Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

No, duplexes are the goal. Which makes the people who don't want duplexes feel attacked.

You are basically making a tone argument. YIMBYs are so mean to people who don't want duplexes! If they were nice to people who want duplexes, then they would be more effective! But that's not true. Tone is not the problem. After you've patiently engaged for the kajillionth time with people who simply do not want duplexes, you start thinking that there might be more productive uses for your time.

When you say duplexes are the goal, it tells me you’re not serious about housing. Planning already determined that duplexes aren’t financially viable in most of the county, especially in areas close to transit.

I’m not making an argument about tone. I’m talking about argumentation. Some people are not persuadable. They should be ignored, not engaged. Some people are open to arguments about how upzoning benefits them. They are persuadable. The YIMBYs spend too much time engaging with the first group and alienating people in the second group with abrasive arguments. As a result, you make people who are willing to listen align more with people who aren’t willing to listen.

How much any of this matters is debatable. YIMBYs have won pretty much every vote in Planning and at the Council for more than a decade, so the NIMBYs don’t appear to have much influence. Unfortunately the YIMBYs’ policies haven’t worked and the housing market is worse than it was a decade ago. At some point the YIMBYs need to take stock and figure out whether their influence has had a positive or negative impact on the housing market.

It seems to me that you're arguing about arguing.

No, the YIMBYs haven't won every vote over the last decade.

Which ones did they lose in Montgomery County? They’ve gotten the master plan they want, the general plan they want, and the subsidies they want. I can’t think of a single housing vote that Hans Riemer lost.

No, they haven't. Was the general plan adopted? Yes. Did they want the general plan adopted? Yes. Is the general plan they adopted, the general plan they wanted? No. Thrive is not what they wanted; it's a compromise.

As for Riemer, what did he actually lead on, and what did he actually accomplish? Not much. He always waited to see which way the wind was blowing, first. He's a follower, not a leader. Friedson has been far more effective on the issues Riemer supposedly cared about.

Riemer gets the adulation of the local YIMBY crowd and I don’t remember any of them complaining about Thrive. They were all clamoring about passing it and heaping praise upon it. It’s their plan.

What votes were Friedson and Riemer on different sides of? They’re basically the same politician but Friedson is definitely smarter.

Then you weren't listening. Do you think people are going to say, "Pass this plan that doesn't do half of what we want but it's the best we can get right now, considering! Woo!"?

When it got to council I just heard YIMBYs complain it was taking too long to pass. It’s their plan, and it’s especially Riemer’s plan. If you don’t like it stop supporting him for things so we can get someone more effective.

Anonymous wrote:As a County Councilmember, Riemer submitted controversial legislation eliminating single-family zoning in Montgomery County and allowing the construction of duplexes and triplexes by right. Look to see this reintroduced and passed if Riemer is appointed Planning Board chair.

My issues with Riemer’s single-family zoning proposal:
•It was sold to the public as an affordable housing initiative. In reality, the proposal will allow developers to create market rate duplexes (estimated to sell for $1 million and above in the DC area) and triplexes (estimated to sell for ~$800,000+ in the DC area.) These price points are not affordable.
•Better to implement upzoning through the traditional location-based planning process, not through one-size fits all legislation.
•Environmental concerns. Many/most Montgomery County single-family neighborhoods are auto-dependent. Upping suburban densities increases the number of cars on the road, unless mass transit options are improved substantially. Upping suburban densities also destroys mature tree canopy and increases stormwater runoff.

Anonymous wrote:As a County Councilmember, Riemer submitted controversial legislation eliminating single-family zoning in Montgomery County and allowing the construction of duplexes and triplexes by right. Look to see this reintroduced and passed if Riemer is appointed Planning Board chair.

