Schools cause PoP to leave Petworth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:"Schadenfreude" means joy at another's misfortune. No one's feeling joy that the Prince is leaving; and neither is Prince experiencing misfortune. In fact, he is much more privileged than many people who live in his old neighborhood. No, the DCUM comments display different emotions than that.

For me, it is amusement at Prince's decision, mixed in with sadness for other young parents who live in his neighborhood.

That's why I call it "misplaced." You and others seem to relish his supposed "failure" to stay ideologically true to some set of hipster-gentrifier values that you want to ascribe to him.

It sounds to me like he's just a guy who made a reasonable decision about where to live when he was younger, and a similarly reasonable decision about where to live now that he has children in school. Like anyone else who leaves a neighborhood they called home for 10-15 years, I suspect he's experiencing a mixture of sadness at leaving but excitement for the future. His move just isn't the grand political & cultural statement you and others seem to want to make of it.

You're wrong on two fronts: YOU misplaced term, "Schadenfreude," by applying it to others when the term does not apply to the others' psychology. You're confused; get a dictionary. Second, Prince IS representative of his old neighborhood, having monikered himself the "Prince" of said neighborhood and has trumpeted cool, gentrifying D.C. for years through that soapbox. He's not just some dude. Rather, he is representative of what others are mocking, and in fact, he is behaving exactly how others would expect his Fate to be determined. His choice -- you call it a "choice" -- is in reality no choice at all.

[Anonymous]

I just hope the current cohort at Powell continues to grow and don't jump ship.

BM seems similar to Powell, so what's the problem? No booster club?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You're wrong on two fronts: YOU misplaced term, "Schadenfreude," by applying it to others when the term does not apply to the others' psychology. You're confused; get a dictionary.

Jeez, let me spell it out slowly so you can follow. It's schadenfreude because you are relishing (experiencing joy!) at his failure to live up to some idealized role as gentrifier-in-chief because "his Fate was determined" (the misfortune of others!). It's misplaced schadenfreude because he doesn't actually have to play the role you've tried to force him into. I didn't realize my offhand comment would be subject to a dissertation defense.

Anonymous wrote:Second, Prince IS representative of his old neighborhood, having monikered himself the "Prince" of said neighborhood and has trumpeted cool, gentrifying D.C. for years through that soapbox. He's not just some dude. Rather, he is representative of what others are mocking, and in fact, he is behaving exactly how others would expect his Fate to be determined. His choice -- you call it a "choice" -- is in reality no choice at all.

That's you trying again to turn him into a symbol. He's a guy who talked up the good stuff in his neighborhood, and in other neighborhoods too. He's not the first, and he won't be the last. He just got some local internet traffic doing it. He's only representative of a lifestyle choice in your head.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're wrong on two fronts: YOU misplaced term, "Schadenfreude," by applying it to others when the term does not apply to the others' psychology. You're confused; get a dictionary.

Jeez, let me spell it out slowly so you can follow. It's schadenfreude because you are relishing (experiencing joy!) at his failure to live up to some idealized role as gentrifier-in-chief because "his Fate was determined" (the misfortune of others!). It's misplaced schadenfreude because he doesn't actually have to play the role you've tried to force him into. I didn't realize my offhand comment would be subject to a dissertation defense.

Anonymous wrote:Second, Prince IS representative of his old neighborhood, having monikered himself the "Prince" of said neighborhood and has trumpeted cool, gentrifying D.C. for years through that soapbox. He's not just some dude. Rather, he is representative of what others are mocking, and in fact, he is behaving exactly how others would expect his Fate to be determined. His choice -- you call it a "choice" -- is in reality no choice at all.

That's you trying again to turn him into a symbol. He's a guy who talked up the good stuff in his neighborhood, and in other neighborhoods too. He's not the first, and he won't be the last. He just got some local internet traffic doing it. He's only representative of a lifestyle choice in your head.

Er, No. Stop trying. Just stick to defending him, which you seem to have a stake in doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here at DCUM, the criticism of the newest wave of hipster gentrifiers has always been they're too weak-willed to stay in their "transitioning" neighborhoods a little while after they become parents. Rather than work hard to make the neighborhood more school-age-friendly, they bolt for the suburbs. So, the self-anointed "Prince" of Petworth did essentially the same thing by moving to a longtime white enclave in D.C.; perhaps he believes his blog can continue despite his latest carpetbaggery; we will see. But the criticism of him and his choices are appropriate, considering the context of longtime criticism of gentrifiers who do exactly the same thing. Pray tell, what makes the "Prince" so different that it is inappropriate to point out what looks to be his self-evident sameness?

