Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

Then, don’t assume we are less wealthy. We don’t want to stretch and want to not worry about things like college. Stretching is a bad idea.

[Anonymous]

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

All schools in the county have issues and a bad curriculum.

[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?

Schools get way to much as it is. We pay plenty in taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don’t consider my home an asset as it’s only an asset if we sell and make money off of it. I plan to move out one day and give it to a kid if they want it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don’t consider my home an asset as it’s only an asset if we sell and make money off of it. I plan to move out one day and give it to a kid if they want it.

Omg you are so oblivious

[Anonymous]

All I see here is people who used to say “the Whitman district” or “the BCC district” realizing that they are in fact all in the “MCPS district.” This is one organization that must think about one county’s needs as a whole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All I see here is people who used to say “the Whitman district” or “the BCC district” realizing that they are in fact all in the “MCPS district.” This is one organization that must think about one county’s needs as a whole.

Exactly. There is only one school district.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don’t consider my home an asset as it’s only an asset if we sell and make money off of it. I plan to move out one day and give it to a kid if they want it.

Omg you are so oblivious

No, you are. We didn’t stretch like you and don’t have to worry as we made different financial decisions. You do you. Just stop acting like because we choose something different we are lesser.

[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.

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?

Of course, but in a conversation where we’re fretting about $2M home values, this is coming off as the rich insisting that they have the loudest voice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don’t consider my home an asset as it’s only an asset if we sell and make money off of it. I plan to move out one day and give it to a kid if they want it.

Omg you are so oblivious

Time to see a financial planner, if you actually live in this area. Folks in this area are pretty in tune with how much their house is worth, how it ties into their retirement and planning to pay for long term care. and tbh, we’ve all done pretty well with appreciation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every time the BOE hears “property values” and “parents who value education,” the likelihood of something like Option 3 goes up. Keep on whistling those dog whistles.

Similarly, the socialist themes are equally offensive and make the likelihood of something like option 1 go up.

I don’t think it will be any of them and it’s to create drama to distract from all the other stuff going on. Instead of arguing people should get together for more reasonable boundaries. Having hs kids have long bus rides with activities, homework, child care for siblings, activities and more is unreasonable. More unreasonably is when kids have to return to school or stay for late activities meaning kids could be at school for 12+ hours a day.

But apparently you can say “f** you” to those kids with longer bus rides if they are white.

I saw very, very few people on this thread actually endorse this.

Oh come on. If we call them UMC is that better?

I have seen very few people actually endorse Option 3.

[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.

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?

Of course, but in a conversation where we’re fretting about $2M home values, this is coming off as the rich insisting that they have the loudest voice.

It is loud because it is affecting so many all at once.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Then, don’t assume we are less wealthy. We don’t want to stretch and want to not worry about things like college. Stretching is a bad idea.

So you have some money and choose to send your kids to school where half of the kids can't afford lunch. As a group you are less wealthy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don’t consider my home an asset as it’s only an asset if we sell and make money off of it. I plan to move out one day and give it to a kid if they want it.

Omg you are so oblivious

No, you are. We didn’t stretch like you and don’t have to worry as we made different financial decisions. You do you. Just stop acting like because we choose something different we are lesser.

You just live on in your weird parallel universe where a huge source of generational wealth transfer to your kids in not considered an “asset”. *shaking my head*

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

Then, don’t assume we are less wealthy. We don’t want to stretch and want to not worry about things like college. Stretching is a bad idea.

+1 if you are not wealthy but still stretched to buy a $1.5 million home, that was a bad financial decision. Don't expect the government to prop up your property value. You have a home. A place to live. Hopefully you can afford the mortgage so you can stay in your home. If you can't, that's on you.