Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments. We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place.

Well congratulations, poster who should have noted sarcasm but didn't to set up a strawman!

The kind of development likely to be built won't be attainable by those who can't pay $2k/mo, and won't be supporting true altruism toward those with low incomes. However, it sure will bring additional residents without providing the infrastructure to support them, and, unfortunately, that under-servicing will tend to drive existing residents with higher means, modestly or otherwise, disproportionately out (and disproportionately keep those with such means from deciding to move in). So, not really poverty, but definitely not improvement.

I just don’t get it. Basically the economic growth strategy for the county is based on building more urbanized housing to benefit a bedroom community with high quality schools. As this strategy has played out, they intentionally have overtaxed roads and overcrowded schools while creating no jobs. People who want to and can afford to live close to employment centers and don’t like overcrowded schools and traffic are moving away, replaced by less affluent people with fewer options. The claimed housing was necessary to expand the tax base but in fact increases the drag on county resources leading to further tax increases. Planning, who have had a huge role instigating this negative feedback loop, just keep doubling down on their failure and at their worst, present their failures as success. We’re not getting poorer thanks to them, they have successfully made the county more economically diverse. Increased poverty is because bad and racist NIMBYs oppose zoning “missing middle” zoning changes that their own analysis finally had to admit would not be affordable. But since they are so stuck on form, they’re now calling it “attainable”. And why are they stuck on “missing middle”? Because they spend too much time online and want likes and retweets on social media and the opportunity to win a plastic door stopper at a conference.

Why do you think people shouldn't have the choice to live in a duplex, triplex, or small apartment building?

Why is a duplex or triplex so important to you over a multi family apartment building that delivers more housing at a lower cost per unit? It’s so stupid.

You all talk about Europe when it suits you. “Missing middle” is not a housing form anywhere in Europe that delivers walkable neighborhoods. It’s all midrise multi family, interspersed with some high rise multifamily.

I'm for large multi-unit buildings. I'm also for small and very small multi-unit buildings. Why do you think people in the US should not be allowed to have the choice to live in small or very small multi-unit buildings?

If your point is that only large multi-unit buildings should be allowed because they deliver more housing at lower cost per unit (which is not necessarily true), well, that's an argument for banning detached single-unit housing. Your point, not mine.

Sorry, here is another question. It’s already permissible to combine R-60 lots and convert to townhouses. Why are you against townhouses?

I'm not. I think detached single-unit housing, attached single-unit housing, and multi-unit housing should all be allowed.

As you know, the proposed zoning changes in Montgomery County are for allowing more types of housing. Detached single-unit housing will continue to be allowed, and other types of housing will also be allowed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments. We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place.

Well congratulations, poster who should have noted sarcasm but didn't to set up a strawman!

The kind of development likely to be built won't be attainable by those who can't pay $2k/mo, and won't be supporting true altruism toward those with low incomes. However, it sure will bring additional residents without providing the infrastructure to support them, and, unfortunately, that under-servicing will tend to drive existing residents with higher means, modestly or otherwise, disproportionately out (and disproportionately keep those with such means from deciding to move in). So, not really poverty, but definitely not improvement.

I just don’t get it. Basically the economic growth strategy for the county is based on building more urbanized housing to benefit a bedroom community with high quality schools. As this strategy has played out, they intentionally have overtaxed roads and overcrowded schools while creating no jobs. People who want to and can afford to live close to employment centers and don’t like overcrowded schools and traffic are moving away, replaced by less affluent people with fewer options. The claimed housing was necessary to expand the tax base but in fact increases the drag on county resources leading to further tax increases. Planning, who have had a huge role instigating this negative feedback loop, just keep doubling down on their failure and at their worst, present their failures as success. We’re not getting poorer thanks to them, they have successfully made the county more economically diverse. Increased poverty is because bad and racist NIMBYs oppose zoning “missing middle” zoning changes that their own analysis finally had to admit would not be affordable. But since they are so stuck on form, they’re now calling it “attainable”. And why are they stuck on “missing middle”? Because they spend too much time online and want likes and retweets on social media and the opportunity to win a plastic door stopper at a conference.

Why do you think people shouldn't have the choice to live in a duplex, triplex, or small apartment building?

Why is a duplex or triplex so important to you over a multi family apartment building that delivers more housing at a lower cost per unit? It’s so stupid.

You all talk about Europe when it suits you. “Missing middle” is not a housing form anywhere in Europe that delivers walkable neighborhoods. It’s all midrise multi family, interspersed with some high rise multifamily.

