I haven't figured out how people raise children in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And, of course, it's interesting that the most influential policies that European governments intentionally pushed during the 70s and 80s that the US is going to experience over the coming decades: specifically high fuel costs, and the attendant change in the way we do logistics.

As far as the meaning of "retrofitted properly", there are good ways and bad ways to do urbanism. While the planners understand that things need to change, and that growth needs to be pushed inward to the transit-accessible nodes, they've still got to get past suburban voters: who are mostly NIMBYs, love ample parking, and in general, will always push for policies that undercut the execution of the smart-growth planning.

Folks who understand and desire walkable communties are moving into urban areas: DC, Philly, Chicago, etc... People move to the suburbs because they largely want a "convenient" suburban experience. When push comes to shove, you can *always* count on suburban voters to do the wrong thing when it comes to urbanist design.

There are huge value judgments in what you've said. I'm willing to give up walkability for peace and quiet. I prefer the 'burbs because I don't have strange people walking through my neighborhood. I disliked Manhattan because strangers were always walking around yelling at all hours. Same with London (less yelling). There are no village-like spaces when you live in a city. Just public spaces. Always the intrusive sounds of sirens and traffic. I like quiet. I like being able to hear walnuts hitting the ground as they fall during autumn. Yes, I recognize that that's a luxury. But it's a sensibility that may people share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

Why do you care why others are having one child, no children, or three children? Says a lot more about you than them. Get over it and MYOB.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

PP's lack of reasoning is hilarious. You don't think that there are people out there who have more children because that's what parents want, rather than what's best for the child? Parents who project that their 2 year old "wants a sibling" and therefore have another kid--really, what idiot thinks that a 2 year old's views on raising a child should be taken into account? Not to mention the fact there are many families who have multiple children because having 3 or more kids is a status symbol in this expensive town, or else have multiple kids to inflate their husband's sense of manliness. There are parents who have multiple kids because they think that they (can't speak for the kids) are going to heaven by not using birth control or having an abortion. I won't elaborate upon the sacrifices women make both of themselves and to the public good when they have to give up careers to raise multiple kids. Or, on the flip side, what do you think of women who work and therefore have to hire full-time nannies to raise multiple kids--is that being selfish, if so, to whom? What about parents who raise only one child for environmental reasons--they produce far fewer carbon emissions than large families who live out in the burbs. Finally, your equating an Audi to private school education is also pretty outrageous.

You ought to develop better reasoning skills before you spout off your ridiculous opinions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I've posted a link here a few times to a recent Brookings report that showed you were much more likely to die in a traffic accident in the burbs than of any cause in the city, and that incidents of "homicide by stranger" were actually more prevalent in the suburbs than the city. Bottom line? Don't want to get shot? Don't deal crack.

More accurately, don't have the misfortune of growing up in a neighborhood where crack dealing goes on. I'm sure you've seen the stories about academically serious kids who attracted the ire of thugs in their neighborhoods and got killed as a result.

Got cites for those? What does that happen? Once a decade? For every single story you can find that fits that criteria, I'll give you a dozen about academically serious kids who were killed while driving around the 'burbs. If you're going to protect your kids, it's important that you understand what is and what is not a legitimate threat.

Cites? No. Do a Google search. There were at least two such shootings in DC this year and another killing of a visiting honors student in Baltimore. I'm not aware of any kids being shot while going about their business in the DC-Baltimore suburbs this year. As for protecting your kids, I think that considering the impact of crime is a valid consideration, especially if you can't afford to live in an economically exclusive area in DC or can't afford to send your kids to a strong private school. The topic is relevant for this forum because a good number of people living in the 'burbs might not be able to afford private school for all their kids if they lived in DC. Many DC schools draw populations from areas that are not uniformly advantaged economically, so the degree to which crime and gangs may be prevelent is a valid concern.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

Why do you care why others are having one child, no children, or three children? Says a lot more about you than them. Get over it and MYOB.

Snipe, snipe snipe!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child...

No what you said was "I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school..." The fact that you're trying to walk it back now leads me to the conclusion that you're a disingenuous piece of shit.

Just keeping it real.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child...

No what you said was "I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school..." The fact that you're trying to walk it back now leads me to the conclusion that you're a disingenuous piece of shit.

Just keeping it real.

Like

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And, of course, it's interesting that the most influential policies that European governments intentionally pushed during the 70s and 80s that the US is going to experience over the coming decades: specifically high fuel costs, and the attendant change in the way we do logistics.

As far as the meaning of "retrofitted properly", there are good ways and bad ways to do urbanism. While the planners understand that things need to change, and that growth needs to be pushed inward to the transit-accessible nodes, they've still got to get past suburban voters: who are mostly NIMBYs, love ample parking, and in general, will always push for policies that undercut the execution of the smart-growth planning.

Folks who understand and desire walkable communties are moving into urban areas: DC, Philly, Chicago, etc... People move to the suburbs because they largely want a "convenient" suburban experience. When push comes to shove, you can *always* count on suburban voters to do the wrong thing when it comes to urbanist design.

There are huge value judgments in what you've said. I'm willing to give up walkability for peace and quiet. I prefer the 'burbs because I don't have strange people walking through my neighborhood. I disliked Manhattan because strangers were always walking around yelling at all hours. Same with London (less yelling). There are no village-like spaces when you live in a city. Just public spaces. Always the intrusive sounds of sirens and traffic. I like quiet. I like being able to hear walnuts hitting the ground as they fall during autumn. Yes, I recognize that that's a luxury. But it's a sensibility that may people share.

you misunderstood me--or I guess I wasn't describing the situation well enough: I'm not judging whether sprawl, ample parking, convenience, etc, etc... was "better" or "worse". Just pointing out that suburban folks prioritize different things--just as you say. The problem is, if you attempt to do "smart growth" or whatever you want to call it, while prioritizing the things that you've enumerated above, you end up with an ineffective muddle: it turns into a mess. So I totally agree with you: different strokes for different folks. You'll continue to vote for what you like, and the PP above who is hoping that the suburbs turn into individual smart growth centers in their own right is going to be sorely disappointed. We're too used to doing things in a shitty, sprawling, half-assed way...and we'll continue to do so until the whole wretched mess collapses under it's own weight. The suburbs cannot retool so long as it's possible to continue to make them worse. At some point the ride's going to stop, though. Probably sooner rather than later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child...

