Do you shade parents who rent in your school boundary?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The shade I throw is because renters are less likely to be committed to the neighborhood, it’s well-being, and maintenance. Also, why invest in a relationship if they are just going to pick up and move? Owners have a vested interest in the physical and emotional infrastructure, renters do not.

You're generalizing, too. Our next door neighbor owns and his house is a pit. Our tenants rent and their place is immaculate. Snob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We owned (a condo) and still felt snubs in our neighborhood when DC was in elementary so I wouldn’t blame it on renting. People can be snobs.

I should add - we still own, so that line about not being as invested in the neighborhood is bull. Our oldest is in private now and ironically it is hardly an issue there.

You make zero sense. Why is that ironic?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shade I throw is because renters are less likely to be committed to the neighborhood, it’s well-being, and maintenance. Also, why invest in a relationship if they are just going to pick up and move? Owners have a vested interest in the physical and emotional infrastructure, renters do not.

You're generalizing, too. Our next door neighbor owns and his house is a pit. Our tenants rent and their place is immaculate. Snob.

These may be exceptions that prove the rule. Anecdotes not withstanding, if someone is a homeowner, they are probably more likely to maintain their property and to be actively engaged in their community-- both to protect their financial investment, and because they want it to be a nice place to live since they plan on being here for the long-term.

[Anonymous]

I would never. You never know what someone's work situation is around here! People who are here on work contracts, people who are saving up for their dream home, etc.

[Anonymous]

Not at all. I give the renters lots of respect for putting their children’s education before a larger house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shade I throw is because renters are less likely to be committed to the neighborhood, it’s well-being, and maintenance. Also, why invest in a relationship if they are just going to pick up and move? Owners have a vested interest in the physical and emotional infrastructure, renters do not.

You're generalizing, too. Our next door neighbor owns and his house is a pit. Our tenants rent and their place is immaculate. Snob.

These may be exceptions that prove the rule. Anecdotes not withstanding, if someone is a homeowner, they are probably more likely to maintain their property and to be actively engaged in their community-- both to protect their financial investment, and because they want it to be a nice place to live since they plan on being here for the long-term.

You are totally full of it. Where’s YOUR evidence that proves the rule? Your thoughts and feelings? You don’t just make assumptions about whole groups of people without proof. You suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What? No. Of course not. Is this a Janney thing?

Stereotyping about Janney parents is no better than stereotyping about renters. We're at Janney and it would never occur to me to look down on renters. Some of our best friends are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We owned (a condo) and still felt snubs in our neighborhood when DC was in elementary so I wouldn’t blame it on renting. People can be snobs.

I should add - we still own, so that line about not being as invested in the neighborhood is bull. Our oldest is in private now and ironically it is hardly an issue there.

You make zero sense. Why is that ironic?

And you have the nerve to judge others lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shade I throw is because renters are less likely to be committed to the neighborhood, it’s well-being, and maintenance. Also, why invest in a relationship if they are just going to pick up and move? Owners have a vested interest in the physical and emotional infrastructure, renters do not.

You're generalizing, too. Our next door neighbor owns and his house is a pit. Our tenants rent and their place is immaculate. Snob.

These may be exceptions that prove the rule. Anecdotes not withstanding, if someone is a homeowner, they are probably more likely to maintain their property and to be actively engaged in their community-- both to protect their financial investment, and because they want it to be a nice place to live since they plan on being here for the long-term.

You are totally full of it. Where’s YOUR evidence that proves the rule? Your thoughts and feelings? You don’t just make assumptions about whole groups of people without proof. You suck.

I'm sorry you think I suck. But, there's actually a ton of research out there on the relationship between % renters and neighborhood characteristics. Nothing in my prior post was attacking renters as horrible people. I'm a PP who rented until relatively recently. But there's no denying the association between homeownership and a host of positive benefits to neighborhoods. Here's one article, although a little dated:

"But the decline in homeownership is also changing many neighborhoods in profound ways, including reduced home values, lower voter turnout and political influence, less social stability and higher crime.

“When there are fewer homeowners, there is less ‘self-help,’ like park and neighborhood cleanup, neighborhood watch,” said William M. Rohe, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has just completed a review of current research on homeownership’s effects.

Even conscientious landlords and tenants invest less in their property than owner-occupants, he said. “Who’s going to paint the outside of a rental house? You’d almost have to be crazy.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/business/economy/as-renters-move-in-and-neighborhoods-change-homeowners-grumble.html

And from an academic article:

"The literature review finds considerable support for an association between homeownership and both improved property maintenance and longer lengths of tenure. The analysis of census data similarly indicates less residential mobility and greater property value appreciation in areas with greater home?ownership."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.1996.9521213?journalCode=rhpd20

None of this is a reason to treat renters poorly. I was only commenting on why I'm a little less enthusiastic/slightly more reserved when I meet new renters vs. homeowners. They're less likely to stick around, vs. homeowners in my area. Several I know have rented for a short time, and then have bought in a more affordable neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shade I throw is because renters are less likely to be committed to the neighborhood, it’s well-being, and maintenance. Also, why invest in a relationship if they are just going to pick up and move? Owners have a vested interest in the physical and emotional infrastructure, renters do not.

You're generalizing, too. Our next door neighbor owns and his house is a pit. Our tenants rent and their place is immaculate. Snob.

These may be exceptions that prove the rule. Anecdotes not withstanding, if someone is a homeowner, they are probably more likely to maintain their property and to be actively engaged in their community-- both to protect their financial investment, and because they want it to be a nice place to live since they plan on being here for the long-term.

You are totally full of it. Where’s YOUR evidence that proves the rule? Your thoughts and feelings? You don’t just make assumptions about whole groups of people without proof. You suck.

