Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very convenient that this policy will not actually impact neighborhoods where many of the elected representatives live. Properties in the S-6 sewer service area are almost impossible to connect to public sewer They will not get multifamily housing which allows our country representatives to change the zoning rules but categorically exclude their neighborhood. A rental quadplex doesn't work financially in an areas that is banned from having public sewer. It only takes one bad tenant to trash your entire septic system then you need to spend 50k-100k+ to replace it. Investors will not want to build multifamily units with septic. If the people that are proposing this policy are unwilling to create "attainable housing" and multifamily units in their own neighborhoods, why should we believe that this significant overhaul of zoning rules is good idea for the everyone else living in the county?

If investors won't want to build multi-unit housing on septic, and actually I'm not sure that multi-unit housing on septic is even allowed, then how is this hypocrisy? What it actually seems to be, to me, is an opportunity for you to ask the council to add language that says that the zoning changes only apply to properties on public water and sewer.

If you don't even understand how comprehensive sewer plan works then you are very clueless about this whole process. Some of these neighborhoods that our council members live in are literally right next to existing sewer infrastructure, but the county policies are written in a way explicitly forbid their neighborhoods from connecting to sewer infrastructure. So they can change the zoning, but the county's existing sewer policies effectively ban the these housing types in their own neighborhood. This is a backdoor way to exempt themselves from their own policy proposals. They could promote housing affordability even more by relaxing sewer connection policies, but they are not willing to do that because it impacts the place that they live.

IF this is accurate, strongly recommend you advocate for relaxing sewer connection policies and investments in sewer infrastructure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very convenient that this policy will not actually impact neighborhoods where many of the elected representatives live. Properties in the S-6 sewer service area are almost impossible to connect to public sewer They will not get multifamily housing which allows our country representatives to change the zoning rules but categorically exclude their neighborhood. A rental quadplex doesn't work financially in an areas that is banned from having public sewer. It only takes one bad tenant to trash your entire septic system then you need to spend 50k-100k+ to replace it. Investors will not want to build multifamily units with septic. If the people that are proposing this policy are unwilling to create "attainable housing" and multifamily units in their own neighborhoods, why should we believe that this significant overhaul of zoning rules is good idea for the everyone else living in the county?

If investors won't want to build multi-unit housing on septic, and actually I'm not sure that multi-unit housing on septic is even allowed, then how is this hypocrisy? What it actually seems to be, to me, is an opportunity for you to ask the council to add language that says that the zoning changes only apply to properties on public water and sewer.

If you don't even understand how comprehensive sewer plan works then you are very clueless about this whole process. Some of these neighborhoods that our council members live in are literally right next to existing sewer infrastructure, but the county policies are written in a way explicitly forbid their neighborhoods from connecting to sewer infrastructure. So they can change the zoning, but the county's existing sewer policies effectively ban the these housing types in their own neighborhood. This is a backdoor way to exempt themselves from their own policy proposals. They could promote housing affordability even more by relaxing sewer connection policies, but they are not willing to do that because it impacts the place that they live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very convenient that this policy will not actually impact neighborhoods where many of the elected representatives live. Properties in the S-6 sewer service area are almost impossible to connect to public sewer They will not get multifamily housing which allows our country representatives to change the zoning rules but categorically exclude their neighborhood. A rental quadplex doesn't work financially in an areas that is banned from having public sewer. It only takes one bad tenant to trash your entire septic system then you need to spend 50k-100k+ to replace it. Investors will not want to build multifamily units with septic. If the people that are proposing this policy are unwilling to create "attainable housing" and multifamily units in their own neighborhoods, why should we believe that this significant overhaul of zoning rules is good idea for the everyone else living in the county?

If investors won't want to build multi-unit housing on septic, and actually I'm not sure that multi-unit housing on septic is even allowed, then how is this hypocrisy? What it actually seems to be, to me, is an opportunity for you to ask the council to add language that says that the zoning changes only apply to properties on public water and sewer.

If you don't even understand how comprehensive sewer plan works then you are very clueless about this whole process. Some of these neighborhoods that our council members live in are literally right next to existing sewer infrastructure, but the county policies are written in a way explicitly forbid their neighborhoods from connecting to sewer infrastructure. So they can change the zoning, but the county's existing sewer policies effectively ban the these housing types in their own neighborhood. This is a backdoor way to exempt themselves from their own policy proposals. They could promote housing affordability even more by relaxing sewer connection policies, but they are not willing to do that because it impacts the place that they live.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very convenient that this policy will not actually impact neighborhoods where many of the elected representatives live. Properties in the S-6 sewer service area are almost impossible to connect to public sewer They will not get multifamily housing which allows our country representatives to change the zoning rules but categorically exclude their neighborhood. A rental quadplex doesn't work financially in an areas that is banned from having public sewer. It only takes one bad tenant to trash your entire septic system then you need to spend 50k-100k+ to replace it. Investors will not want to build multifamily units with septic. If the people that are proposing this policy are unwilling to create "attainable housing" and multifamily units in their own neighborhoods, why should we believe that this significant overhaul of zoning rules is good idea for the everyone else living in the county?

