Please sign and share the petition against mismanaged and poorly thought out growth::

https://www.change.org/p/protect-single-family-zoning-in-montgomery-county

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

DP. If you really want to lower housing costs, you’ll internalize the entire article instead of selectively quoting it. There’s a lot in there that is contrary to YIMBY orthodoxy and other things that are contrary NIMBY orthodoxy. Both YIMBYs and NIMBYs have some good ideas, but the extremists who have dominated the discussion have delivered us the housing crisis.

I know a lot of YIMBYs, and none of them believe that zoning changes, alone, will fix the housing crisis, or that the market, alone, will fix the housing crisis. Maybe there are some YIMBYs who believe that, but I don't know any.

Then why do they almost exclusively focus on this? I think that it’s because it isn’t about housing at all, it’s based on some silly idea of exclusion, as if everyone should be able to live everywhere. If you can’t, darn it, it’s just not fair, MOMMY!

They don't. Why do you not notice the other things they support?

Should everyone be able to live everywhere? I don't think that's the right question. The right question is: should the government allow all types of housing in areas with housing? In my opinion, the answer is: yes.

Finally, some advice you didn't ask for: if you try to portray millennials as children, that won't help you advocate for your point of view. Who is currently raising children in Montgomery County? Millennials.

They don’t. As a matter of fact they argue amongst themselves about every other housing lever. This is just the one silly thing that they agree on and for some reason have really decided is THE ONE.

I’m sorry, who said anything about millennials? Millennials (and some GenX) compromise the majority of homeowners where I live, and they (for the most part) do not agree with this.

However, it is sort of funny that you projected that into your response.

So you occasionally accept that they are not a monolithic group. Got it.

True, but even your conservative analogues the MAGAs vary in style and substance, sometimes. However, what is very true is that the YIMBYs will burn their own as a witch if they dare to question the overall party line, upzoning included. They disagree about rent control, for example, but no one really goes out on their own to disagree because they’ve learned how nasty the YIMBYs can be if you dare to question the hive mind, just like every other group (like the people that want AFFORDABLE housing) has found out in California and elsewhere.

It is very true, if "very true" means "competely imaginary as imagined by you".

Another sad reply. Don’t you ever get tired of being embarrassed?

Honestly, for your sake, I hope that there is something else in your life in which you can build some level of competence.

I thought the goal was Copenhagen or Amsterdam.

The title of this thread really should be, Let’s turn America into China and the USSR. Then everyone would be equally miserable. That’s your goal, isn’t it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

DP. If you really want to lower housing costs, you’ll internalize the entire article instead of selectively quoting it. There’s a lot in there that is contrary to YIMBY orthodoxy and other things that are contrary NIMBY orthodoxy. Both YIMBYs and NIMBYs have some good ideas, but the extremists who have dominated the discussion have delivered us the housing crisis.

I know a lot of YIMBYs, and none of them believe that zoning changes, alone, will fix the housing crisis, or that the market, alone, will fix the housing crisis. Maybe there are some YIMBYs who believe that, but I don't know any.

Then why do they almost exclusively focus on this? I think that it’s because it isn’t about housing at all, it’s based on some silly idea of exclusion, as if everyone should be able to live everywhere. If you can’t, darn it, it’s just not fair, MOMMY!

They don't. Why do you not notice the other things they support?

Should everyone be able to live everywhere? I don't think that's the right question. The right question is: should the government allow all types of housing in areas with housing? In my opinion, the answer is: yes.

Finally, some advice you didn't ask for: if you try to portray millennials as children, that won't help you advocate for your point of view. Who is currently raising children in Montgomery County? Millennials.

They don’t. As a matter of fact they argue amongst themselves about every other housing lever. This is just the one silly thing that they agree on and for some reason have really decided is THE ONE.

I’m sorry, who said anything about millennials? Millennials (and some GenX) compromise the majority of homeowners where I live, and they (for the most part) do not agree with this.

However, it is sort of funny that you projected that into your response.

So you occasionally accept that they are not a monolithic group. Got it.

True, but even your conservative analogues the MAGAs vary in style and substance, sometimes. However, what is very true is that the YIMBYs will burn their own as a witch if they dare to question the overall party line, upzoning included. They disagree about rent control, for example, but no one really goes out on their own to disagree because they’ve learned how nasty the YIMBYs can be if you dare to question the hive mind, just like every other group (like the people that want AFFORDABLE housing) has found out in California and elsewhere.

It is very true, if "very true" means "competely imaginary as imagined by you".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Come on, who are you going to believe, the Harvard Business Review or some random blogs and Facebook posts written by awkward white millennials?

I’ll have you know that Greater Greater Washington is a highly respected blog format!

It’s the paid mouthpiece of the area development lobby.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

DP. If you really want to lower housing costs, you’ll internalize the entire article instead of selectively quoting it. There’s a lot in there that is contrary to YIMBY orthodoxy and other things that are contrary NIMBY orthodoxy. Both YIMBYs and NIMBYs have some good ideas, but the extremists who have dominated the discussion have delivered us the housing crisis.

