Anonymous wrote:Hopefully Montgomery county is paying attention and stops their moronic plan

No Marylanders just aren’t that bright.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nimbys are the worst. Seriously. You’re ruining this country.

How is this ruining the country? Because people need to live in areas that comport with their affordability instead of the government trying to get everyone a prize at the expense of current homeowners? No one has a right to live in Arlington. It’s a very nice and expensive place.

I would love a house in Newport Beach. I can’t afford a $8M house so I don’t live there.

because EVERYTHING that is a common good gets opposed by NIMBYs. Preschools, high schools, sidewalks, solar powed, waste treatment plants …

None of this is true for Arlington. There were arguments about the high school, but not because people didn’t want it in their backyard but because they wanted a school that was equivalent to the existing high schools like W-L, Yorktown and Wakefield and the County, per usual, wouldn’t do that. They forced all these other 1/2 a$$ options on people. I’d love to hear about the preschool and solar power that Arlington NIMBYs scrapped. I’ve lived here over twenty years.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully Montgomery county is paying attention and stops their moronic plan

I think that Friedson is already signaling that it could be scaled back significantly. He’s seen the amount and intensity of the opposition and he knows that much of MOCO has very deep pockets to support a lawsuit. He’s pretty young and I think that he’s got to have political aspirations beyond this.

MoCo's initiative far outstrips Arlington's. The MoCo Council approach has been to put the truly outrageous out there and then pull back to the merely ridiculous, hoping that their "moderation" makes that palatable and any continuing opposition somehow unreasonable. Anything between ridiculoua and outrageous they get would be icing on the cake for density boosters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nimbys are the worst. Seriously. You’re ruining this country.

How is this ruining the country? Because people need to live in areas that comport with their affordability instead of the government trying to get everyone a prize at the expense of current homeowners? No one has a right to live in Arlington. It’s a very nice and expensive place.

I would love a house in Newport Beach. I can’t afford a $8M house so I don’t live there.

because EVERYTHING that is a common good gets opposed by NIMBYs. Preschools, high schools, sidewalks, solar powed, waste treatment plants …

I agree to some extent. All for solar, better infrastructure, etc but eliminating SFH zoning is not needed. There is plenty of room to build up - apts, condos, etc. people here just look down on those types of homes. Everywhere Else in the world, a condo is a fine place to live. Wealthier people live in the larger suburban homes, most live in condos/apts. le

But the choices should not be limited to 1000 sqft condo or 4000 sqft SFH. It would be nice to have more housing in the middle.

So maybe you need to do what the rest of us did and buy a small 1.5 bath colonial fixer-upper or a small 2 bed ranch with an original kitchen and bath? Only the new construction is 4000 sqft for a SFH. And consider existing duplexes and townhomes in South Arlington, also like we did. Put in some sweat equity and make a profit.

But if MM stands, all those existing homes will be torn down to make way for new construction that is unaffordable to anyone in the middle, regardless of sqft. Whether it’s a 4000 sqft SFH or a six-plex, it’s not going to make a real dent in affordability or the regional housing crisis with a cap of 50 per year. It’s just enough to piss off current residents when parking and tree canopy and storm water and school crowding aren’t addressed simultaneously. We need many, many more high rises in the R-B corridor and “National Landing” and there’s lots of office space that is sitting empty that could make an actual dent in housing and affordability and transit access without upsetting the entire SFH resident owner population. Unless, of course, you’re not actually interested in solving these issues.

WOOOHOOO!

No more traffic needed on my street! I saved long to pay for my quiet street.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nimbys are the worst. Seriously. You’re ruining this country.

How is this ruining the country? Because people need to live in areas that comport with their affordability instead of the government trying to get everyone a prize at the expense of current homeowners? No one has a right to live in Arlington. It’s a very nice and expensive place.

I would love a house in Newport Beach. I can’t afford a $8M house so I don’t live there.

because EVERYTHING that is a common good gets opposed by NIMBYs. Preschools, high schools, sidewalks, solar powed, waste treatment plants …

What are you blathering on about? There's many people asking for more schools and school funding ballot initiatives are usually successful. Nobody ever wants to fund risk management like sewer systems. That's why those costs are often pushed onto developers.

The criticisms are all valid and true. It seems absurd to pretend that they don't exist. Why not just address them?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people objecting to MM are the people complaining that there aren't enough workers to support their quality of life.

Who is going to commute two hours or more to make your Panera sandwich?

yep. and teachers and nurses and long waits in the ER …

None of the MM proposal would actually address affordable housing. It’s a handout to developers.

Opponents do not support MMH because they believe it would bring in people who are less wealthy who would drive down property values. They would oppose the initiative even if the county limited sales of MM units to people with incomes below a certain threshold.

It’s all about property value and keeping cars off their street. They don’t actually care about trees or infrastructure capacity.

So propose something that definitively addresses infrastructure capacity, ensures that the benefits of the regulation adopted accrue to those with that kind of income threshold need or the like, and is presented with thorough considerations of alternatives towards those ends. See how many fewer objections are raised.

The fact that these initiatives don't do that points either to poor reasoning for the population at large or to well considered reasoning...for developers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The same people objecting to MM are the people complaining that there aren't enough workers to support their quality of life.