I'm for large multi-unit buildings. I'm also for small and very small multi-unit buildings. Why do you think people in the US should not be allowed to have the choice to live in small or very small multi-unit buildings?

If your point is that only large multi-unit buildings should be allowed because they deliver more housing at lower cost per unit (which is not necessarily true), well, that's an argument for banning detached single-unit housing. Your point, not mine.

Tell me. Why it is more important to you to have one structure split into two units as a duplex on the same sized lot than have two separate single family houses?

It's not. I think the zoning code should allow both. Two one-unit buildings should be allowed. One two-unit building should also be allowed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments. We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place.

Well congratulations, poster who should have noted sarcasm but didn't to set up a strawman!

The kind of development likely to be built won't be attainable by those who can't pay $2k/mo, and won't be supporting true altruism toward those with low incomes. However, it sure will bring additional residents without providing the infrastructure to support them, and, unfortunately, that under-servicing will tend to drive existing residents with higher means, modestly or otherwise, disproportionately out (and disproportionately keep those with such means from deciding to move in). So, not really poverty, but definitely not improvement.

I just don’t get it. Basically the economic growth strategy for the county is based on building more urbanized housing to benefit a bedroom community with high quality schools. As this strategy has played out, they intentionally have overtaxed roads and overcrowded schools while creating no jobs. People who want to and can afford to live close to employment centers and don’t like overcrowded schools and traffic are moving away, replaced by less affluent people with fewer options. The claimed housing was necessary to expand the tax base but in fact increases the drag on county resources leading to further tax increases. Planning, who have had a huge role instigating this negative feedback loop, just keep doubling down on their failure and at their worst, present their failures as success. We’re not getting poorer thanks to them, they have successfully made the county more economically diverse. Increased poverty is because bad and racist NIMBYs oppose zoning “missing middle” zoning changes that their own analysis finally had to admit would not be affordable. But since they are so stuck on form, they’re now calling it “attainable”. And why are they stuck on “missing middle”? Because they spend too much time online and want likes and retweets on social media and the opportunity to win a plastic door stopper at a conference.

Why do you think people shouldn't have the choice to live in a duplex, triplex, or small apartment building?

Why is a duplex or triplex so important to you over a multi family apartment building that delivers more housing at a lower cost per unit? It’s so stupid.

You all talk about Europe when it suits you. “Missing middle” is not a housing form anywhere in Europe that delivers walkable neighborhoods. It’s all midrise multi family, interspersed with some high rise multifamily.

I'm for large multi-unit buildings. I'm also for small and very small multi-unit buildings. Why do you think people in the US should not be allowed to have the choice to live in small or very small multi-unit buildings?

If your point is that only large multi-unit buildings should be allowed because they deliver more housing at lower cost per unit (which is not necessarily true), well, that's an argument for banning detached single-unit housing. Your point, not mine.

Sorry, here is another question. It’s already permissible to combine R-60 lots and convert to townhouses. Why are you against townhouses?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments. We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place.

Well congratulations, poster who should have noted sarcasm but didn't to set up a strawman!

The kind of development likely to be built won't be attainable by those who can't pay $2k/mo, and won't be supporting true altruism toward those with low incomes. However, it sure will bring additional residents without providing the infrastructure to support them, and, unfortunately, that under-servicing will tend to drive existing residents with higher means, modestly or otherwise, disproportionately out (and disproportionately keep those with such means from deciding to move in). So, not really poverty, but definitely not improvement.

I just don’t get it. Basically the economic growth strategy for the county is based on building more urbanized housing to benefit a bedroom community with high quality schools. As this strategy has played out, they intentionally have overtaxed roads and overcrowded schools while creating no jobs. People who want to and can afford to live close to employment centers and don’t like overcrowded schools and traffic are moving away, replaced by less affluent people with fewer options. The claimed housing was necessary to expand the tax base but in fact increases the drag on county resources leading to further tax increases. Planning, who have had a huge role instigating this negative feedback loop, just keep doubling down on their failure and at their worst, present their failures as success. We’re not getting poorer thanks to them, they have successfully made the county more economically diverse. Increased poverty is because bad and racist NIMBYs oppose zoning “missing middle” zoning changes that their own analysis finally had to admit would not be affordable. But since they are so stuck on form, they’re now calling it “attainable”. And why are they stuck on “missing middle”? Because they spend too much time online and want likes and retweets on social media and the opportunity to win a plastic door stopper at a conference.

