Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it sounds like you are having trouble paying your property taxes. There is a very straightforward solution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ah this out of touch person….

You are really not a person who should be representing the “socialist” viewpoint.

[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.

Nobody is demanding the government prop up their property. Some do, however, expect that the government doesn't undermine their property value while busing their kids to school for 45min every day in the process. It is a fairly modest expectation.

[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.

Nobody is demanding the government prop up their property. Some do, however, expect that the government doesn't undermine their property value while busing their kids to school for 45min every day in the process. It is a fairly modest expectation.

+1000000

[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.

Nobody is demanding the government prop up their property. Some do, however, expect that the government doesn't undermine their property value while busing their kids to school for 45min every day in the process. It is a fairly modest expectation.

Property values can go up and down for a variety of reasons. That’s not why there should not be bussing. There should not be bussing due to distance and costs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ah this out of touch person….

You are really not a person who should be representing the “socialist” viewpoint.

Agreed. PP, perhaps your house is one that would gain appreciation with busing?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Ah this out of touch person….

You are really not a person who should be representing the “socialist” viewpoint.

I’m not out of tough because I give you assets you don’t want to hear. So is your house paid off? If no, why not? You are too wealthy to be having a mortgage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it sounds like you are having trouble paying your property taxes. There is a very straightforward solution.

Why would you make that assumption? No, pay them in full as soon as we get the letter. But, why would I want to pay more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is demanding the government prop up their property. Some do, however, expect that the government doesn't undermine their property value while busing their kids to school for 45min every day in the process. It is a fairly modest expectation.

Property values can go up and down for a variety of reasons. That’s not why there should not be bussing. There should not be bussing due to distance and costs.

Property values changing due to policies enacted by local government officials is different from property values changing due to market conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

But it sounds like you are having trouble paying your property taxes. There is a very straightforward solution.

Why would you make that assumption? No, pay them in full as soon as we get the letter. But, why would I want to pay more?

To help pay for schools….? Which is what you want?

[Anonymous]

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: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.

But it sounds like you are having trouble paying your property taxes. There is a very straightforward solution.

Why would you make that assumption? No, pay them in full as soon as we get the letter. But, why would I want to pay more?

To help pay for schools….? Which is what you want?

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Most people that buy in good schools are not wealthy. They do in fact stretch to buy property there and sacrifice in other areas to send their kids to those schools. Its a slap in the face to people who prioritize Where their kids go to school

[Anonymous]

Honestly there are people stretching to be in many areas of Moco (versus, say, DC) and it’s a slap in the face to say that they shouldn’t care about what is likely the family’s largest asset.

[Anonymous]

Yeah. They are saying if you care about where your kids go to school then don't live in Moco.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nobody is demanding the government prop up their property. Some do, however, expect that the government doesn't undermine their property value while busing their kids to school for 45min every day in the process. It is a fairly modest expectation.

Property values can go up and down for a variety of reasons. That’s not why there should not be bussing. There should not be bussing due to distance and costs.

Property values changing due to policies enacted by local government officials is different from property values changing due to market conditions.

And, both can happen.