will be your neighbor.

If you are trying to consider the 1948 developers who developed the 20 acres of my neighborhood to the parasites who will build quadplexes in these small scale neighborhoods, try again.

In 1948 the homes were built on open land, no one’s homes negatively affected. Totally different scenario. Which of course you know, but need to be obtuse in order to further gaslight.

Um. So. Wherever your 20 acres of neighborhood might happen to be, in Montgomery County? There actually were people living there in 1948. And there's a good chance these people weren't so happy about the developers and the development.

White people were moving into the neighborhood in 1948. That's the difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

Whether the invasion of small scale neighborhoods with quadplexes tomorrow or in four years, doesn’t matter - most people invest in neighborhoods for a long time.

Also look at how quickly developers have swooped in elsewhere and completely transformed - not always in a good way - neighborhoods.

And yes, my neighbors are much more invested in trees, treating each other with respect, our schools, our community than ANY developer will be. So your straw man falls short.

I hate to state the obvious, but those neighborhoods were built by ... developers.

In a further statement of the obvious: anyone who moves into the housing (built by developers) on your street will be your neighbor.

If you are trying to consider the 1948 developers who developed the 20 acres of my neighborhood to the parasites who will build quadplexes in these small scale neighborhoods, try again.

In 1948 the homes were built on open land, no one’s homes negatively affected. Totally different scenario. Which of course you know, but need to be obtuse in order to further gaslight.

Um. So. Wherever your 20 acres of neighborhood might happen to be, in Montgomery County? There actually were people living there in 1948. And there's a good chance these people weren't so happy about the developers and the development.

White people were moving into the neighborhood in 1948. That's the difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

Whether the invasion of small scale neighborhoods with quadplexes tomorrow or in four years, doesn’t matter - most people invest in neighborhoods for a long time.

Also look at how quickly developers have swooped in elsewhere and completely transformed - not always in a good way - neighborhoods.

And yes, my neighbors are much more invested in trees, treating each other with respect, our schools, our community than ANY developer will be. So your straw man falls short.

I hate to state the obvious, but those neighborhoods were built by ... developers.

In a further statement of the obvious: anyone who moves into the housing (built by developers) on your street will be your neighbor.

If you are trying to consider the 1948 developers who developed the 20 acres of my neighborhood to the parasites who will build quadplexes in these small scale neighborhoods, try again.

In 1948 the homes were built on open land, no one’s homes negatively affected. Totally different scenario. Which of course you know, but need to be obtuse in order to further gaslight.

Um. So. Wherever your 20 acres of neighborhood might happen to be, in Montgomery County? There actually were people living there in 1948. And there's a good chance these people weren't so happy about the developers and the development.

White people were moving into the neighborhood in 1948. That's the difference.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

We don’t want more people to come, that’s the point. We want our neighborhoods which we purchased into as SFH to remain as such.

Yes, it's clear that you don't want change. Change will happen anyway, though, no matter what the County Council does or doesn't do.

One point of disagreement: You purchased a house. You purchased a property. You did not purchase, or purchase into, a neighborhood.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Your response is totally disingenuous. First, it’s up to four-unit buildings under this proposal. But even if it were duplexes, that increases the cars needed to park on the street, the demands on infrastructure, the number of students in already overcrowded schools - none of which developers have any care about and the county is already unable to adequately address these issues due to budget constraints. So quality of life goes way down, people leave, neighborhoods go downhill …. That is a reality.

But even the more fundamental issue: people buy SFHs deliberately - it’s a choice and a major investment.

There’s a reasonable expectation - or there has been - that zoning ensures that the fundamentals of the neighborhood are protected.

Would I have bought my home that I saved for for more than a decade if I knew tomorrow my street would be filled with quadplexes and parking and schools, already at capacity, would be even more taxed? No.

That the trees and quiet and small scale of my neighborhood would be destroyed? No.

I didn’t want to live in downtown - couldn’t have afforded it, either. And now developers and entitled YIMBYs want to gaslight me into thinking I’m the problem for taking issue with this proposal? No.

I guess it depends on what you consider "the fundamentals".

If the proposal goes through, will your street be filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow? No.
If your street were filled with four-unit buildings and parked cars tomorrow, would the neighborhood be destroyed? No, actually the contrary. More people would be living there.
Would four-unit buildings and parking turn your street into downtown? No.
Are you the problem? No, the housing shortage is the problem, or at least one of them.
If this proposal doesn't go through, will that stop your street from changing? No. There is nothing to stop someone from moving in next door to you, cutting down all the trees, parking 8 cars in the street, and having screaming arguments every night and parties every weekend.

Whether the invasion of small scale neighborhoods with quadplexes tomorrow or in four years, doesn’t matter - most people invest in neighborhoods for a long time.

Also look at how quickly developers have swooped in elsewhere and completely transformed - not always in a good way - neighborhoods.

And yes, my neighbors are much more invested in trees, treating each other with respect, our schools, our community than ANY developer will be. So your straw man falls short.

I hate to state the obvious, but those neighborhoods were built by ... developers.

In a further statement of the obvious: anyone who moves into the housing (built by developers) on your street will be your neighbor.

If you are trying to consider the 1948 developers who developed the 20 acres of my neighborhood to the parasites who will build quadplexes in these small scale neighborhoods, try again.

In 1948 the homes were built on open land, no one’s homes negatively affected. Totally different scenario. Which of course you know, but need to be obtuse in order to further gaslight.

Um. So. Wherever your 20 acres of neighborhood might happen to be, in Montgomery County? There actually were people living there in 1948. And there's a good chance these people weren't so happy about the developers and the development.