Why do you think people shouldn't have the choice to live in a duplex, triplex, or small apartment building?

Why is a duplex or triplex so important to you over a multi family apartment building that delivers more housing at a lower cost per unit? It’s so stupid.

You all talk about Europe when it suits you. “Missing middle” is not a housing form anywhere in Europe that delivers walkable neighborhoods. It’s all midrise multi family, interspersed with some high rise multifamily.

I'm for large multi-unit buildings. I'm also for small and very small multi-unit buildings. Why do you think people in the US should not be allowed to have the choice to live in small or very small multi-unit buildings?

If your point is that only large multi-unit buildings should be allowed because they deliver more housing at lower cost per unit (which is not necessarily true), well, that's an argument for banning detached single-unit housing. Your point, not mine.

Tell me. Why it is more important to you to have one structure split into two units as a duplex on the same sized lot than have two separate single family houses?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments. We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place.

Well congratulations, poster who should have noted sarcasm but didn't to set up a strawman!

The kind of development likely to be built won't be attainable by those who can't pay $2k/mo, and won't be supporting true altruism toward those with low incomes. However, it sure will bring additional residents without providing the infrastructure to support them, and, unfortunately, that under-servicing will tend to drive existing residents with higher means, modestly or otherwise, disproportionately out (and disproportionately keep those with such means from deciding to move in). So, not really poverty, but definitely not improvement.

I just don’t get it. Basically the economic growth strategy for the county is based on building more urbanized housing to benefit a bedroom community with high quality schools. As this strategy has played out, they intentionally have overtaxed roads and overcrowded schools while creating no jobs. People who want to and can afford to live close to employment centers and don’t like overcrowded schools and traffic are moving away, replaced by less affluent people with fewer options. The claimed housing was necessary to expand the tax base but in fact increases the drag on county resources leading to further tax increases. Planning, who have had a huge role instigating this negative feedback loop, just keep doubling down on their failure and at their worst, present their failures as success. We’re not getting poorer thanks to them, they have successfully made the county more economically diverse. Increased poverty is because bad and racist NIMBYs oppose zoning “missing middle” zoning changes that their own analysis finally had to admit would not be affordable. But since they are so stuck on form, they’re now calling it “attainable”. And why are they stuck on “missing middle”? Because they spend too much time online and want likes and retweets on social media and the opportunity to win a plastic door stopper at a conference.

Why do you think people shouldn't have the choice to live in a duplex, triplex, or small apartment building?

Why is a duplex or triplex so important to you over a multi family apartment building that delivers more housing at a lower cost per unit? It’s so stupid.

You all talk about Europe when it suits you. “Missing middle” is not a housing form anywhere in Europe that delivers walkable neighborhoods. It’s all midrise multi family, interspersed with some high rise multifamily.

I'm for large multi-unit buildings. I'm also for small and very small multi-unit buildings. Why do you think people in the US should not be allowed to have the choice to live in small or very small multi-unit buildings?

If your point is that only large multi-unit buildings should be allowed because they deliver more housing at lower cost per unit (which is not necessarily true), well, that's an argument for banning detached single-unit housing. Your point, not mine.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments. We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place.

Well congratulations, poster who should have noted sarcasm but didn't to set up a strawman!

The kind of development likely to be built won't be attainable by those who can't pay $2k/mo, and won't be supporting true altruism toward those with low incomes. However, it sure will bring additional residents without providing the infrastructure to support them, and, unfortunately, that under-servicing will tend to drive existing residents with higher means, modestly or otherwise, disproportionately out (and disproportionately keep those with such means from deciding to move in). So, not really poverty, but definitely not improvement.

I just don’t get it. Basically the economic growth strategy for the county is based on building more urbanized housing to benefit a bedroom community with high quality schools. As this strategy has played out, they intentionally have overtaxed roads and overcrowded schools while creating no jobs. People who want to and can afford to live close to employment centers and don’t like overcrowded schools and traffic are moving away, replaced by less affluent people with fewer options. The claimed housing was necessary to expand the tax base but in fact increases the drag on county resources leading to further tax increases. Planning, who have had a huge role instigating this negative feedback loop, just keep doubling down on their failure and at their worst, present their failures as success. We’re not getting poorer thanks to them, they have successfully made the county more economically diverse. Increased poverty is because bad and racist NIMBYs oppose zoning “missing middle” zoning changes that their own analysis finally had to admit would not be affordable. But since they are so stuck on form, they’re now calling it “attainable”. And why are they stuck on “missing middle”? Because they spend too much time online and want likes and retweets on social media and the opportunity to win a plastic door stopper at a conference.

