Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at her camp with these fake posts while her polls are in the toilet.

MAGA weirdos really hate it when Democratic politicians actually help working families.

By raising taxes?

Educate yourself: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/04/15/abigail-spanberger-tax-increases-fact-check/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look at her camp with these fake posts while her polls are in the toilet.

MAGA weirdos really hate it when Democratic politicians actually help working families.

By raising taxes?

Anonymous wrote:Look at her camp with these fake posts while her polls are in the toilet.

MAGA weirdos really hate it when Democratic politicians actually help working families.

Look at her camp with these fake posts while her polls are in the toilet.

Governor Spanberger signed several bills to address high costs of energy and other utilities:

· HB284 (Delegate Michael Feggans), SB371(Senator Jeremy McPike) — Requiring Dominion Energy and Appalachian Power to develop voluntary demand flexibility programs for high energy demand customers. Passed with bipartisan support.

· HB507 (Delegate John McAuliff) — Setting stricter emissions standards for data center generators to reduce air pollution from the Commonwealth’s growing data center sector. Passed with bipartisan support.

· HB683 (Delegate Charniele Herring), SB659(Senator Christie New Craig) — Creating the Solar Interconnection Grant Program to provide additional assistance for schools and city buildings looking to utilize solar projects to offset costs. Passed with bipartisan support.

· HB770 (Delegate Charniele Herring), SB650(Senator David Marsden) — Allowing water and sewer utilities to offer discounted rates for low-income customers. Passed with bipartisan support.

· HB1360 (Delegate Irene Shin) — Requiring investor-owned utilities to provide greater transparency on coal and oil generating units in rate proceedings. Passed unanimously.

· HB1144 (Delegate Marty Martinez) — Allowing localities to reduce or waive water and sewer fees for first-time homebuyers and affordable housing developments. Passed with bipartisan support.

· HB242 (Delegate Joshua Cole) — Prohibits public utilities from increasing monthly payments more than once a year for customers enrolled in a budget plan. Passed with bipartisan support.

· HB1002 (Delegate Kathy Tran) — Prohibits some utilities from disconnecting residential customers without attempting to arrange a payment plan or connect a customer with bill payment assistance or energy savings programs. Passed with bipartisan support.

Anonymous wrote:Anytime th govt gives out money or set minimal wages it doesn't last and eventually those people will cause that to be the poverty level and cause inflation. There is no way to force the poors up and stop the prices from going up to accommodate

False.

https://www.epi.org/blog/inflation-minimum-wages-and-profits-protecting-low-wage-workers-from-inflation-means-raising-the-minimum-wage/

Minimum wage increases have trivial effects on inflation
Some claim to worry that raising the minimum wage might exacerbate our current inflation problem. This is not a serious concern. Consider the Raise the Wage Act, which would raise the minimum wage to $15 in five steps by 2027 and would be indexed to growth in median wages thereafter. If every penny of this higher minimum wage fed directly into higher prices—that is, none of it was financed by higher productivity or lower profits—the move to $15 would create a one-time step-increase in the overall price level of less than 0.5%. Spread over five years, this implies an average boost to inflation of less than 0.1% per year, after which it would fade to near-zero. This is completely trivial. Over the past two years, inflation has run at a rate about 100 times faster than this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, she did not veto any of the biker bro density bills. You can kiss your peaceful quiet neighborhoods goodbye. Almost every property owned by a church is now open season for high density apartment towers. Another law will eliminate single family zoning in many neighborhoods and require a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq ft with duplexes, which is a density of 29 units per acre.

This also stacks with the bill requiring ADUs by right in all residential areas, so technically you could build a fourplex two duplexes each with a separate ADU on a 3000 sq ft lot at. Density of 58 units per acre is now required for what used to be a single family neighborhood.

Lot coverage requirements still apply, brainiac.

They no longer apply to the single family zoning category sacrificed under the bill. Minimum width for lots under this bill is capped at 30 ft. The bill practically require zero lot line setbacks.

Those are just for small lot residential zoning districts, not all zoning.

They are trying to promote density near transit districts. That's great to reduce traffic, pollution, and energy consumption.

If they wanted density near transit, then maybe they shouldn’t have been data centers near a bunch of silver line metro stops. The truth is that only certain people want to live in shoeboxes near metro stations, and we already have enough apartments for all of them. Most of the density push is from people who want to give free housing to moochers who will drain county services.

False. There are limited housing options for families near metro stations.

"Moochers"? WTF is wrong with you?

*families* don't want to live in apartments in DC metro area. They want SFHs and THs. These sit on land, which is limited especially land around transit hubs, jobs centers (or convenient commute to more job hubs), areas of low crime and good schools. It's what most "families" want. Not 2 bedroom condos, which they can afford today in many areas of DC, near transit and amenities. It's not Manhattan where family living in apartments is normalized, and people have the expectation that it's the only way to live (given townhomes are in many millions).