My issues with Riemer’s single-family zoning proposal:
•It was sold to the public as an affordable housing initiative. In reality, the proposal will allow developers to create market rate duplexes (estimated to sell for $1 million and above in the DC area) and triplexes (estimated to sell for ~$800,000+ in the DC area.) These price points are not affordable.
•Better to implement upzoning through the traditional location-based planning process, not through one-size fits all legislation.
•Environmental concerns. Many/most Montgomery County single-family neighborhoods are auto-dependent. Upping suburban densities increases the number of cars on the road, unless mass transit options are improved substantially. Upping suburban densities also destroys mature tree canopy and increases stormwater runoff.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

No, duplexes are the goal. Which makes the people who don't want duplexes feel attacked.

You are basically making a tone argument. YIMBYs are so mean to people who don't want duplexes! If they were nice to people who want duplexes, then they would be more effective! But that's not true. Tone is not the problem. After you've patiently engaged for the kajillionth time with people who simply do not want duplexes, you start thinking that there might be more productive uses for your time.

When you say duplexes are the goal, it tells me you’re not serious about housing. Planning already determined that duplexes aren’t financially viable in most of the county, especially in areas close to transit.

I’m not making an argument about tone. I’m talking about argumentation. Some people are not persuadable. They should be ignored, not engaged. Some people are open to arguments about how upzoning benefits them. They are persuadable. The YIMBYs spend too much time engaging with the first group and alienating people in the second group with abrasive arguments. As a result, you make people who are willing to listen align more with people who aren’t willing to listen.

How much any of this matters is debatable. YIMBYs have won pretty much every vote in Planning and at the Council for more than a decade, so the NIMBYs don’t appear to have much influence. Unfortunately the YIMBYs’ policies haven’t worked and the housing market is worse than it was a decade ago. At some point the YIMBYs need to take stock and figure out whether their influence has had a positive or negative impact on the housing market.

It seems to me that you're arguing about arguing.

No, the YIMBYs haven't won every vote over the last decade.

Which ones did they lose in Montgomery County? They’ve gotten the master plan they want, the general plan they want, and the subsidies they want. I can’t think of a single housing vote that Hans Riemer lost.

No, they haven't. Was the general plan adopted? Yes. Did they want the general plan adopted? Yes. Is the general plan they adopted, the general plan they wanted? No. Thrive is not what they wanted; it's a compromise.

As for Riemer, what did he actually lead on, and what did he actually accomplish? Not much. He always waited to see which way the wind was blowing, first. He's a follower, not a leader. Friedson has been far more effective on the issues Riemer supposedly cared about.

Riemer gets the adulation of the local YIMBY crowd and I don’t remember any of them complaining about Thrive. They were all clamoring about passing it and heaping praise upon it. It’s their plan.

What votes were Friedson and Riemer on different sides of? They’re basically the same politician but Friedson is definitely smarter.

Then you weren't listening. Do you think people are going to say, "Pass this plan that doesn't do half of what we want but it's the best we can get right now, considering! Woo!"?

When it got to council I just heard YIMBYs complain it was taking too long to pass. It’s their plan, and it’s especially Riemer’s plan. If you don’t like it stop supporting him for things so we can get someone more effective.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

No, duplexes are the goal. Which makes the people who don't want duplexes feel attacked.

You are basically making a tone argument. YIMBYs are so mean to people who don't want duplexes! If they were nice to people who want duplexes, then they would be more effective! But that's not true. Tone is not the problem. After you've patiently engaged for the kajillionth time with people who simply do not want duplexes, you start thinking that there might be more productive uses for your time.

When you say duplexes are the goal, it tells me you’re not serious about housing. Planning already determined that duplexes aren’t financially viable in most of the county, especially in areas close to transit.

I’m not making an argument about tone. I’m talking about argumentation. Some people are not persuadable. They should be ignored, not engaged. Some people are open to arguments about how upzoning benefits them. They are persuadable. The YIMBYs spend too much time engaging with the first group and alienating people in the second group with abrasive arguments. As a result, you make people who are willing to listen align more with people who aren’t willing to listen.