Why do you think people shouldn't have the choice to live in a duplex, triplex, or small apartment building?

Why is a duplex or triplex so important to you over a multi family apartment building that delivers more housing at a lower cost per unit? It’s so stupid.

You all talk about Europe when it suits you. “Missing middle” is not a housing form anywhere in Europe that delivers walkable neighborhoods. It’s all midrise multi family, interspersed with some high rise multifamily.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments. We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place.

Well congratulations, poster who should have noted sarcasm but didn't to set up a strawman!

The kind of development likely to be built won't be attainable by those who can't pay $2k/mo, and won't be supporting true altruism toward those with low incomes. However, it sure will bring additional residents without providing the infrastructure to support them, and, unfortunately, that under-servicing will tend to drive existing residents with higher means, modestly or otherwise, disproportionately out (and disproportionately keep those with such means from deciding to move in). So, not really poverty, but definitely not improvement.

I just don’t get it. Basically the economic growth strategy for the county is based on building more urbanized housing to benefit a bedroom community with high quality schools. As this strategy has played out, they intentionally have overtaxed roads and overcrowded schools while creating no jobs. People who want to and can afford to live close to employment centers and don’t like overcrowded schools and traffic are moving away, replaced by less affluent people with fewer options. The claimed housing was necessary to expand the tax base but in fact increases the drag on county resources leading to further tax increases. Planning, who have had a huge role instigating this negative feedback loop, just keep doubling down on their failure and at their worst, present their failures as success. We’re not getting poorer thanks to them, they have successfully made the county more economically diverse. Increased poverty is because bad and racist NIMBYs oppose zoning “missing middle” zoning changes that their own analysis finally had to admit would not be affordable. But since they are so stuck on form, they’re now calling it “attainable”. And why are they stuck on “missing middle”? Because they spend too much time online and want likes and retweets on social media and the opportunity to win a plastic door stopper at a conference.

Why do you think people shouldn't have the choice to live in a duplex, triplex, or small apartment building?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments. We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place.

Well congratulations, poster who should have noted sarcasm but didn't to set up a strawman!

The kind of development likely to be built won't be attainable by those who can't pay $2k/mo, and won't be supporting true altruism toward those with low incomes. However, it sure will bring additional residents without providing the infrastructure to support them, and, unfortunately, that under-servicing will tend to drive existing residents with higher means, modestly or otherwise, disproportionately out (and disproportionately keep those with such means from deciding to move in). So, not really poverty, but definitely not improvement.

I just don’t get it. Basically the economic growth strategy for the county is based on building more urbanized housing to benefit a bedroom community with high quality schools. As this strategy has played out, they intentionally have overtaxed roads and overcrowded schools while creating no jobs. People who want to and can afford to live close to employment centers and don’t like overcrowded schools and traffic are moving away, replaced by less affluent people with fewer options. The claimed housing was necessary to expand the tax base but in fact increases the drag on county resources leading to further tax increases. Planning, who have had a huge role instigating this negative feedback loop, just keep doubling down on their failure and at their worst, present their failures as success. We’re not getting poorer thanks to them, they have successfully made the county more economically diverse. Increased poverty is because bad and racist NIMBYs oppose zoning “missing middle” zoning changes that their own analysis finally had to admit would not be affordable. But since they are so stuck on form, they’re now calling it “attainable”. And why are they stuck on “missing middle”? Because they spend too much time online and want likes and retweets on social media and the opportunity to win a plastic door stopper at a conference.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a hint for all your NIMBYs: if you don't like apartments, don't live in them. Radical idea! And spend some of your energy on something more productive than hand-wringing about how some people want to live in something other than some ugly SFH.

Don't like the changes we impose upon you? Move, then!

It's a light version of ethnic cleansing.

I’d say that it’s more of an ideological colonialism. They don’t like how people have chosen to live so they will decide to change it for us, current residents be damned.

It would be a very rare person that lives in that zone that chose to make that development some 60 years ago.

Does the coming gentrification give you just an intellectual thrill or is there a physical excitement to it?

Is it coming gentrification, or coming slums? Pick one and stick with it.

