Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE Is dumber than I thought if they think rezoning won’t have impacts on property values, and that they don’t have to care about that. They are still elected so maybe they do care about being re-elected. Or maybe they are socialists who just want to burn down the county.

Words lose their meaning when you overuse them like this. If boundary studies are "socialist" thennI am all for "socialism".

Not the boundary study. We need that. But trying to engineer a transfer of wealth through property values is offensive. That may or may not be what the BOE hopes to do but there is definitely a “stick it to the rich” theme throughout this thread.

The problem is many people aren't as rich as they think and are just over extended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE Is dumber than I thought if they think rezoning won’t have impacts on property values, and that they don’t have to care about that. They are still elected so maybe they do care about being re-elected. Or maybe they are socialists who just want to burn down the county.

Words lose their meaning when you overuse them like this. If boundary studies are "socialist" thennI am all for "socialism".

Not the boundary study. We need that. But trying to engineer a transfer of wealth through property values is offensive. That may or may not be what the BOE hopes to do but there is definitely a “stick it to the rich” theme throughout this thread.

Demanding the government prop up your property values is gross and entitled and that is what people are "sticking" it to.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing socialist about reducing segregation. Segregation undermines the free market because it prevents some people who could achieve great things from accessing opportunities and maximizing their productivity. Segregation is economically inefficient. But it does help White people hoard wealth.

But the wealth transfer — from those being bused out of the low FARMS schools to those being bused in — is socialist.

The wealth of the people in low farms schools is rooted in oppression and segregation. Not the free market. You all just want to keep your spoils

Generalization nonsense

Do you really think your property values would have grown so much if people were not afraid of living in Silver Spring or the "bad" part of Kensington? Gmafb

Ours have doubled since we bought our house. I'd rather they not.

You are free to sell your asset and collect the gains

Why would I do that? Its my home, not an asset. The gains only matter for property taxes and selling.

[Anonymous]

If the BOE uses the phrase “transfer of wealth” in reference to what they’d like to achieve in the boundary studies then they are going to have a bad time come elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing socialist about reducing segregation. Segregation undermines the free market because it prevents some people who could achieve great things from accessing opportunities and maximizing their productivity. Segregation is economically inefficient. But it does help White people hoard wealth.

But the wealth transfer — from those being bused out of the low FARMS schools to those being bused in — is socialist.

The wealth of the people in low farms schools is rooted in oppression and segregation. Not the free market. You all just want to keep your spoils

Generalization nonsense

Do you really think your property values would have grown so much if people were not afraid of living in Silver Spring or the "bad" part of Kensington? Gmafb

Ours have doubled since we bought our house. I'd rather they not.

You are free to sell your asset and collect the gains

Why would I do that? Its my home, not an asset. The gains only matter for property taxes and selling.

But it is your home and it is an asset. You can sell it and buy a really nice house somewhere else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing socialist about reducing segregation. Segregation undermines the free market because it prevents some people who could achieve great things from accessing opportunities and maximizing their productivity. Segregation is economically inefficient. But it does help White people hoard wealth.

But the wealth transfer — from those being bused out of the low FARMS schools to those being bused in — is socialist.

The wealth of the people in low farms schools is rooted in oppression and segregation. Not the free market. You all just want to keep your spoils

Generalization nonsense

Do you really think your property values would have grown so much if people were not afraid of living in Silver Spring or the "bad" part of Kensington? Gmafb

Ours have doubled since we bought our house. I'd rather they not.

You are free to sell your asset and collect the gains

Why would I do that? Its my home, not an asset. The gains only matter for property taxes and selling.

Hahahhaha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing socialist about reducing segregation. Segregation undermines the free market because it prevents some people who could achieve great things from accessing opportunities and maximizing their productivity. Segregation is economically inefficient. But it does help White people hoard wealth.

But the wealth transfer — from those being bused out of the low FARMS schools to those being bused in — is socialist.

The wealth of the people in low farms schools is rooted in oppression and segregation. Not the free market. You all just want to keep your spoils

Generalization nonsense

Do you really think your property values would have grown so much if people were not afraid of living in Silver Spring or the "bad" part of Kensington? Gmafb

Ours have doubled since we bought our house. I'd rather they not.

You are free to sell your asset and collect the gains

Why would I do that? Its my home, not an asset. The gains only matter for property taxes and selling.

Clearly you don’t have a lot of home equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE Is dumber than I thought if they think rezoning won’t have impacts on property values, and that they don’t have to care about that. They are still elected so maybe they do care about being re-elected. Or maybe they are socialists who just want to burn down the county.

Words lose their meaning when you overuse them like this. If boundary studies are "socialist" thennI am all for "socialism".