If investors won't want to build multi-unit housing on septic, and actually I'm not sure that multi-unit housing on septic is even allowed, then how is this hypocrisy? What it actually seems to be, to me, is an opportunity for you to ask the council to add language that says that the zoning changes only apply to properties on public water and sewer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

No, that is not the point they are making. It is hypocritical because they are unwilling to live the urbanist lifestyle their policies promote. They are pulling up the ladder behind them now that they own houses in leafy single-family neighborhoods. This policy will drive up the value of their homes by reducing the supply of single-family houses. They expect everyone else to live in sub-1500 sq foot quadplexes without parking, but they choose to live in million-dollar 6000+ sq ft houses in neighborhoods that won't be impacted by the zoning changes they are pushing on the community. If most of this progressive county council is not interested in living the lifestyle promoted by their own policies, why should we believe that this is the right direction for the county? The planning commission did not even research what housing types residents want to live or what lifestyles residents want! If their own lifestyle choices are any indication of what most residents want in MOCO, then this policy is a terrible decision for the county. There are plenty of condos in walkable locations throughout MOCO, but almost none of these people making decisions on behalf of voters want to live in one. Expand housing affordability by zoning to increase the supply of single-family homes. Don't bother with this nonsense that reduces the supply of the housing type with the highest level of demand and pushes residents to become permanent renters in small apartment units.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

It is not hypocritical to live in a SFH and still believe that there should be an option to build different types of units. It just isn't.

This is like saying it is hypocritical to own a luxury car but believe that the industry should produce more affordable vehicles.

Anonymous wrote:It is very convenient that this policy will not actually impact neighborhoods where many of the elected representatives live. Properties in the S-6 sewer service area are almost impossible to connect to public sewer They will not get multifamily housing which allows our country representatives to change the zoning rules but categorically exclude their neighborhood. A rental quadplex doesn't work financially in an areas that is banned from having public sewer. It only takes one bad tenant to trash your entire septic system then you need to spend 50k-100k+ to replace it. Investors will not want to build multifamily units with septic. If the people that are proposing this policy are unwilling to create "attainable housing" and multifamily units in their own neighborhoods, why should we believe that this significant overhaul of zoning rules is good idea for the everyone else living in the county?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is very convenient that this policy will not actually impact neighborhoods where many of the elected representatives live. Properties in the S-6 sewer service area are almost impossible to connect to public sewer They will not get multifamily housing which allows our country representatives to change the zoning rules but categorically exclude their neighborhood. A rental quadplex doesn't work financially in an areas that is banned from having public sewer. It only takes one bad tenant to trash your entire septic system then you need to spend 50k-100k+ to replace it. Investors will not want to build multifamily units with septic. If the people that are proposing this policy are unwilling to create "attainable housing" and multifamily units in their own neighborhoods, why should we believe that this significant overhaul of zoning rules is good idea for the everyone else living in the county?

The fact that the proposed zoning reforms conveniently exclude areas where the elected representatives live reveals their true thoughts. These people do not believe it is a good policy if they are not even willing to apply it to their own neighborhoods.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In this thread: NIMBYs gonna NIMBY. It's actually entertaining.

And YIMBY shills spamming disinformation about prices lowering. Housing and rental prices are controlled by a cartel. They will never go down. They want to upzone everything because it fattens their margins. Period.

Yeah, no. The only people making tons of money are homeowners, idiot.

You should have purchased a house, sport. Now you are mad and want to ruin it for the people that did, we see you.

DP. I own a house, which I bought. I also understand that "I've got mine" is not the basis for a good housing policy.

Same. Would love to see a housing policy based on increasing SFH in the county instead of eliminating them.

I don't know where you live, but here where I live, in Montgomery County, Maryland, nobody is proposing to eliminate SFHs.

Be honest, now. Won’t some SFH be eliminated and replaced by multiplexes? Won’t that reduce supply of SFH? It’s pretty simple math. Now tell me what happens to prices when you reduce supply of something

You sound like the Daleks on Dr. Who.

Will some uniplexes be replaced by multiplexes? Yes, that is the whole point. Will it reduce the supply of uniplexes? Yes. Will it increase the supply of housing units? Yes. Is it good housing policy? Yes. Is it good land use policy? Yes. Is it good transportation policy? Yes. Is it good environmental policy? Yes. Is it good fiscal policy for the county? Yes. Will it increase property values for people who currently own uniplexes? Yes.

That’s a lot of words to say your idea is going to make a SFH less attainable for more people but thanks for being honest about that.