DP, but it’s probably going to be neither because there’s a lot of other undeveloped land in this area with more profit potential. It will be a long time before developers work through those plots and this corridor is redeveloped in a major way, especially absent ultra-low interest rates or a massive turnaround in the county’s labor market. This isn’t something that developers with the capability to deliver a lot of units are asking for. It’s desperation from a planning department whose plans have failed to deliver what they’ve promised.

So, basically nothing is going to happen as a result of the University Boulevard corridor plan? Everything will basically stay the same as it is right now? Okay, then.

More or less, yes. How long will we keep putting stock in planning before they need to deliver some results?

Good news. Everyone who is panicking can stop panicking.

If you think this is a good outcome and that planning is doing good work the. you’re a NIMBY. MoCo needs to grow.

Yes, that is the purpose of the University Boulevard Corridor plan. It's also what the people who are fearmongering misinformation about the University Boulevard Corridor plan are opposed to.

There’s no world in which this idea results in enough housing to affect prices. It’s more performative nonsense from a planning department that hasn't had a good new idea in two decades.

If it did we’d see projections and metrics. If we hold out long enough maybe someone will distract them with the next shiny thing. Let us all remember that this voodoo is based on the construction of a bus system.

They sure have made a lot of promises though. Where’s that cheaper housing they said their subsidies and upzoning would deliver? Remember when “missing middle” referred to the price of housing instead of small houses at astronomical prices? And who can forget the days when we used to aim for affordable housing instead of “more attainable housing?”

"Missing middle" refers to the housing types in the middle of the housing spectrum that are missing because the zoning code does not allow them. One one end of the spectrum: detached one-unit houses and attached one-unit houses. On the other end of the spectrum: large multi-unit buildings. What's in the middle? Various types of smaller multi-unit buildings.

I am pretty sure that you know this, but you prefer not to acknowledge it.

It is really bizarre to me that you are so fixate on the type of housing units available rather than whether housing units are affordable. Valuing form over function.

It is bizarre but not surprising because the planning/YIMBY crowd is really out of touch with what people want and how markets work. They value forum over function and price.

The best part is that it’s all based on a few unproven concepts and completely made up terms. Placemaking, third place, attainable housing, walkability, 15 minute city, it’s all just… made up.

The ignorance, though entertaining, can be infuriating. There was a woman in a
meeting about this that came right out and said that she really wanted to live in a more urban area but couldn’t afford it (the irony, I know, a cheaper and more available SFH) but now wants to support this to recreate her preferred urban environment in a suburban neighborhood. Maybe she’s on the spectrum a little, but it seemed bizarre to just come out in front of a bunch of homeowners (that moved to the suburbs to avoid such environment) and say that she was done slumming it and now she’s going to stamp her feet until she gets her way. Also ironic that one of their big talking points is about how no one has the expectation that neighborhoods would never change and yet whine incessantly about how houses have gotten bigger and more expensive over time.

Walkability is a made up concept? Hoo boy.

Anonymous wrote:I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments. We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place.

Well congratulations, poster who should have noted sarcasm but didn't to set up a strawman!

The kind of development likely to be built won't be attainable by those who can't pay $2k/mo, and won't be supporting true altruism toward those with low incomes. However, it sure will bring additional residents without providing the infrastructure to support them, and, unfortunately, that under-servicing will tend to drive existing residents with higher means, modestly or otherwise, disproportionately out (and disproportionately keep those with such means from deciding to move in). So, not really poverty, but definitely not improvement.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a hint for all your NIMBYs: if you don't like apartments, don't live in them. Radical idea! And spend some of your energy on something more productive than hand-wringing about how some people want to live in something other than some ugly SFH.

Don't like the changes we impose upon you? Move, then!

It's a light version of ethnic cleansing.

I’d say that it’s more of an ideological colonialism. They don’t like how people have chosen to live so they will decide to change it for us, current residents be damned.

It would be a very rare person that lives in that zone that chose to make that development some 60 years ago.

Does the coming gentrification give you just an intellectual thrill or is there a physical excitement to it?

Is it coming gentrification, or coming slums? Pick one and stick with it.

DP, but it’s probably going to be neither because there’s a lot of other undeveloped land in this area with more profit potential. It will be a long time before developers work through those plots and this corridor is redeveloped in a major way, especially absent ultra-low interest rates or a massive turnaround in the county’s labor market. This isn’t something that developers with the capability to deliver a lot of units are asking for. It’s desperation from a planning department whose plans have failed to deliver what they’ve promised.

So, basically nothing is going to happen as a result of the University Boulevard corridor plan? Everything will basically stay the same as it is right now? Okay, then.

