Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

A good neighborhood...one that is safe, quiet and very well maintained by homeowners or the neighborhood association. I would gladly pay substantially more to my association if there was a way to protect the current status of my close in neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't fleeing Moco yet as these idiotic, everyone is a winner, policies haven't come to their front door yet.

Housing does provide oppotunity...but it doesn't need to be in the areas most expensive places. It makes no sense. Why is it bad that people don't want density? I guess people always want what they can't have

Because it just so happens that the expensive areas are that way in part because of proximity to metro. More density near metro —> fewer cars.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

A good neighborhood...one that is safe, quiet and very well maintained by homeowners or the neighborhood association. I would gladly pay substantially more to my association if there was a way to protect the current status of my close in neighborhood.

Wealthy people aren't fleeing Moco yet as these idiotic, everyone is a winner, policies haven't come to their front door yet.

Housing does provide oppotunity...but it doesn't need to be in the areas most expensive places. It makes no sense. Why is it bad that people don't want density? I guess people always want what they can't have

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

Agree. So many empty office buildings. Those are much better suited to convert into apartments. They converted a hotel off 270 around Shady Grove into an apartment. That makes more sense.

FWIW, I'm not opposed to duplexes or apts. I'm actually thinking of moving into a duplex when I retire.

Who says it has to be one OR the other? It can be both. Owners of empty office buildings can build multi-unit housing. Owners of strip malls can build multi-unit housing. Owners of motels can build multi-unit housing. And owners of one-unit housing can build multi-unit housing.

As a PP pointed out, there is already a dearth of available and affordable SFH. Start with multiuse buildings and convert them.

Single-family-only zoning is not preserving available and affordable SFHs. All it's doing is encouraging McMansions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

Agree. So many empty office buildings. Those are much better suited to convert into apartments. They converted a hotel off 270 around Shady Grove into an apartment. That makes more sense.

FWIW, I'm not opposed to duplexes or apts. I'm actually thinking of moving into a duplex when I retire.

Who says it has to be one OR the other? It can be both. Owners of empty office buildings can build multi-unit housing. Owners of strip malls can build multi-unit housing. Owners of motels can build multi-unit housing. And owners of one-unit housing can build multi-unit housing.

As a PP pointed out, there is already a dearth of available and affordable SFH. Start with multiuse buildings and convert them.

Single-family-only zoning is not preserving available and affordable SFHs. All it's doing is encouraging McMansions.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Lots to unpack here...
1. How do you define "good neighborhood"?
2. We agree! Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that anybody has a right to live in any particular place....including no rule that the place where people currently live can't change.
3. The hellscape you describe of trash-ridden streets is not born out by research or experience, and can absolutely be mitigated by policy choices.
4. There is no indication that wealthy people are fleeing MoCo at any significant rate. More people means more tax base, and more business and more jobs.
5. Providing housing and opportunity decreases poverty.

This view really really just boils down to not liking change.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

I don't know where the county council members live, but I do know that the Montgomery County Council does not have the authority to change the zoning in the City of Takoma Park or the Town of Kensington, because both are incorporated municipalities that have their own planning and zoning authority.

TP and Kensington as well as Rockville municipalities need to be dismantled then. Council members for the county cannot live in those little protected enclaves but then get to dominate and govern everyone outside of their protected borders. It's total hypocrisy. There should only be one governing body for the entire county if pols from the county are going to run the county. You can live in DC and run for office in MoCo, so why should we allow people in TP, Rockville, Kensington etc govern the county if none of the stuff they pass affects them while they get to dictate how people in Silver Spring get to live, for example.

Land use is only one small part of the decisions that County Councilmembers make. The rest of the decisions impact the municipalities (ie school funding)

Also, elected officials at all levels make decisions that affect areas other than the one in which they live. You know this.

Except council members conveniently protect themselves from all of their crappy land use decisions by living in protected enclaves. It's total hypocrisy. You want upzoning in MoCo? Fine, start upzoning ALL of Takoma Park, Kensington, etc. first. You're in MoCo too. No exceptions. Period.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

Agree. So many empty office buildings. Those are much better suited to convert into apartments. They converted a hotel off 270 around Shady Grove into an apartment. That makes more sense.

FWIW, I'm not opposed to duplexes or apts. I'm actually thinking of moving into a duplex when I retire.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

Agree. So many empty office buildings. Those are much better suited to convert into apartments. They converted a hotel off 270 around Shady Grove into an apartment. That makes more sense.

FWIW, I'm not opposed to duplexes or apts. I'm actually thinking of moving into a duplex when I retire.

Who says it has to be one OR the other? It can be both. Owners of empty office buildings can build multi-unit housing. Owners of strip malls can build multi-unit housing. Owners of motels can build multi-unit housing. And owners of one-unit housing can build multi-unit housing.

As a PP pointed out, there is already a dearth of available and affordable SFH. Start with multiuse buildings and convert them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

Agree. So many empty office buildings. Those are much better suited to convert into apartments. They converted a hotel off 270 around Shady Grove into an apartment. That makes more sense.

FWIW, I'm not opposed to duplexes or apts. I'm actually thinking of moving into a duplex when I retire.