I know a lot of YIMBYs, and none of them believe that zoning changes, alone, will fix the housing crisis, or that the market, alone, will fix the housing crisis. Maybe there are some YIMBYs who believe that, but I don't know any.

Then why do they almost exclusively focus on this? I think that it’s because it isn’t about housing at all, it’s based on some silly idea of exclusion, as if everyone should be able to live everywhere. If you can’t, darn it, it’s just not fair, MOMMY!

They don't. Why do you not notice the other things they support?

Should everyone be able to live everywhere? I don't think that's the right question. The right question is: should the government allow all types of housing in areas with housing? In my opinion, the answer is: yes.

Finally, some advice you didn't ask for: if you try to portray millennials as children, that won't help you advocate for your point of view. Who is currently raising children in Montgomery County? Millennials.

They don’t. As a matter of fact they argue amongst themselves about every other housing lever. This is just the one silly thing that they agree on and for some reason have really decided is THE ONE.

I’m sorry, who said anything about millennials? Millennials (and some GenX) compromise the majority of homeowners where I live, and they (for the most part) do not agree with this.

However, it is sort of funny that you projected that into your response.

So you occasionally accept that they are not a monolithic group. Got it.

True, but even your conservative analogues the MAGAs vary in style and substance, sometimes. However, what is very true is that the YIMBYs will burn their own as a witch if they dare to question the overall party line, upzoning included. They disagree about rent control, for example, but no one really goes out on their own to disagree because they’ve learned how nasty the YIMBYs can be if you dare to question the hive mind, just like every other group (like the people that want AFFORDABLE housing) has found out in California and elsewhere.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

DP. If you really want to lower housing costs, you’ll internalize the entire article instead of selectively quoting it. There’s a lot in there that is contrary to YIMBY orthodoxy and other things that are contrary NIMBY orthodoxy. Both YIMBYs and NIMBYs have some good ideas, but the extremists who have dominated the discussion have delivered us the housing crisis.

I know a lot of YIMBYs, and none of them believe that zoning changes, alone, will fix the housing crisis, or that the market, alone, will fix the housing crisis. Maybe there are some YIMBYs who believe that, but I don't know any.

Then why do they almost exclusively focus on this? I think that it’s because it isn’t about housing at all, it’s based on some silly idea of exclusion, as if everyone should be able to live everywhere. If you can’t, darn it, it’s just not fair, MOMMY!

They don't. Why do you not notice the other things they support?

Should everyone be able to live everywhere? I don't think that's the right question. The right question is: should the government allow all types of housing in areas with housing? In my opinion, the answer is: yes.

Finally, some advice you didn't ask for: if you try to portray millennials as children, that won't help you advocate for your point of view. Who is currently raising children in Montgomery County? Millennials.

They don’t. As a matter of fact they argue amongst themselves about every other housing lever. This is just the one silly thing that they agree on and for some reason have really decided is THE ONE.

I’m sorry, who said anything about millennials? Millennials (and some GenX) compromise the majority of homeowners where I live, and they (for the most part) do not agree with this.

However, it is sort of funny that you projected that into your response.

So you occasionally accept that they are not a monolithic group. Got it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

DP. If you really want to lower housing costs, you’ll internalize the entire article instead of selectively quoting it. There’s a lot in there that is contrary to YIMBY orthodoxy and other things that are contrary NIMBY orthodoxy. Both YIMBYs and NIMBYs have some good ideas, but the extremists who have dominated the discussion have delivered us the housing crisis.

I know a lot of YIMBYs, and none of them believe that zoning changes, alone, will fix the housing crisis, or that the market, alone, will fix the housing crisis. Maybe there are some YIMBYs who believe that, but I don't know any.

Then why do they almost exclusively focus on this? I think that it’s because it isn’t about housing at all, it’s based on some silly idea of exclusion, as if everyone should be able to live everywhere. If you can’t, darn it, it’s just not fair, MOMMY!

They don't. Why do you not notice the other things they support?

Should everyone be able to live everywhere? I don't think that's the right question. The right question is: should the government allow all types of housing in areas with housing? In my opinion, the answer is: yes.

Finally, some advice you didn't ask for: if you try to portray millennials as children, that won't help you advocate for your point of view. Who is currently raising children in Montgomery County? Millennials.

They don’t. As a matter of fact they argue amongst themselves about every other housing lever. This is just the one silly thing that they agree on and for some reason have really decided is THE ONE.

I’m sorry, who said anything about millennials? Millennials (and some GenX) compromise the majority of homeowners where I live, and they (for the most part) do not agree with this.

However, it is sort of funny that you projected that into your response.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

Well that is not consistent with YIMBYS property rights obsession. If people willing enter into an agreement about their own property with a covenant there is nothing wrong with that, assuming YIMBYS are logically consistent. They are not though, many of them want to ban covenants too, because they want to force their lifestyle on everyone else. They do no truly respect property rights or rule of law, they only use this argument to further their agenda when it benefits them.

If you respect property rights, then you should support the proposed zoning changes, which will increase property rights.