Who is going to commute two hours or more to make your Panera sandwich?

yep. and teachers and nurses and long waits in the ER …

None of the MM proposal would actually address affordable housing. It’s a handout to developers.

Opponents do not support MMH because they believe it would bring in people who are less wealthy who would drive down property values. They would oppose the initiative even if the county limited sales of MM units to people with incomes below a certain threshold.

It’s all about property value and keeping cars off their street. They don’t actually care about trees or infrastructure capacity.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nimbys are the worst. Seriously. You’re ruining this country.

How is this ruining the country? Because people need to live in areas that comport with their affordability instead of the government trying to get everyone a prize at the expense of current homeowners? No one has a right to live in Arlington. It’s a very nice and expensive place.

I would love a house in Newport Beach. I can’t afford a $8M house so I don’t live there.

because EVERYTHING that is a common good gets opposed by NIMBYs. Preschools, high schools, sidewalks, solar powed, waste treatment plants …

I agree to some extent. All for solar, better infrastructure, etc but eliminating SFH zoning is not needed. There is plenty of room to build up - apts, condos, etc. people here just look down on those types of homes. Everywhere Else in the world, a condo is a fine place to live. Wealthier people live in the larger suburban homes, most live in condos/apts. le

But the choices should not be limited to 1000 sqft condo or 4000 sqft SFH. It would be nice to have more housing in the middle.

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully Montgomery county is paying attention and stops their moronic plan

I think that Friedson is already signaling that it could be scaled back significantly. He’s seen the amount and intensity of the opposition and he knows that much of MOCO has very deep pockets to support a lawsuit. He’s pretty young and I think that he’s got to have political aspirations beyond this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ha. Ha. I love it.

https://www.arlnow.com/2024/09/27/breaking-judge-overturns-missing-middle-zoning-changes/

Judge David Schell, born in 1949. Of course it's some ancient boomer on the bench who is over-turning a ruling to try to right the wrongs of the suburban 1-unit dwelling development boom that's been occurring for his entire life and has resulted in housing unaffordability throughout the country, despite the recent election where this was a stark defining point between the two candidates and where the pro-reform candidate won 52% to 43% versus the anti-reform candidate.

Birth control and immigration control is the only way to lower housing costs. Building more housing just makes more people want to move in.

Look at NYC. Incredibly dense and incredibly expensive.

Rents are actually not that different in parts of NYC plus you don’t need a car. And most people move to NYC because of the quality of the job opportunities and culture, which are created by density.

Haha! Spoken like someone who has never had to live and rent in NYC. $2K+ a month for a 300 square foot apartment where your bathroom and kitchen are a couple of feet apart. Yeah, rents aren’t that different.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They basically want to turn the whole DMV into Mexico City. No, I do not mean that in a disparaging ethic way, but they’ll try to jam pack way too many people in a certain area just like Mexico City. And guess what’s happening to MC? The entire city is sinking because infrastructure can’t handle water and sewage demand. The city is going to collapse because there will be no more water.

Maybe, just maybe, not everyone has the god given right to live wherever they want, when they want. You build infrastructure up to a certain level with a limit. You can only sustain a population up to that limit. If you can’t afford to live there due to limit on capacity, then you simply find more affordable, less dense areas to live. The U.S. is massive. I don’t understand why we insist on making certain areas extremely dense when there is huge amounts of room and space elsewhere available that’s already far more affordable. You can live in PA, WV, or OH for much more affordable housing.

You can live in PA or OH if you want a massive SFH with a giant yard. You don’t get to both live close to an urban center and demand other people cannot live there.

That would work, perhaps, if the discussion was about two people looking to move, one into more density and one into less. You're telling that second person to leave their home, with all the life invested there, if they don't like your solution to accommodating the first, who plans to move from their current abode anyway.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nimbys are the worst. Seriously. You’re ruining this country.

How is this ruining the country? Because people need to live in areas that comport with their affordability instead of the government trying to get everyone a prize at the expense of current homeowners? No one has a right to live in Arlington. It’s a very nice and expensive place.

I would love a house in Newport Beach. I can’t afford a $8M house so I don’t live there.

because EVERYTHING that is a common good gets opposed by NIMBYs. Preschools, high schools, sidewalks, solar powed, waste treatment plants …

I agree to some extent. All for solar, better infrastructure, etc but eliminating SFH zoning is not needed. There is plenty of room to build up - apts, condos, etc. people here just look down on those types of homes. Everywhere Else in the world, a condo is a fine place to live. Wealthier people live in the larger suburban homes, most live in condos/apts. le

Hopefully Montgomery county is paying attention and stops their moronic plan

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nimbys are the worst. Seriously. You’re ruining this country.

How is this ruining the country? Because people need to live in areas that comport with their affordability instead of the government trying to get everyone a prize at the expense of current homeowners? No one has a right to live in Arlington. It’s a very nice and expensive place.

I would love a house in Newport Beach. I can’t afford a $8M house so I don’t live there.

because EVERYTHING that is a common good gets opposed by NIMBYs. Preschools, high schools, sidewalks, solar powed, waste treatment plants …