Who says it has to be one OR the other? It can be both. Owners of empty office buildings can build multi-unit housing. Owners of strip malls can build multi-unit housing. Owners of motels can build multi-unit housing. And owners of one-unit housing can build multi-unit housing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

I don't know where the county council members live, but I do know that the Montgomery County Council does not have the authority to change the zoning in the City of Takoma Park or the Town of Kensington, because both are incorporated municipalities that have their own planning and zoning authority.

TP and Kensington as well as Rockville municipalities need to be dismantled then. Council members for the county cannot live in those little protected enclaves but then get to dominate and govern everyone outside of their protected borders. It's total hypocrisy. There should only be one governing body for the entire county if pols from the county are going to run the county. You can live in DC and run for office in MoCo, so why should we allow people in TP, Rockville, Kensington etc govern the county if none of the stuff they pass affects them while they get to dictate how people in Silver Spring get to live, for example.

Land use is only one small part of the decisions that County Councilmembers make. The rest of the decisions impact the municipalities (ie school funding)

Also, elected officials at all levels make decisions that affect areas other than the one in which they live. You know this.

Except council members conveniently protect themselves from all of their crappy land use decisions by living in protected enclaves. It's total hypocrisy. You want upzoning in MoCo? Fine, start upzoning ALL of Takoma Park, Kensington, etc. first. You're in MoCo too. No exceptions. Period.

Please list the councilmembers who live in "protected enclaves" aka incorporated municipalities with authority over land use.

I was just looking into this. I'm pretty sure the only member who *may* live in an incorporated municipality is Kate Stewart in TP.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Go ahead and keep saying stuff like that, ideally in public.

Are you the same goon that keeps implying that there will be some kind of thuggery in response to taxpayers and voters speaking their minds?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

So do lower income people who cannot afford to live in one of the most expensive areas in the entire country.

Why should we upend good neighborhoods so that poor people can afford to live in expensive areas? So much entitlement. Where in the Constitution does it say you have an inalienable right to live wherever you want?

The predictable happens where they create all of these multiplex housing units for n neighborhoods, quality of life decreases dramatically because now you have 25 cars parking all over for one single building, trash gets strewn everywhere because renters give zero Fs, schools inevitably go down as lower income students overwhelm the system, and crime goes up.

Then all of the wealthy people flee and the county's tax base implodes while they have simultaneously imported poverty who'll demand much more social services and require more intense govt spending. MoCo goes the way of Baltimore in terms of an imploding tax base and a jobs killing, tax raising govt that destroys everything good.

Go ahead and keep saying stuff like that, ideally in public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you. I will write to tell them that I support duplexes and small apartment buildings.

I support duplexes and small apartment buildings, but I don’t support razing existing SFHs to build them. Upzoning would make the shortage of SFHs even worse. There’s already so much wasted space in the county- ugly half empty strip malls, etc. that would be perfect for a new development. Start there.

The existing SFHs are ALREADY getting razed. It's just that they're getting replaced with McMansions instead of duplexes. I think it would be better to have duplexes.

Meanwhile, the "ugly half empty strip malls, etc." are ALREADY zoned for commercial/residential use, and some of the property owners are already building commercial/residential buildings on them. Other property owners aren't, presumably because the strip malls are more profitable, however ugly you may find them. Do you think the county should force the property owners to replace their strip malls with commercial/residential buildings?

Well I don't think they should force people who bought expensive homes in leafy SFH neighborhoods to have to deal with ugly duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes. Soo..I will side with the residential homeowner versus some gross strip mall

"Deal with" them how? They shouldn't have to look at them? They shouldn't have to live near them? They shouldn't have to have neighbors who live in them?

yes to all of the above

We all spent $2M + to get out of the DC density...I'd like to keep it that way. There are plenty of more suburban areas that are cheaper to develop.

You have the option to move.

And people who can't afford close in Moco can move as well...how is your argument any different than mine?

I want to live on the beach in Nantucket. I can't so I buy elsewhere.

I think everyone understands that rich people have options poor people don't have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't some council members live in protected historic zones in neighborhoods like Takoma Park or Kensington?

If they want to upzone, they should be forced to put their money where their mouths are and upzone all historic districts as well. No exceptions. Up zone the council members' hoods too.

I don't know where the county council members live, but I do know that the Montgomery County Council does not have the authority to change the zoning in the City of Takoma Park or the Town of Kensington, because both are incorporated municipalities that have their own planning and zoning authority.

TP and Kensington as well as Rockville municipalities need to be dismantled then. Council members for the county cannot live in those little protected enclaves but then get to dominate and govern everyone outside of their protected borders. It's total hypocrisy. There should only be one governing body for the entire county if pols from the county are going to run the county. You can live in DC and run for office in MoCo, so why should we allow people in TP, Rockville, Kensington etc govern the county if none of the stuff they pass affects them while they get to dictate how people in Silver Spring get to live, for example.

Land use is only one small part of the decisions that County Councilmembers make. The rest of the decisions impact the municipalities (ie school funding)

Also, elected officials at all levels make decisions that affect areas other than the one in which they live. You know this.

Except council members conveniently protect themselves from all of their crappy land use decisions by living in protected enclaves. It's total hypocrisy. You want upzoning in MoCo? Fine, start upzoning ALL of Takoma Park, Kensington, etc. first. You're in MoCo too. No exceptions. Period.

Please list the councilmembers who live in "protected enclaves" aka incorporated municipalities with authority over land use.