Lemmings gonna lemming, far as I can tell.

This post hit the nail on the head. They move to "transitioning" neighborhoods, drive tax rates and home prices up so that old timers cannot afford them, and then move when "real life" starts. So typical.

Tax rates for property don't change, honey. They're the same, city-wide. Did you mean property tax assessments?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You're wrong on two fronts: YOU misplaced term, "Schadenfreude," by applying it to others when the term does not apply to the others' psychology. You're confused; get a dictionary.

Jeez, let me spell it out slowly so you can follow. It's schadenfreude because you are relishing (experiencing joy!) at his failure to live up to some idealized role as gentrifier-in-chief because "his Fate was determined" (the misfortune of others!). It's misplaced schadenfreude because he doesn't actually have to play the role you've tried to force him into. I didn't realize my offhand comment would be subject to a dissertation defense.

Anonymous wrote:Second, Prince IS representative of his old neighborhood, having monikered himself the "Prince" of said neighborhood and has trumpeted cool, gentrifying D.C. for years through that soapbox. He's not just some dude. Rather, he is representative of what others are mocking, and in fact, he is behaving exactly how others would expect his Fate to be determined. His choice -- you call it a "choice" -- is in reality no choice at all.

That's you trying again to turn him into a symbol. He's a guy who talked up the good stuff in his neighborhood, and in other neighborhoods too. He's not the first, and he won't be the last. He just got some local internet traffic doing it. He's only representative of a lifestyle choice in your head.

Er, No. Stop trying. Just stick to defending him, which you seem to have a stake in doing.

Whatever. That tepid response is the sound of you having no counter. The questioning of my bias is you trying to change the subject.

[Anonymous]

I just searched the PoPville site for "hipster" and discovered these PoP posts from 2007:

I read a very interesting article in the New York Observer about hipsters being proud of living or claiming to live in rough neighborhoods of Brooklyn. You can read it here.
I was talking to someone last night who said many “hipsters” from Mt. Pleasant have moved to Petworth. I am by no means a hipster, I am very hip mind you just not a hipster, but anyway I am very proud to live in Petworth for the positive attributes – beautiful neighbors, trees, houses etc. Are there people who moved to Petworth because it is “hip” to live in Petworth? Or is it a financial thing? I know I couldn’t afford to buy in many other neighborhoods 4 years ago. So talk to me about hipsters in Petworth. What is it exactly about Petworth that attracts hipsters?

Signs that lead me to believe I spotted a hipster at the Petworth metro:
Red shoes with white socks;
Vintage leather jacket;
Stylish eyeglasses.

Ed note: I do not use hipster as a pejorative simply a description. I actually think hipsters are great for the neighborhood and I hope to see many more.

He definitely doesn't seem like the hipster some of you want to make him out to be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dan would be laughing if he read this. He is the least hipster guy ever.

Uh. Don't you think he's reading this?

He is now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You'r forgetting how the world works, love. 20 something hipsters are priced out. They can't move in behind 30 somethings, unless the property turns into a shit hole group house. Real estate is too costly.

Of course I understand real estate prices in Petworth have increased over time, chunky buns. I'm sure the next crop of 20-somethings will find less expensive parts of Petworth, or other similar neighborhoods to gentrify. My point is that trying to claim that PoP's move represents the death of the 20-something hipster is short-sighted.

And keep improving different parts of the city? How horrifying that must be...

[Anonymous]

Where are all the kids in Petworth attending school, Charters?

While I'm an opponent to Charters and attend my neighborhood school, if I was faced with a school decision I would move too. Blogger of not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Where are all the kids in Petworth attending school, Charters?

While I'm an opponent to Charters and attend my neighborhood school, if I was faced with a school decision I would move too. Blogger of not.

A mixture of the neighborhood schools, charter schools, private schools and parochial schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here at DCUM, the criticism of the newest wave of hipster gentrifiers has always been they're too weak-willed to stay in their "transitioning" neighborhoods a little while after they become parents. Rather than work hard to make the neighborhood more school-age-friendly, they bolt for the suburbs. So, the self-anointed "Prince" of Petworth did essentially the same thing by moving to a longtime white enclave in D.C.; perhaps he believes his blog can continue despite his latest carpetbaggery; we will see. But the criticism of him and his choices are appropriate, considering the context of longtime criticism of gentrifiers who do exactly the same thing. Pray tell, what makes the "Prince" so different that it is inappropriate to point out what looks to be his self-evident sameness?

Lemmings gonna lemming, far as I can tell.