How much any of this matters is debatable. YIMBYs have won pretty much every vote in Planning and at the Council for more than a decade, so the NIMBYs don’t appear to have much influence. Unfortunately the YIMBYs’ policies haven’t worked and the housing market is worse than it was a decade ago. At some point the YIMBYs need to take stock and figure out whether their influence has had a positive or negative impact on the housing market.

It seems to me that you're arguing about arguing.

No, the YIMBYs haven't won every vote over the last decade.

Which ones did they lose in Montgomery County? They’ve gotten the master plan they want, the general plan they want, and the subsidies they want. I can’t think of a single housing vote that Hans Riemer lost.

No, they haven't. Was the general plan adopted? Yes. Did they want the general plan adopted? Yes. Is the general plan they adopted, the general plan they wanted? No. Thrive is not what they wanted; it's a compromise.

As for Riemer, what did he actually lead on, and what did he actually accomplish? Not much. He always waited to see which way the wind was blowing, first. He's a follower, not a leader. Friedson has been far more effective on the issues Riemer supposedly cared about.

Riemer gets the adulation of the local YIMBY crowd and I don’t remember any of them complaining about Thrive. They were all clamoring about passing it and heaping praise upon it. It’s their plan.

What votes were Friedson and Riemer on different sides of? They’re basically the same politician but Friedson is definitely smarter.

Then you weren't listening. Do you think people are going to say, "Pass this plan that doesn't do half of what we want but it's the best we can get right now, considering! Woo!"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

No, duplexes are the goal. Which makes the people who don't want duplexes feel attacked.

You are basically making a tone argument. YIMBYs are so mean to people who don't want duplexes! If they were nice to people who want duplexes, then they would be more effective! But that's not true. Tone is not the problem. After you've patiently engaged for the kajillionth time with people who simply do not want duplexes, you start thinking that there might be more productive uses for your time.

When you say duplexes are the goal, it tells me you’re not serious about housing. Planning already determined that duplexes aren’t financially viable in most of the county, especially in areas close to transit.

I’m not making an argument about tone. I’m talking about argumentation. Some people are not persuadable. They should be ignored, not engaged. Some people are open to arguments about how upzoning benefits them. They are persuadable. The YIMBYs spend too much time engaging with the first group and alienating people in the second group with abrasive arguments. As a result, you make people who are willing to listen align more with people who aren’t willing to listen.

How much any of this matters is debatable. YIMBYs have won pretty much every vote in Planning and at the Council for more than a decade, so the NIMBYs don’t appear to have much influence. Unfortunately the YIMBYs’ policies haven’t worked and the housing market is worse than it was a decade ago. At some point the YIMBYs need to take stock and figure out whether their influence has had a positive or negative impact on the housing market.

It seems to me that you're arguing about arguing.

No, the YIMBYs haven't won every vote over the last decade.

Which ones did they lose in Montgomery County? They’ve gotten the master plan they want, the general plan they want, and the subsidies they want. I can’t think of a single housing vote that Hans Riemer lost.

No, they haven't. Was the general plan adopted? Yes. Did they want the general plan adopted? Yes. Is the general plan they adopted, the general plan they wanted? No. Thrive is not what they wanted; it's a compromise.

As for Riemer, what did he actually lead on, and what did he actually accomplish? Not much. He always waited to see which way the wind was blowing, first. He's a follower, not a leader. Friedson has been far more effective on the issues Riemer supposedly cared about.

Riemer gets the adulation of the local YIMBY crowd and I don’t remember any of them complaining about Thrive. They were all clamoring about passing it and heaping praise upon it. It’s their plan.

What votes were Friedson and Riemer on different sides of? They’re basically the same politician but Friedson is definitely smarter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

No, duplexes are the goal. Which makes the people who don't want duplexes feel attacked.

