Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone likes our boring, leafy, walkable, green, low skyline city with its smattering of commercial hubs. Literally, everyone likes that about DC. If you don't, you go to a tastier city.

YIMBYs disagree. They believe the height limits are racist.

That makes little sense. And it is one of the things that makes DC unique. Part and parcel of our heritage. If you made a list of top things that make DC, DC- - cherry blossom,.social Safeway, go go, monuments, low skyline,Smithsonian etc. Adding ANY high rises within DC dilutes our heritage.

Have you ever been on Connecticut Avenue between Dupont Circle and Cleveland Park?

There are some ugly buildings in that area, but DC’s hills allow for taller structures that don’t destroy the skyline. I think it’s good to maintain the historic character of neighborhoods.

There is a beautiful flatiron building at the south end of Dupont. It was originally apartments, then it was converted to offices, and now it should probably be converted back to apartments. There is lots of space around here! We just need to be smarter about how we use it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You win elections in Montgomery County by winning 20,000 votes (out of a county of 1 million) in an At Large primary with 33 candidates, nearly all from Takoma Park and Silver precincts (same voters voting for same candidates) or about 6,000 votes in a district primary where having $$$ donors is a huge advantage.

Maybe people who live in other parts of the county should work harder at getting voters to vote.

In 2018, in the Democratic primary, of the at-large county council candidates, Hans Riemer got 54,584 votes, Will Jawando got 43,154 votes, Evan Glass got 35,600 votes, and Gabe Albornoz got 33,050 votes.

Or the county could align their elections with Presidential Election years, in order to maximize turnout to give everyone a voice. Any idea why they don't do that? Are they not interested in maximizing Democracy?

The Maryland constitution requires General Assembly elections to be held every 4 years, starting in 1958 (which was not a presidential year).

Similarly, the Maryland constitution requires gubernatorial elections to be held every 4 years, starting in 1974 (which was not a presidential year).

The Montgomery County charter says that the County Council and the County Executive serve four-year terms, and Montgomery County local elections have been held every four years since at least 1934 (which was not a presidential year). If you think that Montgomery County local elections should be held in presidential years, maybe you should look into whether a charter amendment would make that possible.

There is plenty of housing. You are just being too picky.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You win elections in Montgomery County by winning 20,000 votes (out of a county of 1 million) in an At Large primary with 33 candidates, nearly all from Takoma Park and Silver precincts (same voters voting for same candidates) or about 6,000 votes in a district primary where having $$$ donors is a huge advantage.

Maybe people who live in other parts of the county should work harder at getting voters to vote.

In 2018, in the Democratic primary, of the at-large county council candidates, Hans Riemer got 54,584 votes, Will Jawando got 43,154 votes, Evan Glass got 35,600 votes, and Gabe Albornoz got 33,050 votes.

Lol. So when a pro-developer candidate wins, it has nothing to do with the candidate being in favor of his big donors? Instead it’s everyone else’s fault?

Fault? When a candidate wins, it's because that candidate got the most votes. So whether or not the candidate favors policies that are "pro-developer" in your opinion, and whether or not donations from developers are the reason for the candidate's position, the fact is: the most voters voted for that candidate.

Anonymous wrote:
LOL, we live in a capitalist country. I'm not sure you can call people 'selfish' for trying to better themselves and leave something to their families within that framework.

"How dare you call me 'selfish' for doing everything I can to keep as much wealth as possible for myself!"

That's like...literally the definition of selfish...

And justifying selfishness because it's acceptable within the framework of a system defined by selfishness... Could you be any less self-aware?

Cheh is the biggest pro-developer force on the council

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You win elections in Montgomery County by winning 20,000 votes (out of a county of 1 million) in an At Large primary with 33 candidates, nearly all from Takoma Park and Silver precincts (same voters voting for same candidates) or about 6,000 votes in a district primary where having $$$ donors is a huge advantage.

Maybe people who live in other parts of the county should work harder at getting voters to vote.

In 2018, in the Democratic primary, of the at-large county council candidates, Hans Riemer got 54,584 votes, Will Jawando got 43,154 votes, Evan Glass got 35,600 votes, and Gabe Albornoz got 33,050 votes.

Lol. So when a pro-developer candidate wins, it has nothing to do with the candidate being in favor of his big donors? Instead it’s everyone else’s fault?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You win elections in Montgomery County by winning 20,000 votes (out of a county of 1 million) in an At Large primary with 33 candidates, nearly all from Takoma Park and Silver precincts (same voters voting for same candidates) or about 6,000 votes in a district primary where having $$$ donors is a huge advantage.

Maybe people who live in other parts of the county should work harder at getting voters to vote.

In 2018, in the Democratic primary, of the at-large county council candidates, Hans Riemer got 54,584 votes, Will Jawando got 43,154 votes, Evan Glass got 35,600 votes, and Gabe Albornoz got 33,050 votes.

Or the county could align their elections with Presidential Election years, in order to maximize turnout to give everyone a voice. Any idea why they don't do that? Are they not interested in maximizing Democracy?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL, we live in a capitalist country. I'm not sure you can call people 'selfish' for trying to better themselves and leave something to their families within that framework.

+1. If so, pretty much everyone is selfish. For those of us who worked hard to own our own homes (meaning Daddy didn’t buy it for us), our homes are our most important asset. I’m not a Republican, but I sure as hell care about how much my home is worth.

But do you want to live in a society where the main principle of government's housing and land use policy is: maximizing property values for current homeowners?

But that’s not currently the main principle, and it never will be. Politicians are much more influenced by the developers who make the big donations, for example, than your average DCUM NIMBY.