This post hit the nail on the head. They move to "transitioning" neighborhoods, drive tax rates and home prices up so that old timers cannot afford them, and then move when "real life" starts. So typical.

BS. These anecdotes are way overblown. I live in a "transitioning" neighborhood and almost all the old timers own their homes, paid about 60k for them back in the day and are now worth 400k at least before they are renovated. Post renovation, houses around the block for just sold for 750;-890k in the last month. And our elem school sucks so we might be moving in two more years too! The old timers are cashing out, one of them just moved to FL and couldn't wait to get out of DC. they also get HUGE property tax breaks above and beyond the owner occupancy break.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he sold because he realized that Petworth is at the height of the market now. Cash out, plain and simple.

Correct, PoP bought in 2003 for 207k. Sold for 700k. Sitting on about a half-mil in profit.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4110-4th-St-NW-W...shington-DC-20011/485208_zpid/

You don't seriously think that 12 years of depreciation and inflation results in a true 1/2 mil in profit? If so, I have some timeshares in Fl. I'd like to sell you.

economists...

Seriously. When I say a half-mil in profit, i really meant a half-mil in his POCKET...depending on how much he may have borrowed against the house to do work on it, etc.

ok -- so ignore the fact that 2015 dollars are worth less than 2003 dollars. Ignore the cost of maintenance, upkeep and improvements. Ignore opportunity costs of money tied up in acquisition costs.

You still need to close on a property and most likely pay commission on the $700K. As a buyer there were settlement costs too. Not to mention anything else purchased has appreciated along with the original house. That's not even remotely near $1/2 mil.

so seriously, I'll fly you down and put you up for the weekend. . . all you have to do is sit through a brief marketing presentation. . .

I'm familiar with how finances work. I've lived in my house for 6 years and put plenty of money into it in terms of upgrade and maintenance. And I've taken plenty in deductions on my taxes. But if I sell it for 700K tomorrow, and my original mortgage was 200k (assuming it was in the heady days of 0% down), when I'm finished with my sale, I"m leaving the settlement table with something around $500K coming my way. Assuming I haven't put myself into debt to stay in my current place, that is a nice chunk of cash to put down on my next house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maybe he sold because he realized that Petworth is at the height of the market now. Cash out, plain and simple.

Correct, PoP bought in 2003 for 207k. Sold for 700k. Sitting on about a half-mil in profit.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/4110-4th-St-NW-W...shington-DC-20011/485208_zpid/

You don't seriously think that 12 years of depreciation and inflation results in a true 1/2 mil in profit? If so, I have some timeshares in Fl. I'd like to sell you.

economists...

Seriously. When I say a half-mil in profit, i really meant a half-mil in his POCKET...depending on how much he may have borrowed against the house to do work on it, etc.

ok -- so ignore the fact that 2015 dollars are worth less than 2003 dollars. Ignore the cost of maintenance, upkeep and improvements. Ignore opportunity costs of money tied up in acquisition costs.

You still need to close on a property and most likely pay commission on the $700K. As a buyer there were settlement costs too. Not to mention anything else purchased has appreciated along with the original house. That's not even remotely near $1/2 mil.

so seriously, I'll fly you down and put you up for the weekend. . . all you have to do is sit through a brief marketing presentation. . .

I'm familiar with how finances work. I've lived in my house for 6 years and put plenty of money into it in terms of upgrade and maintenance. And I've taken plenty in deductions on my taxes. But if I sell it for 700K tomorrow, and my original mortgage was 200k (assuming it was in the heady days of 0% down), when I'm finished with my sale, I"m leaving the settlement table with something around $500K coming my way. Assuming I haven't put myself into debt to stay in my current place, that is a nice chunk of cash to put down on my next house.

would you mind sharing contacts for your realtor, settlement company, and real property officer who provides so much free service? Or the magic raygun that counters the economic reality that 2015 dollars are less valuable than 2003 ones

$1/2 mil is not that much to put towards houses in upper NW btw unless you can pay out a substantial nut on a jumbo mortgage. Don't really see it for bloggers, but don't know what Princess of Petworth does to earn a living.

[Anonymous]

.... a small house in Van Ness

People. There is no such thing.

Just like there are no Tudor mansions in "Petworth" or high-rises in "Palisades". Van Ness .... has no houses. It's a metro stop, 5 condo/apartment buildings, UDC and a handful of commercial-only addresses right on Connecticut.

If you own a home near the Van Ness metro station on Van Ness St., it's in Forest Hills, Wakefield, North Cleveland Park or something like that.