@aarondrol.bsky.social
What a boondoggle.
November 19, 2025 at 11:52 AM
What a boondoggle.
Your interest group has no business trying to harm our neighborhoods that none of you even live in or displace our neighbors that you don’t even see or care about on a day to day basis.
November 11, 2025 at 10:26 PM
Your interest group has no business trying to harm our neighborhoods that none of you even live in or displace our neighbors that you don’t even see or care about on a day to day basis.
You don’t even live here.
November 11, 2025 at 10:03 PM
You don’t even live here.
Maybe a start would be creating plans that the community actually supports? Public buy-in goes a long way. The Planning Board's approach on University Blvd. Corridor has been to ignore and strongarm the community to the maximum possible extent.
November 7, 2025 at 2:51 PM
Maybe a start would be creating plans that the community actually supports? Public buy-in goes a long way. The Planning Board's approach on University Blvd. Corridor has been to ignore and strongarm the community to the maximum possible extent.
The University Blvd. corridor is already a model for diversity and racial inclusion. The Council’s Racial Equity impact statement confirms what residents have been trying to tell you and you have ignored. The plan YOU passed is likely to have a displacement effect on our community.
October 30, 2025 at 11:59 PM
The University Blvd. corridor is already a model for diversity and racial inclusion. The Council’s Racial Equity impact statement confirms what residents have been trying to tell you and you have ignored. The plan YOU passed is likely to have a displacement effect on our community.
October 26, 2025 at 8:44 PM
It’s time to sunset Montgomery County’s rent stabilization law. The county’s own data shows it has decimated multifamily housing construction more than any other policy.
October 24, 2025 at 1:01 AM
It’s time to sunset Montgomery County’s rent stabilization law. The county’s own data shows it has decimated multifamily housing construction more than any other policy.
Where we differ is I think residents have a right to self government and you seem to think that people whose ideas you happen to like should be able to dictate what happens in neighborhoods they don’t live in and dont even really see or care about day to day.
October 23, 2025 at 11:48 PM
Where we differ is I think residents have a right to self government and you seem to think that people whose ideas you happen to like should be able to dictate what happens in neighborhoods they don’t live in and dont even really see or care about day to day.
As an example, you don't live here, so you shouldn't really have a say in my neighborhood, even if you think your ideas are fantastic. I don't live where you live, so what I say shouldn't be prioritized in what happens to your neighborhood. That's pretty fundamental and basic to local government.
October 23, 2025 at 8:34 PM
As an example, you don't live here, so you shouldn't really have a say in my neighborhood, even if you think your ideas are fantastic. I don't live where you live, so what I say shouldn't be prioritized in what happens to your neighborhood. That's pretty fundamental and basic to local government.
*Residents* should be prioritized. Whether short or long term residents is immaterial. Just residents. Yes, non-residents who don't even live here and aren't affected by the proposed changes should not be prioritized.
October 23, 2025 at 8:31 PM
*Residents* should be prioritized. Whether short or long term residents is immaterial. Just residents. Yes, non-residents who don't even live here and aren't affected by the proposed changes should not be prioritized.
You don't live on the Corridor.
October 23, 2025 at 5:47 PM
You don't live on the Corridor.
The article is pure projection. No one has ever said recent residents on the Corridor shouldn't have a say, and that it's any less valid. But it's residents who actually LIVE on the corridor whose voices should be prioritized over nonresidents. That should be obvious.
October 23, 2025 at 4:04 PM
The article is pure projection. No one has ever said recent residents on the Corridor shouldn't have a say, and that it's any less valid. But it's residents who actually LIVE on the corridor whose voices should be prioritized over nonresidents. That should be obvious.
This article gives the false impression that supporters of the plan are equivalent to those that oppose it. The public record is clear that those that oppose this plan vastly outnumber supporters, and it’s not close.
September 28, 2025 at 9:46 PM
This article gives the false impression that supporters of the plan are equivalent to those that oppose it. The public record is clear that those that oppose this plan vastly outnumber supporters, and it’s not close.
All of this is going to be moot anyway because we all know the Council is just going to go along with the Board anyway.
September 27, 2025 at 3:17 PM
All of this is going to be moot anyway because we all know the Council is just going to go along with the Board anyway.
You don’t live in the directly affected neighborhoods, like most of the supporters of the plan. Impacted residents oppose the plan in far greater numbers than support it. The public record is clear on that. If the Board did a better job, there could anre elements of the plan the community supports.
September 27, 2025 at 3:11 PM
You don’t live in the directly affected neighborhoods, like most of the supporters of the plan. Impacted residents oppose the plan in far greater numbers than support it. The public record is clear on that. If the Board did a better job, there could anre elements of the plan the community supports.
Nothing’s perfect, but they’re far more representative of the views of the community than paid advocates like GGwash. Lots of individuals from all over testified too. Watch the public hearings and tell
me some of those concerns aren’t valid.
The Board just did a lousy job on this Plan.
me some of those concerns aren’t valid.
The Board just did a lousy job on this Plan.
September 27, 2025 at 2:50 PM
Nothing’s perfect, but they’re far more representative of the views of the community than paid advocates like GGwash. Lots of individuals from all over testified too. Watch the public hearings and tell
me some of those concerns aren’t valid.
The Board just did a lousy job on this Plan.
me some of those concerns aren’t valid.
The Board just did a lousy job on this Plan.
The people speaking against the plan are far more representative of the community than groups like GGWash. Every single neighborhood association up and down the corridor opposes it. Regular neighbors on their own time and dime (unlike GGWash) coming out is about as grassroots as it gets.
September 27, 2025 at 2:30 PM
The people speaking against the plan are far more representative of the community than groups like GGWash. Every single neighborhood association up and down the corridor opposes it. Regular neighbors on their own time and dime (unlike GGWash) coming out is about as grassroots as it gets.
yes roads need to be maintained and in good repair. This is the same government you trust to somehow also build and maintain new complicated infrastructure on the University as proposed in the Corridor plan? Most of which has zero to do with safety. Makes little sense To me.
September 22, 2025 at 7:59 PM
yes roads need to be maintained and in good repair. This is the same government you trust to somehow also build and maintain new complicated infrastructure on the University as proposed in the Corridor plan? Most of which has zero to do with safety. Makes little sense To me.
Was it built in 1989?
September 22, 2025 at 7:49 PM
Was it built in 1989?
There is almost no area that is more housing restrictionist or has built less housing over the last few decades than TKPK.
September 22, 2025 at 7:25 PM
There is almost no area that is more housing restrictionist or has built less housing over the last few decades than TKPK.