Exactly. Families don’t want existing 1-2 BR apts, which is why having more options (THs, duplexes, etc) near transit areas is beneficial.

This law doesn't no link zoning requirements to transit proximity in any way. They are requiring localities to change existing single family zoning rules, when most of these zoning categories are not near public transit.

Anytime th govt gives out money or set minimal wages it doesn't last and eventually those people will cause that to be the poverty level and cause inflation. There is no way to force the poors up and stop the prices from going up to accommodate

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, she did not veto any of the biker bro density bills. You can kiss your peaceful quiet neighborhoods goodbye. Almost every property owned by a church is now open season for high density apartment towers. Another law will eliminate single family zoning in many neighborhoods and require a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq ft with duplexes, which is a density of 29 units per acre.

This also stacks with the bill requiring ADUs by right in all residential areas, so technically you could build a fourplex two duplexes each with a separate ADU on a 3000 sq ft lot at. Density of 58 units per acre is now required for what used to be a single family neighborhood.

Lot coverage requirements still apply, brainiac.

They no longer apply to the single family zoning category sacrificed under the bill. Minimum width for lots under this bill is capped at 30 ft. The bill practically require zero lot line setbacks.

Those are just for small lot residential zoning districts, not all zoning.

They are trying to promote density near transit districts. That's great to reduce traffic, pollution, and energy consumption.

If they wanted density near transit, then maybe they shouldn’t have been data centers near a bunch of silver line metro stops. The truth is that only certain people want to live in shoeboxes near metro stations, and we already have enough apartments for all of them. Most of the density push is from people who want to give free housing to moochers who will drain county services.

False. There are limited housing options for families near metro stations.

"Moochers"? WTF is wrong with you?

*families* don't want to live in apartments in DC metro area. They want SFHs and THs. These sit on land, which is limited especially land around transit hubs, jobs centers (or convenient commute to more job hubs), areas of low crime and good schools. It's what most "families" want. Not 2 bedroom condos, which they can afford today in many areas of DC, near transit and amenities. It's not Manhattan where family living in apartments is normalized, and people have the expectation that it's the only way to live (given townhomes are in many millions).

Exactly. Families don’t want existing 1-2 BR apts, which is why having more options (THs, duplexes, etc) near transit areas is beneficial.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, she did not veto any of the biker bro density bills. You can kiss your peaceful quiet neighborhoods goodbye. Almost every property owned by a church is now open season for high density apartment towers. Another law will eliminate single family zoning in many neighborhoods and require a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq ft with duplexes, which is a density of 29 units per acre.

This also stacks with the bill requiring ADUs by right in all residential areas, so technically you could build a fourplex two duplexes each with a separate ADU on a 3000 sq ft lot at. Density of 58 units per acre is now required for what used to be a single family neighborhood.

Lot coverage requirements still apply, brainiac.

They no longer apply to the single family zoning category sacrificed under the bill. Minimum width for lots under this bill is capped at 30 ft. The bill practically require zero lot line setbacks.

Those are just for small lot residential zoning districts, not all zoning.

They are trying to promote density near transit districts. That's great to reduce traffic, pollution, and energy consumption.

If they wanted density near transit, then maybe they shouldn’t have been data centers near a bunch of silver line metro stops. The truth is that only certain people want to live in shoeboxes near metro stations, and we already have enough apartments for all of them. Most of the density push is from people who want to give free housing to moochers who will drain county services.

False. There are limited housing options for families near metro stations.

"Moochers"? WTF is wrong with you?

*families* don't want to live in apartments in DC metro area. They want SFHs and THs. These sit on land, which is limited especially land around transit hubs, jobs centers (or convenient commute to more job hubs), areas of low crime and good schools. It's what most "families" want. Not 2 bedroom condos, which they can afford today in many areas of DC, near transit and amenities. It's not Manhattan where family living in apartments is normalized, and people have the expectation that it's the only way to live (given townhomes are in many millions).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Weren’t posters asking what the Dems were going to do to improve affordability?

Here you go!

Removing caps on homeownership grants will not lower housing prices. It will increase demand and raise prices. I won't bother analyzing the rest of the tired and failed ideas on this list.

Lower housing prices of existing homes?

You misunderstand “affordability”.

That is literally what affordability is. Politicians don't campaign on making your house worth less, but that is how you make things more affordable. I think people will have buyers remorse when their property values plummet and they release they were duped.

And how is this going to happen exactly?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, she did not veto any of the biker bro density bills. You can kiss your peaceful quiet neighborhoods goodbye. Almost every property owned by a church is now open season for high density apartment towers. Another law will eliminate single family zoning in many neighborhoods and require a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq ft with duplexes, which is a density of 29 units per acre.