No what you said was "I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school..." The fact that you're trying to walk it back now leads me to the conclusion that you're a disingenuous piece of shit.

Just keeping it real.

It's the same idea. You just don't like the truth of it. Name calling? very impressive. If that's how you teach your child to deal with an idea that you don't like, then by all means, stop at one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:you misunderstood me--or I guess I wasn't describing the situation well enough: I'm not judging whether sprawl, ample parking, convenience, etc, etc... was "better" or "worse". Just pointing out that suburban folks prioritize different things--just as you say. The problem is, if you attempt to do "smart growth" or whatever you want to call it, while prioritizing the things that you've enumerated above, you end up with an ineffective muddle: it turns into a mess. So I totally agree with you: different strokes for different folks. You'll continue to vote for what you like, and the PP above who is hoping that the suburbs turn into individual smart growth centers in their own right is going to be sorely disappointed. We're too used to doing things in a shitty, sprawling, half-assed way...and we'll continue to do so until the whole wretched mess collapses under it's own weight. The suburbs cannot retool so long as it's possible to continue to make them worse. At some point the ride's going to stop, though. Probably sooner rather than later.

I'm not sure why the whole thing has to collapse under its own weight. I can see some of the far out exurbs becoming too expensive to sustain due to the cost of fuel. But unless we tear down existing neighborhoods to build higher density housing, I think you're likely to see more resources be pored into expanding regional public transportation rather than a large movement of populations closer to DC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why the whole thing has to collapse under its own weight. I can see some of the far out exurbs becoming too expensive to sustain due to the cost of fuel. But unless we tear down existing neighborhoods to build higher density housing, I think you're likely to see more resources be pored into expanding regional public transportation rather than a large movement of populations closer to DC.

It's a Malthusian problem. Regional population's going to continue to grow; most of those folks are going to live in the suburbs. As the competition for housing close-in to transit centers continues, those who have to drive the most will be priced further out--which means they'll be driving more and clogging up the roads. Most studies show that "transit" doesn't actually do much to cut into the congestion problem. Also, the super-representation of rural interests in this country ensures that *sustained* spending on large transit projects can never happen. So "transit" will always be the ugly step-sister to new highway construction. Things will continue until they cannot continue any longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure why the whole thing has to collapse under its own weight. I can see some of the far out exurbs becoming too expensive to sustain due to the cost of fuel. But unless we tear down existing neighborhoods to build higher density housing, I think you're likely to see more resources be pored into expanding regional public transportation rather than a large movement of populations closer to DC.

It's a Malthusian problem. Regional population's going to continue to grow; most of those folks are going to live in the suburbs. As the competition for housing close-in to transit centers continues, those who have to drive the most will be priced further out--which means they'll be driving more and clogging up the roads. Most studies show that "transit" doesn't actually do much to cut into the congestion problem. Also, the super-representation of rural interests in this country ensures that *sustained* spending on large transit projects can never happen. So "transit" will always be the ugly step-sister to new highway construction. Things will continue until they cannot continue any longer.

Not sure that's what we've seen happening in more congested areas. Look at the NYC metro area. The wealthy live in Manhattan. The middle class live in Brooklyn, Queens and Staton Island and use public transportation. And the wealthy with kids tend to live in Connecticut, Long Island and suburban NJ where it's nicer, greener and there's more space. I think we're likely to see the same pattern emerge here. Arguably, you're seeing it already. Fairfax, Loudon and Howard already outpace inner Montgomery in terms of income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it fascinating that urban posters are so preoccupied with traffic, but not with crime.

That's because the crime where I live is as low as the 'burbs. But you wouldn't know that out in Reston. I bet you think DC is the big bad city.

Exactly. The reason most urban posters aren't preoccupied with crime is that we don't spend our lives watching alarmist local news reports. Is there violent crime in the city? Sure. Is it likely to affect *us* particularly in any greater numbers than living in the 'burbs? Nope.

I've posted a link here a few times to a recent Brookings report that showed you were much more likely to die in a traffic accident in the burbs than of any cause in the city, and that incidents of "homicide by stranger" were actually more prevalent in the suburbs than the city. Bottom line? Don't want to get shot? Don't deal crack.

Exactly.
But we should also add, don't have a relationship with a violent man. A couple of women in my neighborhood died at the hands of boyfriends.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

I think this post is all about YOU, YOU, YOU, OP. You like to pretend that it's the kids you really care about but in reality you just want everyone to answer to YOU, YOU, YOU.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

You have managed to add pet owning to the list of things you seem to misunderstand about others. Of course children are not pets. But pets aren't really what you seem to think they are either. Most people don't own pets to "magnify" their own ego and pets actually do intrude on the smooth management of your life quite a bit. Anyone who has ever been out on the street in the middle of the night with a dog who has an upset stomach or scrambled around to find a friend to watch a dog for the weekend when a last minute family thing comes up would know that. Most people have pets because they enjoy showing love and affection and getting love and affection in return.

PP, I think you will find it unnecessary to be so dogmatic if you remember that people are complex, live complex lives, and have complex motivations for all of their choices.