It's good for people's ability to afford housing, people's ability to get around, water quality, air quality, the global climate, the county's fiscal bottom line, and property values for people who currently own SFHs, but it will also make SFHs more expensive for the subgroup of people who want them, so who's to say whether it's good or not?

Earlier YIMBYs were saying that it will reduce home prices and that’s a good thing. Now it will actually increase them and that’s also good. It will not consistently increase SFH prices across the board. It will on increase prices in the richest areas where tearing down old single family homes to build even larger new SFH is more profitable. The quadplexes will skew towards the single family areas with cheaper homes that have more minorities and middle class people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

The hypocrisy has been explained to you and it’s blatant. You clearly work for developers. You are not just a citizen.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone only reading through the final report and the state law really should check the video of Monday's meeting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=55h90lVpZJI

The Attainable Housing portion of the meeting starts at 2:10 and goes for just under an hour. As seen in the report, the voiced concerns of residents are briefly mentioned in summary and rather summarily dismissed. If there was any doubt that these concerns are valid, all one has to do is listen to the introductions by the council and planning chair. The remainder was unsurprising, given the Council makeup and their recent appointment of the Planning Board (one wonders if the reaction to the scandal had more to do with packing the Board with more decidedly pro-Thrive/pro-development interests in the runup to adoption).

For those complaining about the process, met by comments about the several community meetings in the last couple of years, your thoughts still are valid, though it may not matter from a strictly legal sense. Ask when, along the timeline of those meetings, the full impact was addressed. Not just examples of multiplex housing with reference to the pattern book for continuity with the previously-built community, but fully-built-out properties along the corridors (19-unit to 24-unit stacked flats with maximal allowance for bulk/minimal adherence to to-be setbacks, etc.). The answer would not include those community meetings, as much of the higher-impact recommendations only recently were introduced to the document (which also does not do the job of presenting those maximal buildouts for common understanding), as was the state legislation. It is overwhelmingly likely that community input would be significantly different than was garnered in those already-pandemic-limited interactions.

The dog and pony was comically completed towards the end of the presentation (prior to the Council committee's few questions) with the planning chair repeatedly nodding at the intern's earnest comments about research she had conducted to find favorable examples of jurisdictions that had pursued similar changes. Of course, there had been no critical review of this that would highlight the dissimilarities to that which is being proposed, here. Nor was there any public comment/rebuttal/presentation of opposing viewpoints.

The Council PHP Committee will have 2 working sessions in July, beginning on the 8th. I expect they will have limited public comment, with staff and supporters prepped alternately to present stories of hardship finding desired housing to garner sympathy and dismissive remarks to any concerns voiced, without opportunity for rebuttal/debate. A few half-hearted questions may be presented, intentionally phrased to allow sidestepping of any more troublesome answer. (E.g., "Can we get an idea of the student generation rates?" to "represent" community concerns about school crowding, met with a pat answer that does nothing to project that overcrowding, the associated costs of building and the infeasibility of land acquisition for schools, with a buildout on the scale envisioned that would "correct" the perceived shortage of housing opportunities in the affected areas -- perhaps with a platitudinous "the County has established processes to address school system needs" thrown in.) Having completed that pro forma over the summer, while many are vacationing, they can claim to have completed everything appropriately for the Council vote in the fall.

That is a done deal, short of near-Kenya-level in-the-streets objections, and I don't see the MoCo residents, majority or no, who would have objections having the stomach for anything close to that.

I am really not following you here at all. That being said, I do appreciate the link to the video. I will watch!

Glad to provide the video. The late addition of scope and density options along with the stacked effects with recent state legislation mean that they have not properly engaged the community in the process. The words of the Council and Planning Board chair make it obvious that they are intent on doing things this way, pushing it through with the minimum community awareness possible of fullest impact and disregarding voiced concerns from those who might independently have made themselves aware enough to have formed such thoughts from reasonable bases.

There are things that could be done to address those concerns, such as those for schools and infrastructure or those regarding the relative irreversability of the uncapped/wholesale/sweeping changes should they prove not in the best interests of the populace, while continuing to promote housing capacity aims. However, these will not be done, and they will make sure it is delivered well before the next County Council election cycle.

What more do you think should be happening to make the community aware?

I watched the video and read the report. From that, I can tell that MoCo sent press releases that resulted in news articles in a lot of publications, including the Washington Post. They have a robust website and social media campaign. They held several community meetings (post-pandemic) and indicated that they plan several more- in the affected communities--in the coming months.

Sincerely, what more do you think they should do?

These community meetings are performative. They are not gathering data or changing anything based on citizen feedback. My main concern is the environmental disaster caused when all the green space is ripped out to build driveways and parking lots. This is passed off as environmentally a net positive and it’s not. There are lots of places to build condos but the council wants no limits on development except in their neighborhoods. Fact.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.