You are basically making a tone argument. YIMBYs are so mean to people who don't want duplexes! If they were nice to people who want duplexes, then they would be more effective! But that's not true. Tone is not the problem. After you've patiently engaged for the kajillionth time with people who simply do not want duplexes, you start thinking that there might be more productive uses for your time.

When you say duplexes are the goal, it tells me you’re not serious about housing. Planning already determined that duplexes aren’t financially viable in most of the county, especially in areas close to transit.

I’m not making an argument about tone. I’m talking about argumentation. Some people are not persuadable. They should be ignored, not engaged. Some people are open to arguments about how upzoning benefits them. They are persuadable. The YIMBYs spend too much time engaging with the first group and alienating people in the second group with abrasive arguments. As a result, you make people who are willing to listen align more with people who aren’t willing to listen.

How much any of this matters is debatable. YIMBYs have won pretty much every vote in Planning and at the Council for more than a decade, so the NIMBYs don’t appear to have much influence. Unfortunately the YIMBYs’ policies haven’t worked and the housing market is worse than it was a decade ago. At some point the YIMBYs need to take stock and figure out whether their influence has had a positive or negative impact on the housing market.

It seems to me that you're arguing about arguing.

No, the YIMBYs haven't won every vote over the last decade.

Which ones did they lose in Montgomery County? They’ve gotten the master plan they want, the general plan they want, and the subsidies they want. I can’t think of a single housing vote that Hans Riemer lost.

No, they haven't. Was the general plan adopted? Yes. Did they want the general plan adopted? Yes. Is the general plan they adopted, the general plan they wanted? No. Thrive is not what they wanted; it's a compromise.

As for Riemer, what did he actually lead on, and what did he actually accomplish? Not much. He always waited to see which way the wind was blowing, first. He's a follower, not a leader. Friedson has been far more effective on the issues Riemer supposedly cared about.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

No, duplexes are the goal. Which makes the people who don't want duplexes feel attacked.

You are basically making a tone argument. YIMBYs are so mean to people who don't want duplexes! If they were nice to people who want duplexes, then they would be more effective! But that's not true. Tone is not the problem. After you've patiently engaged for the kajillionth time with people who simply do not want duplexes, you start thinking that there might be more productive uses for your time.

When you say duplexes are the goal, it tells me you’re not serious about housing. Planning already determined that duplexes aren’t financially viable in most of the county, especially in areas close to transit.

I’m not making an argument about tone. I’m talking about argumentation. Some people are not persuadable. They should be ignored, not engaged. Some people are open to arguments about how upzoning benefits them. They are persuadable. The YIMBYs spend too much time engaging with the first group and alienating people in the second group with abrasive arguments. As a result, you make people who are willing to listen align more with people who aren’t willing to listen.

How much any of this matters is debatable. YIMBYs have won pretty much every vote in Planning and at the Council for more than a decade, so the NIMBYs don’t appear to have much influence. Unfortunately the YIMBYs’ policies haven’t worked and the housing market is worse than it was a decade ago. At some point the YIMBYs need to take stock and figure out whether their influence has had a positive or negative impact on the housing market.

It seems to me that you're arguing about arguing.

No, the YIMBYs haven't won every vote over the last decade.

Which ones did they lose in Montgomery County? They’ve gotten the master plan they want, the general plan they want, and the subsidies they want. I can’t think of a single housing vote that Hans Riemer lost.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

No, duplexes are the goal. Which makes the people who don't want duplexes feel attacked.

You are basically making a tone argument. YIMBYs are so mean to people who don't want duplexes! If they were nice to people who want duplexes, then they would be more effective! But that's not true. Tone is not the problem. After you've patiently engaged for the kajillionth time with people who simply do not want duplexes, you start thinking that there might be more productive uses for your time.

When you say duplexes are the goal, it tells me you’re not serious about housing. Planning already determined that duplexes aren’t financially viable in most of the county, especially in areas close to transit.