More or less, yes. How long will we keep putting stock in planning before they need to deliver some results?

Good news. Everyone who is panicking can stop panicking.

If you think this is a good outcome and that planning is doing good work the. you’re a NIMBY. MoCo needs to grow.

Yes, that is the purpose of the University Boulevard Corridor plan. It's also what the people who are fearmongering misinformation about the University Boulevard Corridor plan are opposed to.

There’s no world in which this idea results in enough housing to affect prices. It’s more performative nonsense from a planning department that hasn't had a good new idea in two decades.

If it did we’d see projections and metrics. If we hold out long enough maybe someone will distract them with the next shiny thing. Let us all remember that this voodoo is based on the construction of a bus system.

They sure have made a lot of promises though. Where’s that cheaper housing they said their subsidies and upzoning would deliver? Remember when “missing middle” referred to the price of housing instead of small houses at astronomical prices? And who can forget the days when we used to aim for affordable housing instead of “more attainable housing?”

"Missing middle" refers to the housing types in the middle of the housing spectrum that are missing because the zoning code does not allow them. One one end of the spectrum: detached one-unit houses and attached one-unit houses. On the other end of the spectrum: large multi-unit buildings. What's in the middle? Various types of smaller multi-unit buildings.

I am pretty sure that you know this, but you prefer not to acknowledge it.

It is really bizarre to me that you are so fixate on the type of housing units available rather than whether housing units are affordable. Valuing form over function.

It is bizarre but not surprising because the planning/YIMBY crowd is really out of touch with what people want and how markets work. They value forum over function and price.

The best part is that it’s all based on a few unproven concepts and completely made up terms. Placemaking, third place, attainable housing, walkability, 15 minute city, it’s all just… made up.

The ignorance, though entertaining, can be infuriating. There was a woman in a
meeting about this that came right out and said that she really wanted to live in a more urban area but couldn’t afford it (the irony, I know, a cheaper and more available SFH) but now wants to support this to recreate her preferred urban environment in a suburban neighborhood. Maybe she’s on the spectrum a little, but it seemed bizarre to just come out in front of a bunch of homeowners (that moved to the suburbs to avoid such environment) and say that she was done slumming it and now she’s going to stamp her feet until she gets her way. Also ironic that one of their big talking points is about how no one has the expectation that neighborhoods would never change and yet whine incessantly about how houses have gotten bigger and more expensive over time.

+100. It’s Dunning-Kruger at its worst.

And credit to that lady for at least saying the real reasons out loud, instead of pretending there is some altruistic motive behind it.

I'd agree with up zoning, but only if they build luxury condos and apartments. We need to drive as much poverty out of the city as we can in order to make it better and not do things that will import more of it. Silver Spring, for example, could get rid of so much crime if it had a baseline for rent well over $2000+ per month. Kinda hard for gang members and other trash to destroy an area if they can't afford to move there in.thenfiret place.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a hint for all your NIMBYs: if you don't like apartments, don't live in them. Radical idea! And spend some of your energy on something more productive than hand-wringing about how some people want to live in something other than some ugly SFH.

Don't like the changes we impose upon you? Move, then!

It's a light version of ethnic cleansing.

I’d say that it’s more of an ideological colonialism. They don’t like how people have chosen to live so they will decide to change it for us, current residents be damned.

It would be a very rare person that lives in that zone that chose to make that development some 60 years ago.

Does the coming gentrification give you just an intellectual thrill or is there a physical excitement to it?

Is it coming gentrification, or coming slums? Pick one and stick with it.

DP, but it’s probably going to be neither because there’s a lot of other undeveloped land in this area with more profit potential. It will be a long time before developers work through those plots and this corridor is redeveloped in a major way, especially absent ultra-low interest rates or a massive turnaround in the county’s labor market. This isn’t something that developers with the capability to deliver a lot of units are asking for. It’s desperation from a planning department whose plans have failed to deliver what they’ve promised.

So, basically nothing is going to happen as a result of the University Boulevard corridor plan? Everything will basically stay the same as it is right now? Okay, then.

More or less, yes. How long will we keep putting stock in planning before they need to deliver some results?

Good news. Everyone who is panicking can stop panicking.

If you think this is a good outcome and that planning is doing good work the. you’re a NIMBY. MoCo needs to grow.

Yes, that is the purpose of the University Boulevard Corridor plan. It's also what the people who are fearmongering misinformation about the University Boulevard Corridor plan are opposed to.