I'm sorry you think I suck. But, there's actually a ton of research out there on the relationship between % renters and neighborhood characteristics. Nothing in my prior post was attacking renters as horrible people. I'm a PP who rented until relatively recently. But there's no denying the association between homeownership and a host of positive benefits to neighborhoods. Here's one article, although a little dated:

"But the decline in homeownership is also changing many neighborhoods in profound ways, including reduced home values, lower voter turnout and political influence, less social stability and higher crime.

“When there are fewer homeowners, there is less ‘self-help,’ like park and neighborhood cleanup, neighborhood watch,” said William M. Rohe, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has just completed a review of current research on homeownership’s effects.

Even conscientious landlords and tenants invest less in their property than owner-occupants, he said. “Who’s going to paint the outside of a rental house? You’d almost have to be crazy.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/business/economy/as-renters-move-in-and-neighborhoods-change-homeowners-grumble.html

And from an academic article:

"The literature review finds considerable support for an association between homeownership and both improved property maintenance and longer lengths of tenure. The analysis of census data similarly indicates less residential mobility and greater property value appreciation in areas with greater home?ownership."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.1996.9521213?journalCode=rhpd20

None of this is a reason to treat renters poorly. I was only commenting on why I'm a little less enthusiastic/slightly more reserved when I meet new renters vs. homeowners. They're less likely to stick around, vs. homeowners in my area. Several I know have rented for a short time, and then have bought in a more affordable neighborhood.

Listen to yourself: you are more reserved with renters because they end up moving to a “more affordable neighborhood”. You are a snob, plain and simple. No matter how you choose to justify it you are a snob. I treat everyone equally when I meet them at, regardless of whether they are renters, owners, white, black, old, young, with kids or without. You don’t. You take into account whether they own a home when deciding how to treat them. You are a snob.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The shade I throw is because renters are less likely to be committed to the neighborhood, it’s well-being, and maintenance. Also, why invest in a relationship if they are just going to pick up and move? Owners have a vested interest in the physical and emotional infrastructure, renters do not.

You're generalizing, too. Our next door neighbor owns and his house is a pit. Our tenants rent and their place is immaculate. Snob.

These may be exceptions that prove the rule. Anecdotes not withstanding, if someone is a homeowner, they are probably more likely to maintain their property and to be actively engaged in their community-- both to protect their financial investment, and because they want it to be a nice place to live since they plan on being here for the long-term.

You are totally full of it. Where’s YOUR evidence that proves the rule? Your thoughts and feelings? You don’t just make assumptions about whole groups of people without proof. You suck.

I'm sorry you think I suck. But, there's actually a ton of research out there on the relationship between % renters and neighborhood characteristics. Nothing in my prior post was attacking renters as horrible people. I'm a PP who rented until relatively recently. But there's no denying the association between homeownership and a host of positive benefits to neighborhoods. Here's one article, although a little dated:

"But the decline in homeownership is also changing many neighborhoods in profound ways, including reduced home values, lower voter turnout and political influence, less social stability and higher crime.

“When there are fewer homeowners, there is less ‘self-help,’ like park and neighborhood cleanup, neighborhood watch,” said William M. Rohe, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill who has just completed a review of current research on homeownership’s effects.

Even conscientious landlords and tenants invest less in their property than owner-occupants, he said. “Who’s going to paint the outside of a rental house? You’d almost have to be crazy.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/29/business/economy/as-renters-move-in-and-neighborhoods-change-homeowners-grumble.html

And from an academic article:

"The literature review finds considerable support for an association between homeownership and both improved property maintenance and longer lengths of tenure. The analysis of census data similarly indicates less residential mobility and greater property value appreciation in areas with greater home?ownership."

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10511482.1996.9521213?journalCode=rhpd20

None of this is a reason to treat renters poorly. I was only commenting on why I'm a little less enthusiastic/slightly more reserved when I meet new renters vs. homeowners. They're less likely to stick around, vs. homeowners in my area. Several I know have rented for a short time, and then have bought in a more affordable neighborhood.

Listen to yourself: you are more reserved with renters because they end up moving to a “more affordable neighborhood”. You are a snob, plain and simple. No matter how you choose to justify it you are a snob. I treat everyone equally when I meet them at, regardless of whether they are renters, owners, white, black, old, young, with kids or without. You don’t. You take into account whether they own a home when deciding how to treat them. You are a snob.

FFS. I said we're nice to them. We live in a friendly neighborhood. But I'm probably not going to bend over backwards to try to engage them in playing with my kids, hanging out on the deck, etc. since all renters I know have moved after a short time. And guess what? Some of the renters are a little more reserved too. I also was as a renter, since I knew we were only renting for a year or two tops before moving on. It goes both ways, and has nothing to do with snobbery. People often don't want to become BFFs with people who will move on after a year. I only mentioned the more affordable neighborhood since another PP mentioned that renters often buy in the same neighborhood--in our case, that wasn't true.

But whatever, you think I'm a snob. Fine, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Murch parent here. I could care less if they rent or own. I honestly appreciate the fact that the apartments on Connecticut Ave make us a little more diverse - still not diverse enough. Friends who live in apartments are just as smart, well-educated and sometimes much better people then those who own. As to the one arguing that renters leave - not so - my kids have many friends who rent and 10 years later - they are still here. Maybe they will leave when kids go to college...but we might too.

What I don't "invest" in are folks who hate DC and want to leave because they do

[Anonymous]

All the money in the world wouldn't convince me to move to NW with you fools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not at all. I give the renters lots of respect for putting their children’s education before a larger house.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:All the money in the world wouldn't convince me to move to NW with you fools.

Excellent. Thanks.