Oh, Chevy Chase (DC affordable housing)!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

where can two DCPS teachers with two kids and an HHI of 150k live happily in the city (assuming that part of happily is low crime and access to green space)

Mayor should work to make all areas in the city safe and crime free, there is no excuse for not prosecuting criminals and then declare half the city uninhabitable. Sorry, you can’t have it both ways, if you support liberal policies of letting criminals roam free then don’t come running to well off areas to seek shelter. So, yes two teachers with 150k HHI can afford live in most areas if the liberals vote for policies that keep the city safe.

I really can’t believe you would begrudge 2 teachers a small apartment unit on a piece of public land that already has public infrastructure. That’s wild.

Oh stop the histrionics! This discussion wouldn’t be happening if half of the city wasn’t unsafe due to crime. Nobody is begrudging anyone anything, but people can’t have it both ways. Your votes have consequences and those chickens have come home to roost.

Please share your ideas for “stopping crime.” We would all love to know.

It’s laughable that you think DC was safe for everyone before these “liberal policies.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

where can two DCPS teachers with two kids and an HHI of 150k live happily in the city (assuming that part of happily is low crime and access to green space)

There are too many places to name. Those places just aren’t good enough for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

where can two DCPS teachers with two kids and an HHI of 150k live happily in the city (assuming that part of happily is low crime and access to green space)

There are too many places to name. Those places just aren’t good enough for you.

Then it should be really easy to name 1

[Anonymous]

Most teachers and firefighters that I know want to buy and build equity, not to rent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

To me it's just the hilarity of the hypocrisy. These are some of the signs that are ubiquitous in this neighborhood, yet...

"Black Lives Matter" --> you matter, so long as you don't live by us!

"No matter where you're from, we're glad you're our neighbor" (with the token Spanish & Arabic translation of course!) --> but only if you are of "equal stature, education, and money."

"Hate has no home here" --> cross out hate and replace it with "household income less than $200k"

"All are welcome" --> so long as you have a master's degree

It is a small number of people who oppose this development, so the ones with the signs you are quoting are generally in support.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

where can two DCPS teachers with two kids and an HHI of 150k live happily in the city (assuming that part of happily is low crime and access to green space)

There are too many places to name. Those places just aren’t good enough for you.

Pretty much any area outside of upper NW..

Are you serious? They can rent a nice home or buy a small row home/condo in NE/SE and parts of NW.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most teachers and firefighters that I know want to buy and build equity, not to rent.

Good and I want a $5m house in the BVIs..but here we are.

Life ain't fair

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most teachers and firefighters that I know want to buy and build equity, not to rent.

Good and I want a $5m house in the BVIs..but here we are.

Life ain't fair

Fair enough.
The point is that a poster here keeps chirping on about how this new complex will be filled with teachers, nurses, and firefighters. But coming from a family of those professions, I have seen that they generally do not want to rent small apartments with no yard. Rather, the ones I know live in farther-flung suburbs or in parts of the city where they can buy. Unlikely to stay long term in an apartment complex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know I will get flamed for this, but what's wrong with people wanting to live with people of equal stature, education, money etc. This is the way society has always worked, people live with whom they have something in common so that they can build a community around them. This new liberal mindset that everybody is entitled to live in the most exclusive neighborhoods is beyond crazy, I want to live next to the White House but I suppose I won't be allowed, that's how life goes.

You can have that mindset but you can’t live like that in a city, where people of all education levels and income levels are needed to make the city run. Anyone can feel how they want, but if you really feel like that, you need to move somewhere else.

Oh please, your response is naive and lame. Every city in the world has affluent areas, in the middle areas, poor areas etc. Not everyone in London can afford to live in Chelsea or it takes a certain income level to live in Manhattan.

This tired trope that in a *city* everyone should be able to live anywhere is ridiculous and crazy. Also, Teachers, First responders etc are not poor people so the talk is concentrating them in a ghetto is stupid, there are plenty of affordable areas in the city where they can live happily.

where can two DCPS teachers with two kids and an HHI of 150k live happily in the city (assuming that part of happily is low crime and access to green space)

There are too many places to name. Those places just aren’t good enough for you.

What if I already live in upper NW and think these DCPS teachers with two kids and $150k salary should have the choice to live near me?

[Anonymous]

I'm all for supporting affordable housing for teachers, firefighters etc. but if we believe they do a job that is deserving of being able to afford living in the City, why don't we just pay them proportionately instead of building a few affordable apartments? Isn't that the real issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for supporting affordable housing for teachers, firefighters etc. but if we believe they do a job that is deserving of being able to afford living in the City, why don't we just pay them proportionately instead of building a few affordable apartments? Isn't that the real issue?

No, the issue is that there should be housing options for people who don't earn super-high incomes in more neighborhoods. Though I'm also all in favor of paying public employees better than we do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for supporting affordable housing for teachers, firefighters etc. but if we believe they do a job that is deserving of being able to afford living in the City, why don't we just pay them proportionately instead of building a few affordable apartments? Isn't that the real issue?

No, the issue is that there should be housing options for people who don't earn super-high incomes in more neighborhoods. Though I'm also all in favor of paying public employees better than we do.

There are plenty of housing options in the city, it's up to the mayor to make sure those options are safe and schools are good. People want in on good areas because they are safe with excellent schools, mayor needs to make sure all of D.C is great with excellent schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm all for supporting affordable housing for teachers, firefighters etc. but if we believe they do a job that is deserving of being able to afford living in the City, why don't we just pay them proportionately instead of building a few affordable apartments? Isn't that the real issue?

No, the issue is that there should be housing options for people who don't earn super-high incomes in more neighborhoods. Though I'm also all in favor of paying public employees better than we do.

There are plenty of housing options in the city, it's up to the mayor to make sure those options are safe and schools are good. People want in on good areas because they are safe with excellent schools, mayor needs to make sure all of D.C is great with excellent schools.

Finland closed all of its private schools to close the achievement gap between rich and poor. We could start there. Idk how happy NW would be about that.

[Anonymous]

A local or federal government doesn't really have the right to close a private or religious school in the US.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A local or federal government doesn't really have the right to close a private or religious school in the US.

Are you saying Congress couldn’t pass a law mandating that all students are educated in the public school system?