This also stacks with the bill requiring ADUs by right in all residential areas, so technically you could build a fourplex two duplexes each with a separate ADU on a 3000 sq ft lot at. Density of 58 units per acre is now required for what used to be a single family neighborhood.

Lot coverage requirements still apply, brainiac.

They no longer apply to the single family zoning category sacrificed under the bill. Minimum width for lots under this bill is capped at 30 ft. The bill practically require zero lot line setbacks.

Those are just for small lot residential zoning districts, not all zoning.

They are trying to promote density near transit districts. That's great to reduce traffic, pollution, and energy consumption.

If they wanted density near transit, then maybe they shouldn’t have been data centers near a bunch of silver line metro stops. The truth is that only certain people want to live in shoeboxes near metro stations, and we already have enough apartments for all of them. Most of the density push is from people who want to give free housing to moochers who will drain county services.

False. There are limited housing options for families near metro stations.

"Moochers"? WTF is wrong with you?

Maybe you should have spoken up when data centers were being built near silver line stations.

You mean, the one data center that is in walking distance to a Metro station?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, she did not veto any of the biker bro density bills. You can kiss your peaceful quiet neighborhoods goodbye. Almost every property owned by a church is now open season for high density apartment towers. Another law will eliminate single family zoning in many neighborhoods and require a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq ft with duplexes, which is a density of 29 units per acre.

This also stacks with the bill requiring ADUs by right in all residential areas, so technically you could build a fourplex two duplexes each with a separate ADU on a 3000 sq ft lot at. Density of 58 units per acre is now required for what used to be a single family neighborhood.

Lot coverage requirements still apply, brainiac.

They no longer apply to the single family zoning category sacrificed under the bill. Minimum width for lots under this bill is capped at 30 ft. The bill practically require zero lot line setbacks.

Those are just for small lot residential zoning districts, not all zoning.

They are trying to promote density near transit districts. That's great to reduce traffic, pollution, and energy consumption.

If they wanted density near transit, then maybe they shouldn’t have been data centers near a bunch of silver line metro stops. The truth is that only certain people want to live in shoeboxes near metro stations, and we already have enough apartments for all of them. Most of the density push is from people who want to give free housing to moochers who will drain county services.

False. There are limited housing options for families near metro stations.

"Moochers"? WTF is wrong with you?

Maybe you should have spoken up when data centers were being built near silver line stations.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, she did not veto any of the biker bro density bills. You can kiss your peaceful quiet neighborhoods goodbye. Almost every property owned by a church is now open season for high density apartment towers. Another law will eliminate single family zoning in many neighborhoods and require a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq ft with duplexes, which is a density of 29 units per acre.

This also stacks with the bill requiring ADUs by right in all residential areas, so technically you could build a fourplex two duplexes each with a separate ADU on a 3000 sq ft lot at. Density of 58 units per acre is now required for what used to be a single family neighborhood.

Lot coverage requirements still apply, brainiac.

They no longer apply to the single family zoning category sacrificed under the bill. Minimum width for lots under this bill is capped at 30 ft. The bill practically require zero lot line setbacks.

Those are just for small lot residential zoning districts, not all zoning.

They are trying to promote density near transit districts. That's great to reduce traffic, pollution, and energy consumption.

If they wanted density near transit, then maybe they shouldn’t have been data centers near a bunch of silver line metro stops. The truth is that only certain people want to live in shoeboxes near metro stations, and we already have enough apartments for all of them. Most of the density push is from people who want to give free housing to moochers who will drain county services.

False. There are limited housing options for families near metro stations.

"Moochers"? WTF is wrong with you?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unfortunately, she did not veto any of the biker bro density bills. You can kiss your peaceful quiet neighborhoods goodbye. Almost every property owned by a church is now open season for high density apartment towers. Another law will eliminate single family zoning in many neighborhoods and require a minimum lot size of 3,000 sq ft with duplexes, which is a density of 29 units per acre.

This also stacks with the bill requiring ADUs by right in all residential areas, so technically you could build a fourplex two duplexes each with a separate ADU on a 3000 sq ft lot at. Density of 58 units per acre is now required for what used to be a single family neighborhood.

Lot coverage requirements still apply, brainiac.

They no longer apply to the single family zoning category sacrificed under the bill. Minimum width for lots under this bill is capped at 30 ft. The bill practically require zero lot line setbacks.

Those are just for small lot residential zoning districts, not all zoning.

They are trying to promote density near transit districts. That's great to reduce traffic, pollution, and energy consumption.

If they wanted density near transit, then maybe they shouldn’t have been data centers near a bunch of silver line metro stops. The truth is that only certain people want to live in shoeboxes near metro stations, and we already have enough apartments for all of them. Most of the density push is from people who want to give free housing to moochers who will drain county services.