I’m not making an argument about tone. I’m talking about argumentation. Some people are not persuadable. They should be ignored, not engaged. Some people are open to arguments about how upzoning benefits them. They are persuadable. The YIMBYs spend too much time engaging with the first group and alienating people in the second group with abrasive arguments. As a result, you make people who are willing to listen align more with people who aren’t willing to listen.

How much any of this matters is debatable. YIMBYs have won pretty much every vote in Planning and at the Council for more than a decade, so the NIMBYs don’t appear to have much influence. Unfortunately the YIMBYs’ policies haven’t worked and the housing market is worse than it was a decade ago. At some point the YIMBYs need to take stock and figure out whether their influence has had a positive or negative impact on the housing market.

It seems to me that you're arguing about arguing.

No, the YIMBYs haven't won every vote over the last decade.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

No, duplexes are the goal. Which makes the people who don't want duplexes feel attacked.

You are basically making a tone argument. YIMBYs are so mean to people who don't want duplexes! If they were nice to people who want duplexes, then they would be more effective! But that's not true. Tone is not the problem. After you've patiently engaged for the kajillionth time with people who simply do not want duplexes, you start thinking that there might be more productive uses for your time.

When you say duplexes are the goal, it tells me you’re not serious about housing. Planning already determined that duplexes aren’t financially viable in most of the county, especially in areas close to transit.

I’m not making an argument about tone. I’m talking about argumentation. Some people are not persuadable. They should be ignored, not engaged. Some people are open to arguments about how upzoning benefits them. They are persuadable. The YIMBYs spend too much time engaging with the first group and alienating people in the second group with abrasive arguments. As a result, you make people who are willing to listen align more with people who aren’t willing to listen.

How much any of this matters is debatable. YIMBYs have won pretty much every vote in Planning and at the Council for more than a decade, so the NIMBYs don’t appear to have much influence. Unfortunately the YIMBYs’ policies haven’t worked and the housing market is worse than it was a decade ago. At some point the YIMBYs need to take stock and figure out whether their influence has had a positive or negative impact on the housing market.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There seems to be a feeling in the YIMBY online community about exacting "vengeance" or whatever against specific wealthy single family neighborhoods, versus actual growth and targeting the low hanging fruit first near existing and soon to be existing public transit.

Otherwise explain the immense amount of pixels spent on Chevy Chase and certain Silver Spring neighborhoods, without a peep mentioning Takoma Park, which has fewer units than it did a decade ago- despite being right on the red line.

""Vengeance" or whatever" is exactly the right phrase. As though housing proponents were sitting around saying, "Ha HA! Let's punish Woodside by inflicting duplexes on them!@@@!@!!" Duplexes are not a punishment.

That’s one of the funny things about YIMBYs. They make all of their ideas sound like punishments for people who already live there. It’s like they don’t actually want consensus and things are only worthwhile if they’re fighting about them.

No, that's a you thing. You think duplexes are punishments. YIMBYs do not.

They sure talk about things like they’re trying to punish people in SFH. A lot of these things benefit people with SFH. Why not emphasize the benefits? (More people to support businesses, so more stores and transit within walking distance as the population grows, etc) Instead it’s just attacks.

Attacks on people, like the PP, who think there shouldn't be duplexes in their neighborhood because they don't want duplexes in their neighborhood?

Do you think the PP wants more people in their neighborhood to support more stores and transit within walking distance?

The attack is the goal, right? I mean it is really important to attack people and especially to belittle them.

Do you want to make it easier to have more housing or do you want to attack people from the moral high ground?

No, duplexes are the goal. Which makes the people who don't want duplexes feel attacked.

You are basically making a tone argument. YIMBYs are so mean to people who don't want duplexes! If they were nice to people who want duplexes, then they would be more effective! But that's not true. Tone is not the problem. After you've patiently engaged for the kajillionth time with people who simply do not want duplexes, you start thinking that there might be more productive uses for your time.