Explain the hypocrisy here. And explain it in a way that distinguishes it from any politician, or person for that matter, who advocates for policies that help people in circumstances that they do not place themselves in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone only reading through the final report and the state law really should check the video of Monday's meeting.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=55h90lVpZJI

The Attainable Housing portion of the meeting starts at 2:10 and goes for just under an hour. As seen in the report, the voiced concerns of residents are briefly mentioned in summary and rather summarily dismissed. If there was any doubt that these concerns are valid, all one has to do is listen to the introductions by the council and planning chair. The remainder was unsurprising, given the Council makeup and their recent appointment of the Planning Board (one wonders if the reaction to the scandal had more to do with packing the Board with more decidedly pro-Thrive/pro-development interests in the runup to adoption).

For those complaining about the process, met by comments about the several community meetings in the last couple of years, your thoughts still are valid, though it may not matter from a strictly legal sense. Ask when, along the timeline of those meetings, the full impact was addressed. Not just examples of multiplex housing with reference to the pattern book for continuity with the previously-built community, but fully-built-out properties along the corridors (19-unit to 24-unit stacked flats with maximal allowance for bulk/minimal adherence to to-be setbacks, etc.). The answer would not include those community meetings, as much of the higher-impact recommendations only recently were introduced to the document (which also does not do the job of presenting those maximal buildouts for common understanding), as was the state legislation. It is overwhelmingly likely that community input would be significantly different than was garnered in those already-pandemic-limited interactions.

The dog and pony was comically completed towards the end of the presentation (prior to the Council committee's few questions) with the planning chair repeatedly nodding at the intern's earnest comments about research she had conducted to find favorable examples of jurisdictions that had pursued similar changes. Of course, there had been no critical review of this that would highlight the dissimilarities to that which is being proposed, here. Nor was there any public comment/rebuttal/presentation of opposing viewpoints.

The Council PHP Committee will have 2 working sessions in July, beginning on the 8th. I expect they will have limited public comment, with staff and supporters prepped alternately to present stories of hardship finding desired housing to garner sympathy and dismissive remarks to any concerns voiced, without opportunity for rebuttal/debate. A few half-hearted questions may be presented, intentionally phrased to allow sidestepping of any more troublesome answer. (E.g., "Can we get an idea of the student generation rates?" to "represent" community concerns about school crowding, met with a pat answer that does nothing to project that overcrowding, the associated costs of building and the infeasibility of land acquisition for schools, with a buildout on the scale envisioned that would "correct" the perceived shortage of housing opportunities in the affected areas -- perhaps with a platitudinous "the County has established processes to address school system needs" thrown in.) Having completed that pro forma over the summer, while many are vacationing, they can claim to have completed everything appropriately for the Council vote in the fall.

That is a done deal, short of near-Kenya-level in-the-streets objections, and I don't see the MoCo residents, majority or no, who would have objections having the stomach for anything close to that.

I am really not following you here at all. That being said, I do appreciate the link to the video. I will watch!

Glad to provide the video. The late addition of scope and density options along with the stacked effects with recent state legislation mean that they have not properly engaged the community in the process. The words of the Council and Planning Board chair make it obvious that they are intent on doing things this way, pushing it through with the minimum community awareness possible of fullest impact and disregarding voiced concerns from those who might independently have made themselves aware enough to have formed such thoughts from reasonable bases.

There are things that could be done to address those concerns, such as those for schools and infrastructure or those regarding the relative irreversability of the uncapped/wholesale/sweeping changes should they prove not in the best interests of the populace, while continuing to promote housing capacity aims. However, these will not be done, and they will make sure it is delivered well before the next County Council election cycle.

What more do you think should be happening to make the community aware?

I watched the video and read the report. From that, I can tell that MoCo sent press releases that resulted in news articles in a lot of publications, including the Washington Post. They have a robust website and social media campaign. They held several community meetings (post-pandemic) and indicated that they plan several more- in the affected communities--in the coming months.

Sincerely, what more do you think they should do?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The county council cramming this down our throats is such hypocrisy. Check out Will Jawando's house.

17329 Avenleigh Dr, Ashton MD

https://www.redfin.com/MD/Ashton/17329-Avenleigh-Dr-20861/home/10729459

This is "public service".

He needs to. Put a multiplex on that!

He needs to build a community of tiny homes. But no, he prefers to be a hypocrite. Maybe he can start whining about how his kid didn't win the Spanish immersion lottery again.

You realize that you are now sounding like the people who were crying that anybody who wasn't willing to have immigrants stay in their own homes should stop talking about how they were being treated, right? Or that anybody who flies in an airplane can stop complaining about the environmental crisis?

No, that’s not what this post sounds like. It’s about a politician who is a hypocrite. Nice house for me, not for thee. People in small houses with small footprint will pay the price, not people in McMansions. Regressive policy.