Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

I'm not sure if you actually believe that or if you're pushing a narrative in bad faith, but "dense housing, crime, and bad schools" does not apply to the wealthier parts of Montgomery County.

Haha YIMBYs are ridiculously naive. It absolutely does apply to wealthy parts of MOCO. The #1 predictive variable for crime rates and school outcome is household income level. If you bring in density and invite lower income housing the schools will tank, crime rates will increase. It is unavoidable.

PP here. Person I'm responding to is talking about now, not in the hypothetical future. And nothing in my post indicates I am a YIMBY. Your reading comprehension is really bad. I am totally unaffected by this plan.

I understand very clearly that this round of upcoming "doesn't impact you". However, 2nd or 3rd round or upzoning almost certainly will. It does not stop here and this is only the beginning. You may not identify as a YIMBY, but the nonchalant attitude is similar to one and the results will be them same. If you let them win now it is game over and your neighborhood is next. The YIMBYs will start arguing that this policy does go far enough and we need to do more almost immediately after this one goes through. Give the YIMBYs an inch and they will take ten miles.

"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist..."

First they came for the Metro-adjacent SFHs, and I did not speak out, because I live in a neighborhood with protective covenants. Then my house value went up.

Which neighborhoods in close-in Silver Spring, which will be ground zero for the proposed changes given the relatively lower cost of property acquisition by developers, have protective covenants? Your characterization is a straw man.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

I'm not sure if you actually believe that or if you're pushing a narrative in bad faith, but "dense housing, crime, and bad schools" does not apply to the wealthier parts of Montgomery County.

Haha YIMBYs are ridiculously naive. It absolutely does apply to wealthy parts of MOCO. The #1 predictive variable for crime rates and school outcome is household income level. If you bring in density and invite lower income housing the schools will tank, crime rates will increase. It is unavoidable.

PP here. Person I'm responding to is talking about now, not in the hypothetical future. And nothing in my post indicates I am a YIMBY. Your reading comprehension is really bad. I am totally unaffected by this plan.

I understand very clearly that this round of upcoming "doesn't impact you". However, 2nd or 3rd round or upzoning almost certainly will. It does not stop here and this is only the beginning. You may not identify as a YIMBY, but the nonchalant attitude is similar to one and the results will be them same. If you let them win now it is game over and your neighborhood is next. The YIMBYs will start arguing that this policy does go far enough and we need to do more almost immediately after this one goes through. Give the YIMBYs an inch and they will take ten miles.

"First, they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist..."

First they came for the Metro-adjacent SFHs, and I did not speak out, because I live in a neighborhood with protective covenants. Then my house value went up.

What does Friedson think of all of this?? No way I'm voting for him if he supports this. I'm not against it like near metro stations but outside of that no helllllll no do I want duplexes/triplexes next to my house. More cars, people, noise, and more kids packed into schools? No thanks. I'm quite progressive, but people have to know when to stop. Hate hate hate all you want.

I love sfh. So most people. It's literally the American dream ( and everyone's dream).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait for MoCo to ban single-family only zoning countywide.
MoCo has become a boring bedroom community with little industry compared to Fairfax, Loudoun, and Arlington

Implementing a significant overhaul of existing zoning rules because you don’t like “boring bedroom communities” is not a logical policy decision. Not everyone wants to live in urbanist 15 minute slums.

Show me ONE example of a “15 minute slum” achieved by these measures in a country with strong property rights like the US. Otherwise, keep your conspiracy nut job theories to yourself.

This is not a conspiracy and I am not a nut job. Minneapolis is a textbook example of this. You want to force everyone else to live in densely populated communities because you don't like the suburbs. People moved here because they wanted to live in a suburban area. Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate single family zoning. Furthermore, the current planning staff are demonstrating questionable behavior that suggest they are unduly influenced or supported by political advocacy groups like GGW.

Brother, Minneapolis is not a good example of a 15 minute slum, no matter how much you hate Somalian asylum seekers.

I’ve been to Minneapolis and it’s super trashy. Saint Louis is an even better example though. It’s really gone downhill since the woke city planners took over.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait for MoCo to ban single-family only zoning countywide.
MoCo has become a boring bedroom community with little industry compared to Fairfax, Loudoun, and Arlington

Implementing a significant overhaul of existing zoning rules because you don’t like “boring bedroom communities” is not a logical policy decision. Not everyone wants to live in urbanist 15 minute slums.

Show me ONE example of a “15 minute slum” achieved by these measures in a country with strong property rights like the US. Otherwise, keep your conspiracy nut job theories to yourself.