I don't think that's true, actually. I think the NIMBYs have an enormous influence. Or rather, the people who show up at meetings have an enormous influence, and that tends to be NIMBYs. Developers may write checks, but that doesn't translate into votes, and votes are what you need to win an election.

The outcomes tell a different story. Land use outcomes suggest that maximizing developer profit is the highest priority for decision makers, not placating NIMBYs or YIMBYs, who are useful pawns for developers.

Anonymous wrote:
You win elections in Montgomery County by winning 20,000 votes (out of a county of 1 million) in an At Large primary with 33 candidates, nearly all from Takoma Park and Silver precincts (same voters voting for same candidates) or about 6,000 votes in a district primary where having $$$ donors is a huge advantage.

Maybe people who live in other parts of the county should work harder at getting voters to vote.

In 2018, in the Democratic primary, of the at-large county council candidates, Hans Riemer got 54,584 votes, Will Jawando got 43,154 votes, Evan Glass got 35,600 votes, and Gabe Albornoz got 33,050 votes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL, we live in a capitalist country. I'm not sure you can call people 'selfish' for trying to better themselves and leave something to their families within that framework.

+1. If so, pretty much everyone is selfish. For those of us who worked hard to own our own homes (meaning Daddy didn’t buy it for us), our homes are our most important asset. I’m not a Republican, but I sure as hell care about how much my home is worth.

But do you want to live in a society where the main principle of government's housing and land use policy is: maximizing property values for current homeowners?

But that’s not currently the main principle, and it never will be. Politicians are much more influenced by the developers who make the big donations, for example, than your average DCUM NIMBY.

I don't think that's true, actually. I think the NIMBYs have an enormous influence. Or rather, the people who show up at meetings have an enormous influence, and that tends to be NIMBYs. Developers may write checks, but that doesn't translate into votes, and votes are what you need to win an election.

To think politicians care more about regular people than their big donors is preciously naive. I appreciate that kind of almost childlike optimism.

It's not childlike optimism, it's following and observing local politics and local elections. You don't win elections with big donors. Just ask Montgomery County executive Nancy Floreen and Montgomery County Board of Education member Steve Austin.

You win elections in Montgomery County by winning 20,000 votes (out of a county of 1 million) in an At Large primary with 33 candidates, nearly all from Takoma Park and Silver precincts (same voters voting for same candidates) or about 6,000 votes in a district primary where having $$$ donors is a huge advantage.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL, we live in a capitalist country. I'm not sure you can call people 'selfish' for trying to better themselves and leave something to their families within that framework.

+1. If so, pretty much everyone is selfish. For those of us who worked hard to own our own homes (meaning Daddy didn’t buy it for us), our homes are our most important asset. I’m not a Republican, but I sure as hell care about how much my home is worth.

But do you want to live in a society where the main principle of government's housing and land use policy is: maximizing property values for current homeowners?

But that’s not currently the main principle, and it never will be. Politicians are much more influenced by the developers who make the big donations, for example, than your average DCUM NIMBY.

I don't think that's true, actually. I think the NIMBYs have an enormous influence. Or rather, the people who show up at meetings have an enormous influence, and that tends to be NIMBYs. Developers may write checks, but that doesn't translate into votes, and votes are what you need to win an election.

To think politicians care more about regular people than their big donors is preciously naive. I appreciate that kind of almost childlike optimism.

It's not childlike optimism, it's following and observing local politics and local elections. You don't win elections with big donors. Just ask Montgomery County executive Nancy Floreen and Montgomery County Board of Education member Steve Austin.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL, we live in a capitalist country. I'm not sure you can call people 'selfish' for trying to better themselves and leave something to their families within that framework.

+1. If so, pretty much everyone is selfish. For those of us who worked hard to own our own homes (meaning Daddy didn’t buy it for us), our homes are our most important asset. I’m not a Republican, but I sure as hell care about how much my home is worth.

But do you want to live in a society where the main principle of government's housing and land use policy is: maximizing property values for current homeowners?

But that’s not currently the main principle, and it never will be. Politicians are much more influenced by the developers who make the big donations, for example, than your average DCUM NIMBY.

I don't think that's true, actually. I think the NIMBYs have an enormous influence. Or rather, the people who show up at meetings have an enormous influence, and that tends to be NIMBYs. Developers may write checks, but that doesn't translate into votes, and votes are what you need to win an election.

To think politicians care more about regular people than their big donors is preciously naive. I appreciate that kind of almost childlike optimism.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL, we live in a capitalist country. I'm not sure you can call people 'selfish' for trying to better themselves and leave something to their families within that framework.

+1. If so, pretty much everyone is selfish. For those of us who worked hard to own our own homes (meaning Daddy didn’t buy it for us), our homes are our most important asset. I’m not a Republican, but I sure as hell care about how much my home is worth.

But do you want to live in a society where the main principle of government's housing and land use policy is: maximizing property values for current homeowners?

But that’s not currently the main principle, and it never will be. Politicians are much more influenced by the developers who make the big donations, for example, than your average DCUM NIMBY.

I don't think that's true, actually. I think the NIMBYs have an enormous influence. Or rather, the people who show up at meetings have an enormous influence, and that tends to be NIMBYs. Developers may write checks, but that doesn't translate into votes, and votes are what you need to win an election.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

LOL, we live in a capitalist country. I'm not sure you can call people 'selfish' for trying to better themselves and leave something to their families within that framework.

+1. If so, pretty much everyone is selfish. For those of us who worked hard to own our own homes (meaning Daddy didn’t buy it for us), our homes are our most important asset. I’m not a Republican, but I sure as hell care about how much my home is worth.

But do you want to live in a society where the main principle of government's housing and land use policy is: maximizing property values for current homeowners?