Not the boundary study. We need that. But trying to engineer a transfer of wealth through property values is offensive. That may or may not be what the BOE hopes to do but there is definitely a “stick it to the rich” theme throughout this thread.

Demanding the government prop up your property values is gross and entitled and that is what people are "sticking" it to.

Yes, especially when people retort that the BOE better listen to them or lose their jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If the BOE uses the phrase “transfer of wealth” in reference to what they’d like to achieve in the boundary studies then they are going to have a bad time come elections.

I have never seen them say anything to that effect. Have you? Please provide links. As far as I can tell the only people using the term "transfer of wealth" are people who want the government make sure their property values stay high.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE Is dumber than I thought if they think rezoning won’t have impacts on property values, and that they don’t have to care about that. They are still elected so maybe they do care about being re-elected. Or maybe they are socialists who just want to burn down the county.

Words lose their meaning when you overuse them like this. If boundary studies are "socialist" thennI am all for "socialism".

Not the boundary study. We need that. But trying to engineer a transfer of wealth through property values is offensive. That may or may not be what the BOE hopes to do but there is definitely a “stick it to the rich” theme throughout this thread.

Demanding the government prop up your property values is gross and entitled and that is what people are "sticking" it to.

Yes, especially when people retort that the BOE better listen to them or lose their jobs.

Yeah we can hold elected officials accountable for making us poorer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing socialist about reducing segregation. Segregation undermines the free market because it prevents some people who could achieve great things from accessing opportunities and maximizing their productivity. Segregation is economically inefficient. But it does help White people hoard wealth.

But the wealth transfer — from those being bused out of the low FARMS schools to those being bused in — is socialist.

The wealth of the people in low farms schools is rooted in oppression and segregation. Not the free market. You all just want to keep your spoils

Generalization nonsense

Do you really think your property values would have grown so much if people were not afraid of living in Silver Spring or the "bad" part of Kensington? Gmafb

Ours have doubled since we bought our house. I'd rather they not.

You are free to sell your asset and collect the gains

Why would I do that? Its my home, not an asset. The gains only matter for property taxes and selling.

Clearly you don’t have a lot of home equity.

If their home values has doubled then they have at least what they paid in equity

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:See this is why Trump won.

This is exactly why Trump won. And conversations like these taking place in a very blue county between likely moderates and progressives are why democrats are going to continue having a hard time winning elections.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The BOE Is dumber than I thought if they think rezoning won’t have impacts on property values, and that they don’t have to care about that. They are still elected so maybe they do care about being re-elected. Or maybe they are socialists who just want to burn down the county.

Words lose their meaning when you overuse them like this. If boundary studies are "socialist" thennI am all for "socialism".

Not the boundary study. We need that. But trying to engineer a transfer of wealth through property values is offensive. That may or may not be what the BOE hopes to do but there is definitely a “stick it to the rich” theme throughout this thread.

Demanding the government prop up your property values is gross and entitled and that is what people are "sticking" it to.

Yes, especially when people retort that the BOE better listen to them or lose their jobs.

This is called civic engagement. Why would it be ok if elected officials DON’T listen to their constituents?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing socialist about reducing segregation. Segregation undermines the free market because it prevents some people who could achieve great things from accessing opportunities and maximizing their productivity. Segregation is economically inefficient. But it does help White people hoard wealth.

But the wealth transfer — from those being bused out of the low FARMS schools to those being bused in — is socialist.

The wealth of the people in low farms schools is rooted in oppression and segregation. Not the free market. You all just want to keep your spoils

Generalization nonsense

Do you really think your property values would have grown so much if people were not afraid of living in Silver Spring or the "bad" part of Kensington? Gmafb

Ours have doubled since we bought our house. I'd rather they not.

You are free to sell your asset and collect the gains

Why would I do that? Its my home, not an asset. The gains only matter for property taxes and selling.

But it is your home and it is an asset. You can sell it and buy a really nice house somewhere else.

It is my home, not an asset. I am not selling it and don't care about nicer. I don't need to compete with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is nothing socialist about reducing segregation. Segregation undermines the free market because it prevents some people who could achieve great things from accessing opportunities and maximizing their productivity. Segregation is economically inefficient. But it does help White people hoard wealth.

But the wealth transfer — from those being bused out of the low FARMS schools to those being bused in — is socialist.

The wealth of the people in low farms schools is rooted in oppression and segregation. Not the free market. You all just want to keep your spoils

Generalization nonsense

Do you really think your property values would have grown so much if people were not afraid of living in Silver Spring or the "bad" part of Kensington? Gmafb

Ours have doubled since we bought our house. I'd rather they not.

You are free to sell your asset and collect the gains

Why would I do that? Its my home, not an asset. The gains only matter for property taxes and selling.

Clearly you don’t have a lot of home equity.

My house is paid off, is yours?