There’s no world in which this idea results in enough housing to affect prices. It’s more performative nonsense from a planning department that hasn't had a good new idea in two decades.

If it did we’d see projections and metrics. If we hold out long enough maybe someone will distract them with the next shiny thing. Let us all remember that this voodoo is based on the construction of a bus system.

They sure have made a lot of promises though. Where’s that cheaper housing they said their subsidies and upzoning would deliver? Remember when “missing middle” referred to the price of housing instead of small houses at astronomical prices? And who can forget the days when we used to aim for affordable housing instead of “more attainable housing?”

"Missing middle" refers to the housing types in the middle of the housing spectrum that are missing because the zoning code does not allow them. One one end of the spectrum: detached one-unit houses and attached one-unit houses. On the other end of the spectrum: large multi-unit buildings. What's in the middle? Various types of smaller multi-unit buildings.

I am pretty sure that you know this, but you prefer not to acknowledge it.

It is really bizarre to me that you are so fixate on the type of housing units available rather than whether housing units are affordable. Valuing form over function.

It is bizarre but not surprising because the planning/YIMBY crowd is really out of touch with what people want and how markets work. They value forum over function and price.

Oh, they're definitely in touch with markets. Specifically, the lower-end residential development market. Small garden apartments, multiplexes, etc. They know making that affordable is not nearly as lucrative as making it "attainable," and as soon as they'd gotten to some acknowledgement of the former to open the door, they started agitating for the latter to exploit the opening.

They call themselves YIMBYs just so that they have a convenient way of casting anyone who raises a legitimate argument against their ideas as NIMBY, long used as a pejorative, logic be damned.

This is true of some YIMBYs but most of them are useful idiots who don’t understand building costs, financing, or markets. They’re more than happy to accept that the housing problem is caused by zoning because other people tell them it is. This is great for landlords because it means people aren’t talking about landlords’ illegal collusion (a story that is nearly invisible in YIMBY land). It’s also great for planners and elected officials because it diverts attention from their complete failure to drive growth and deliver infrastructure that makes growth more likely. All the while, the landlords are booking massive profits, in some case supported by government subsidies.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a hint for all your NIMBYs: if you don't like apartments, don't live in them. Radical idea! And spend some of your energy on something more productive than hand-wringing about how some people want to live in something other than some ugly SFH.

Don't like the changes we impose upon you? Move, then!

It's a light version of ethnic cleansing.

I’d say that it’s more of an ideological colonialism. They don’t like how people have chosen to live so they will decide to change it for us, current residents be damned.

It would be a very rare person that lives in that zone that chose to make that development some 60 years ago.

Does the coming gentrification give you just an intellectual thrill or is there a physical excitement to it?

Is it coming gentrification, or coming slums? Pick one and stick with it.

DP, but it’s probably going to be neither because there’s a lot of other undeveloped land in this area with more profit potential. It will be a long time before developers work through those plots and this corridor is redeveloped in a major way, especially absent ultra-low interest rates or a massive turnaround in the county’s labor market. This isn’t something that developers with the capability to deliver a lot of units are asking for. It’s desperation from a planning department whose plans have failed to deliver what they’ve promised.

So, basically nothing is going to happen as a result of the University Boulevard corridor plan? Everything will basically stay the same as it is right now? Okay, then.

More or less, yes. How long will we keep putting stock in planning before they need to deliver some results?

Good news. Everyone who is panicking can stop panicking.

If you think this is a good outcome and that planning is doing good work the. you’re a NIMBY. MoCo needs to grow.

Yes, that is the purpose of the University Boulevard Corridor plan. It's also what the people who are fearmongering misinformation about the University Boulevard Corridor plan are opposed to.

There’s no world in which this idea results in enough housing to affect prices. It’s more performative nonsense from a planning department that hasn't had a good new idea in two decades.

If it did we’d see projections and metrics. If we hold out long enough maybe someone will distract them with the next shiny thing. Let us all remember that this voodoo is based on the construction of a bus system.

They sure have made a lot of promises though. Where’s that cheaper housing they said their subsidies and upzoning would deliver? Remember when “missing middle” referred to the price of housing instead of small houses at astronomical prices? And who can forget the days when we used to aim for affordable housing instead of “more attainable housing?”

"Missing middle" refers to the housing types in the middle of the housing spectrum that are missing because the zoning code does not allow them. One one end of the spectrum: detached one-unit houses and attached one-unit houses. On the other end of the spectrum: large multi-unit buildings. What's in the middle? Various types of smaller multi-unit buildings.