So someone should be able to pave over their entire property and cause flooding to my land because of "property rights". People should be able to build a power plant anywhere they want because of property rights? This is very juvenile libertarian logic that it not conducive to protecting the health and welfare of residents. I do not support the zoning changes because they impose a significant cost on voters and most importantly are not supported the residents living in single family neighborhoods. Property rights are not unlimited and people do not get to do whatever they want without considering the impact on everyone else in the community. Individual decisions about the use of property impose costs on everyone else in the community through local government spending and property taxes. Unless this property owner is 100% self sufficient, never uses public roads, firefighters, schools, emergency services and never leaves their house, and does not use the electricity grid, their property use impacts other people and requires government services.

Nobody has argued otherwise, except possibly the person complaining that YIMBYs "do not truly respect property rights".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

Well that is not consistent with YIMBYS property rights obsession. If people willing enter into an agreement about their own property with a covenant there is nothing wrong with that, assuming YIMBYS are logically consistent. They are not though, many of them want to ban covenants too, because they want to force their lifestyle on everyone else. They do no truly respect property rights or rule of law, they only use this argument to further their agenda when it benefits them.

If you respect property rights, then you should support the proposed zoning changes, which will increase property rights.

So someone should be able to pave over their entire property and cause flooding to my land because of "property rights". People should be able to build a power plant anywhere they want because of property rights? This is very juvenile libertarian logic that it not conducive to protecting the health and welfare of residents. I do not support the zoning changes because they impose a significant cost on voters and most importantly are not supported the residents living in single family neighborhoods. Property rights are not unlimited and people do not get to do whatever they want without considering the impact on everyone else in the community. Individual decisions about the use of property impose costs on everyone else in the community through local government spending and property taxes. Unless this property owner is 100% self sufficient, never uses public roads, firefighters, schools, emergency services and never leaves their house, and does not use the electricity grid, their property use impacts other people and requires government services.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

DP. If you really want to lower housing costs, you’ll internalize the entire article instead of selectively quoting it. There’s a lot in there that is contrary to YIMBY orthodoxy and other things that are contrary NIMBY orthodoxy. Both YIMBYs and NIMBYs have some good ideas, but the extremists who have dominated the discussion have delivered us the housing crisis.

I know a lot of YIMBYs, and none of them believe that zoning changes, alone, will fix the housing crisis, or that the market, alone, will fix the housing crisis. Maybe there are some YIMBYs who believe that, but I don't know any.

Then why do they almost exclusively focus on this? I think that it’s because it isn’t about housing at all, it’s based on some silly idea of exclusion, as if everyone should be able to live everywhere. If you can’t, darn it, it’s just not fair, MOMMY!

They don't. Why do you not notice the other things they support?

Should everyone be able to live everywhere? I don't think that's the right question. The right question is: should the government allow all types of housing in areas with housing? In my opinion, the answer is: yes.

Finally, some advice you didn't ask for: if you try to portray millennials as children, that won't help you advocate for your point of view. Who is currently raising children in Montgomery County? Millennials.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

Well that is not consistent with YIMBYS property rights obsession. If people willing enter into an agreement about their own property with a covenant there is nothing wrong with that, assuming YIMBYS are logically consistent. They are not though, many of them want to ban covenants too, because they want to force their lifestyle on everyone else. They do no truly respect property rights or rule of law, they only use this argument to further their agenda when it benefits them.

If you respect property rights, then you should support the proposed zoning changes, which will increase property rights.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

Well that is not consistent with YIMBYS property rights obsession. If people willing enter into an agreement about their own property with a covenant there is nothing wrong with that, assuming YIMBYS are logically consistent. They are not though, many of them want to ban covenants too, because they want to force their lifestyle on everyone else. They do no truly respect property rights or rule of law, they only use this argument to further their agenda when it benefits them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Harvard Business Review takes an evidence-filled bat to nearly every single YIMBY talking point. Just a complete takedown:

https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-market-alone-cant-fix-the-u-s-housing-crisis

Did you miss the part of the article where they propose public housing projects and where restrictive covenants are criticized?

“But other restrictions are still commonly used and enforced, including ones that prevent the construction of multifamily housing, establish minimum lot sizes, and even restrict non-traditional households from living in a neighborhood. Often enforced by private homeowners’ associations, these covenants function as a form of private zoning, but enacted without public input.”

DP. If you really want to lower housing costs, you’ll internalize the entire article instead of selectively quoting it. There’s a lot in there that is contrary to YIMBY orthodoxy and other things that are contrary NIMBY orthodoxy. Both YIMBYs and NIMBYs have some good ideas, but the extremists who have dominated the discussion have delivered us the housing crisis.

I know a lot of YIMBYs, and none of them believe that zoning changes, alone, will fix the housing crisis, or that the market, alone, will fix the housing crisis. Maybe there are some YIMBYs who believe that, but I don't know any.

Then why do they almost exclusively focus on this? I think that it’s because it isn’t about housing at all, it’s based on some silly idea of exclusion, as if everyone should be able to live everywhere. If you can’t, darn it, it’s just not fair, MOMMY!