This is not a conspiracy and I am not a nut job. Minneapolis is a textbook example of this. You want to force everyone else to live in densely populated communities because you don't like the suburbs. People moved here because they wanted to live in a suburban area. Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate single family zoning. Furthermore, the current planning staff are demonstrating questionable behavior that suggest they are unduly influenced or supported by political advocacy groups like GGW.

Brother, Minneapolis is not a good example of a 15 minute slum, no matter how much you hate Somalian asylum seekers.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait for MoCo to ban single-family only zoning countywide.
MoCo has become a boring bedroom community with little industry compared to Fairfax, Loudoun, and Arlington

Lmao…oh, yeah, it’s going to be great.

Why didn’t you move somewhere more to your liking? You haven’t dragged the county down enough?

I guess that what the county loses in quality they will make up for in volume….pack enough people into one SFH lot and maybe those renters will together pay half as in taxes as the former residents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait for MoCo to ban single-family only zoning countywide.
MoCo has become a boring bedroom community with little industry compared to Fairfax, Loudoun, and Arlington

Implementing a significant overhaul of existing zoning rules because you don’t like “boring bedroom communities” is not a logical policy decision. Not everyone wants to live in urbanist 15 minute slums.

Show me ONE example of a “15 minute slum” achieved by these measures in a country with strong property rights like the US. Otherwise, keep your conspiracy nut job theories to yourself.

This is not a conspiracy and I am not a nut job. Minneapolis is a textbook example of this. You want to force everyone else to live in densely populated communities because you don't like the suburbs. People moved here because they wanted to live in a suburban area. Most people in MOCO do not want to eliminate single family zoning. Furthermore, the current planning staff are demonstrating questionable behavior that suggest they are unduly influenced or supported by political advocacy groups like GGW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait for MoCo to ban single-family only zoning countywide.
MoCo has become a boring bedroom community with little industry compared to Fairfax, Loudoun, and Arlington

Implementing a significant overhaul of existing zoning rules because you don’t like “boring bedroom communities” is not a logical policy decision. Not everyone wants to live in urbanist 15 minute slums.

Show me ONE example of a “15 minute slum” achieved by these measures in a country with strong property rights like the US. Otherwise, keep your conspiracy nut job theories to yourself.

Anonymous wrote:I can’t wait for MoCo to ban single-family only zoning countywide.
MoCo has become a boring bedroom community with little industry compared to Fairfax, Loudoun, and Arlington

Implementing a significant overhaul of existing zoning rules because you don’t like “boring bedroom communities” is not a logical policy decision. Not everyone wants to live in urbanist 15 minute slums.

Anonymous wrote:Haha YIMBYs are ridiculously naive. It absolutely does apply to wealthy parts of MOCO. The #1 predictive variable for crime rates and school outcome is household income level. If you bring in density and invite lower income housing the schools will tank, crime rates will increase. It is unavoidable.

IKR? We have to work even harder to keep the rest of the poors out!

I can’t wait for MoCo to ban single-family only zoning countywide.
MoCo has become a boring bedroom community with little industry compared to Fairfax, Loudoun, and Arlington

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You get what you vote for. We liked Moco but it was obvious that politically the future isn’t bright. Between the illegal immigrants and proposed changes to schools, zoning and housing policies, it seemed too risky. Also how Covid was handled and a state government that doesn’t support or encourage job creation.

I have to agree with you. Montgomery County has been on a bad trajectory for a while now. Now that the schools are also bad, the county doesn’t have a strong differentiator. If you like high taxes, dense housing, crime and bad schools why not just live in DC?

I'm not sure if you actually believe that or if you're pushing a narrative in bad faith, but "dense housing, crime, and bad schools" does not apply to the wealthier parts of Montgomery County.

Haha YIMBYs are ridiculously naive. It absolutely does apply to wealthy parts of MOCO. The #1 predictive variable for crime rates and school outcome is household income level. If you bring in density and invite lower income housing the schools will tank, crime rates will increase. It is unavoidable.

100% Look at Westbrook Elementary and what has happened at that school.

Anonymous wrote:thankfully my neighborhood off Mass Ave just missed the priority housing districts...for now!

Where can I find these districts?
I am
Opposed to this 100% and hope mine is, too!

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:PP again. For instance, in Bethesda and Chevy Chase, old houses get sold as tear downs. New, bigger houses go up in their place. Affordability declines but the neighborhood, by some measures, gets "nicer".

Do the changes discussed in the report mean that more of these tear downs are going to be rebuilt as duplexes, triplexes and small apartment buildings? In the middle of what otherwise are suburban single family neighborhoods? If so, how can we tell if our house, street falls into such a (re) zone?