I am pretty sure that you know this, but you prefer not to acknowledge it.

It is really bizarre to me that you are so fixate on the type of housing units available rather than whether housing units are affordable. Valuing form over function.

It is bizarre but not surprising because the planning/YIMBY crowd is really out of touch with what people want and how markets work. They value forum over function and price.

Oh, they're definitely in touch with markets. Specifically, the lower-end residential development market. Small garden apartments, multiplexes, etc. They know making that affordable is not nearly as lucrative as making it "attainable," and as soon as they'd gotten to some acknowledgement of the former to open the door, they started agitating for the latter to exploit the opening.

They call themselves YIMBYs just so that they have a convenient way of casting anyone who raises a legitimate argument against their ideas as NIMBY, long used as a pejorative, logic be damned.

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:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's a hint for all your NIMBYs: if you don't like apartments, don't live in them. Radical idea! And spend some of your energy on something more productive than hand-wringing about how some people want to live in something other than some ugly SFH.

Don't like the changes we impose upon you? Move, then!

It's a light version of ethnic cleansing.

I’d say that it’s more of an ideological colonialism. They don’t like how people have chosen to live so they will decide to change it for us, current residents be damned.

It would be a very rare person that lives in that zone that chose to make that development some 60 years ago.

Does the coming gentrification give you just an intellectual thrill or is there a physical excitement to it?

Is it coming gentrification, or coming slums? Pick one and stick with it.

DP, but it’s probably going to be neither because there’s a lot of other undeveloped land in this area with more profit potential. It will be a long time before developers work through those plots and this corridor is redeveloped in a major way, especially absent ultra-low interest rates or a massive turnaround in the county’s labor market. This isn’t something that developers with the capability to deliver a lot of units are asking for. It’s desperation from a planning department whose plans have failed to deliver what they’ve promised.

So, basically nothing is going to happen as a result of the University Boulevard corridor plan? Everything will basically stay the same as it is right now? Okay, then.

More or less, yes. How long will we keep putting stock in planning before they need to deliver some results?

Good news. Everyone who is panicking can stop panicking.

If you think this is a good outcome and that planning is doing good work the. you’re a NIMBY. MoCo needs to grow.

Yes, that is the purpose of the University Boulevard Corridor plan. It's also what the people who are fearmongering misinformation about the University Boulevard Corridor plan are opposed to.

There’s no world in which this idea results in enough housing to affect prices. It’s more performative nonsense from a planning department that hasn't had a good new idea in two decades.

If it did we’d see projections and metrics. If we hold out long enough maybe someone will distract them with the next shiny thing. Let us all remember that this voodoo is based on the construction of a bus system.

They sure have made a lot of promises though. Where’s that cheaper housing they said their subsidies and upzoning would deliver? Remember when “missing middle” referred to the price of housing instead of small houses at astronomical prices? And who can forget the days when we used to aim for affordable housing instead of “more attainable housing?”

"Missing middle" refers to the housing types in the middle of the housing spectrum that are missing because the zoning code does not allow them. One one end of the spectrum: detached one-unit houses and attached one-unit houses. On the other end of the spectrum: large multi-unit buildings. What's in the middle? Various types of smaller multi-unit buildings.

I am pretty sure that you know this, but you prefer not to acknowledge it.

It is really bizarre to me that you are so fixate on the type of housing units available rather than whether housing units are affordable. Valuing form over function.

It is bizarre but not surprising because the planning/YIMBY crowd is really out of touch with what people want and how markets work. They value forum over function and price.

The best part is that it’s all based on a few unproven concepts and completely made up terms. Placemaking, third place, attainable housing, walkability, 15 minute city, it’s all just… made up.

The ignorance, though entertaining, can be infuriating. There was a woman in a
meeting about this that came right out and said that she really wanted to live in a more urban area but couldn’t afford it (the irony, I know, a cheaper and more available SFH) but now wants to support this to recreate her preferred urban environment in a suburban neighborhood. Maybe she’s on the spectrum a little, but it seemed bizarre to just come out in front of a bunch of homeowners (that moved to the suburbs to avoid such environment) and say that she was done slumming it and now she’s going to stamp her feet until she gets her way. Also ironic that one of their big talking points is about how no one has the expectation that neighborhoods would never change and yet whine incessantly about how houses have gotten bigger and more expensive over time.