Yes, that's exactly what it means. And if it doesn't matter if your house is in a zone that's being targeted, because once they start down this path, they will not stop.

Well, that’s silly. It certainly matters to ME whether my house is in a zone that’s being targeted. Just as I am less concerned about school redistricting that doesn’t affect my street or neighborhood. Otherwise everyone would be up in arms about everything.

OK, whatever. There's a map on page 5 of the powerpoint. If you're south of Rockville, you will be affected. As it turns out, the poor people who purportedly need this "attainable" housing wouldn't deign to live in the northern part of the county.

What are you talking about? There are plenty of poor people who live in the northern part of the county.

Yes, lots of poor people figure their lives out and make things work. Others whine about affordable housing and think they're entitled to live in Bethesda; the planning board seems eager to help them!

One poster was complaining about there being too many cars. Putting people upcounty will definitely get you too many cars. In density not so much.

The estimated travel times and cost of public transport are not going to get folks in these to-be-developed zones point to point, broadly -- to work, to shop (without great encumbrance, to boot), etc., where that would present a good alternative to driving. The added density of this type simply will bring more cars to the local area.

Take a look at how bad traffic is with the current metro closures. That's one way to see the benefit of there being a transit alternative.

Non sequitor, if you are suggesting that is a justification for more density. That marginal benefit is needed with the current density. One of the biggest problems with the currently pursued higher-density infill approach is a terrible lack of requiring the infrastructure needed to serve the impacted communities properly. From a transportation perspective, BRT isn't going to cut it, especially given the point-to-point needs.

Yes, this is absolutely correct. Increasing density will (almost) always in traffic, because new residents still use cars. Unless the new residents are banned from having and using cars traffic congestion is going to increase.

I am strongly in favor of the increase density and I agree with you....at least in the short run.

But, two things-
1. Over time and with increased/enhanced mass transit options and walkable community-serving services, people will use cars less frequently. This is a long game, but you have to create the conditions where people need to drive less before people can actually start driving less.
2. Increased traffic isn't bad, or at least not bad enough to outweigh the other benefits of walkability/density. The slower a driver goes, and the more attention they need to pay while driving, the less fatalities.

1. So create the conditions first, then increase density, if it must be so. Or plan for that in greenfield areas rather than existing suburban developments.

2. Instead, invest in pedestrian improvements -- better sidewalks & crossings, more crossings with discouragement of jaywalking otherwise, etc. "Increased traffic isn't bad" is a pretty poor lead statement, even if followed by the tradeoff caveat.

The long game as being suggested really sticks it to the current residents of those areas. They made among the most significant and burdensome-to-change life choices when deciding to reside there. When planners don't require the necessary infrastructure to support infill that happens with zoning change, those residents have to deal not only with undesired changes to neighborhood character but also with waiting out that result. A result that is aspirational, rather than determined, and the benefits of which might not come to pass at all. And even if those benefits materialize a decase or two later, the overall result, with the increased density, larger buildings, etc., may well not be as good for them as would be the case if zoning remained unchanged.

PP here. Two thoughts:
1. All pedestrian improvements are in the end a way to make traffic move slower and make drivers pay more attention. More cars on the road does this.
2. I agree that current residents pay a price with increased density. But there are two sides to that equation. It is a strong benefit to newer residents that come in. The question is whether that matters. I think it does.

Logically fallacious arguments, there.

1. All gutter maintenance is to ensure that leaves do not block water from reaching downspouts so that the structure of the house is protected. Cutting down all trees does this.

2. False choice. You pose this as though anyone must either accept the current initiative or completely ignore any benefit to new residents. A few things:

A. You're presuming there is no approach that keeps current residents from paying a price. It would be a different approach, such as encouraging greenfield job centers farther out with new lower/middle cost housing, or relying on the buildout in areas with existing underutilized high-density zoning, like much of downtown Silver Spring, or infrastructure first/deterministically tied to increased densities, or compensation to those negatively affected (which almost never happens, but would tend to be a self-correcting mechanism for these kinds of public policies if regularly employed).

B. You're presuming that the proper focus of elected representatives and their appointees is anyone who might live in their jurisdiction, when their chief focus should be on the electorate who placed the responsibility in their hands.

C. You're ignoring the sequential trampling of the rights of minorities (in this case the smaller populations of residents more directly impacted with each program/corridor/etc. vs. the population of the entire county). If you really want to play the Robin Hood card, the proposals should be about BRT along MacArthur Blvd and River Rd to Potomac, with quadplexes/small apartment buildings there and a separate bus-only crossing to get those folks to Tyson's if you can't make a nearer job center (/sarcasm). It just shows that this is all about making low-hanging fruit to fill developers pocket.