I haven't figured out how people raise children in DC

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it fascinating that urban posters are so preoccupied with traffic, but not with crime.

That's because the crime where I live is as low as the 'burbs. But you wouldn't know that out in Reston. I bet you think DC is the big bad city.

[Anonymous]

I bet Reston has less street crime than Capitol Hill

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I bet Reston has less street crime than Capitol Hill

Most likely. But I don't live on Capitol Hill. And yes where I live I have a 2 car garage and a nice big backyard. GASP!

[Anonymous]

We live in Reston and it is fabulous. DH has a 10 minute commute door-to-door and I work from home. We can walk to preschool, the elementary school, and one of the many pools kept by the Reston HOA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There are a few rude comments on this thread about people who chose to have one child. I'm not one of those people, so not being defensive, but simply calling someone else out for being an ass. You are right that people have can post anything they want on a discussion forum, just as I can call them out for their weird hang-ups. Sorry, but there is no sane reason for harping on families who chose to have one child. There could be medical, financial, or just "one and done" reasoning. It's no one else's business and acting like it is, or acting like it's appropriate to criticize them for it, is crazy. It's just very clear that people who can't accept that some people don't want they want is their hang up. It's inappropriate, and yes, weird.

Oh come on already! You're the one being an ass. People who don't have kids don't get bent out of shape when asked why they don't want them. My brother simply says he's happy pursuing his life goals and doesn't have time for or interest in kids. I have college friends who've made the same choice. Do I think they're missing out on a rewarding part of life? Yes. Does it follow that I "can't accept" their choice? No. Are they defensive and irritable if I ask if they ever regret not having kids? No, just as I'm not when they ask how I can possibly be happy living in a cul de sac in suburbia. If you're content with your life choices, you aren't defensive when discussing them.

Apparently it's OK to ask why people don't have kids. And it's acceptable to ask why people do have kids. It's also acceptable to ask why someone has an unusually large number of kids; people ask that question all the time at my office and my co-worker (who has five boys) doesn't fly off the handle about people judging him. But apparently, it's not acceptable to ask why someone chooses to have only one kid. Why should that question be treated as a taboo or provoke such a furious response and a bunch of juvenile name calling? It's silly. The question is not an attack on anyone's lifestyle or an inability to accept their choices. Seems to me the only reason you get unprovoked hostility in response to that question is because people feel defensive about it. Now why might that be?

Look, it's obvious when the motivation is interest, or just being an ass. There's nothing wrong with asking, "Why did you decide to have the number of children you did?" or "Why only one child?" It's another thing altogether to ask, essentially, "How can you do that to your only child?" The former is legitimate. The latter is just being a provocative asshole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it fascinating that urban posters are so preoccupied with traffic, but not with crime.

That's because the crime where I live is as low as the 'burbs. But you wouldn't know that out in Reston. I bet you think DC is the big bad city.

Exactly. The reason most urban posters aren't preoccupied with crime is that we don't spend our lives watching alarmist local news reports. Is there violent crime in the city? Sure. Is it likely to affect *us* particularly in any greater numbers than living in the 'burbs? Nope.

I've posted a link here a few times to a recent Brookings report that showed you were much more likely to die in a traffic accident in the burbs than of any cause in the city, and that incidents of "homicide by stranger" were actually more prevalent in the suburbs than the city. Bottom line? Don't want to get shot? Don't deal crack.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"As far as the school question: the "best public schools" are a function of socioeconomic class. The poor are moving out of DC; in 10-15 years it'll be a largely upper-middle class enclave. The regional school picture will be radically different by that time. These trends are self-amplifying.
"
How does that help any of us who don't work in DC and have children in elementary school now? In 10 years, I can live anywhere.

Sure, and for those who've run out of time an options, moving out makes sense. But there are plenty of parents who have found an option that works for them. I always find it incredibly puzzling when parents pro-actively move out of the city. "We're moving out to the 'burbs with our three-year-old because there are no good DCPS middle-school options!" Seriously?

Hell, why not just kill yourself because global climate change may make the planet uninhabitable?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it fascinating that urban posters are so preoccupied with traffic, but not with crime.

That's because the crime where I live is as low as the 'burbs. But you wouldn't know that out in Reston. I bet you think DC is the big bad city.

Exactly. The reason most urban posters aren't preoccupied with crime is that we don't spend our lives watching alarmist local news reports. Is there violent crime in the city? Sure. Is it likely to affect *us* particularly in any greater numbers than living in the 'burbs? Nope.

I've posted a link here a few times to a recent Brookings report that showed you were much more likely to die in a traffic accident in the burbs than of any cause in the city, and that incidents of "homicide by stranger" were actually more prevalent in the suburbs than the city. Bottom line? Don't want to get shot? Don't deal crack.

More accurately, don't have the misfortune of growing up in a neighborhood where crack dealing goes on. I'm sure you've seen the stories about academically serious kids who attracted the ire of thugs in their neighborhoods and got killed as a result.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey, Ms. "Everyone get so defensive when asked why they only have one kid, they must subconsciously know they are selfish,"

Please point to the question in here:

I think it's a shame that people limit themselves to one child so they can live in a small house or apartment in an over-priced area and afford private school if necessary. Having siblings is a good thing for so many reasons. Most of the folks I know who decided to "stop at one" did so because they're not willing to give up anything for their kids, rather than because they think it's the best environment for a child. Not criticizing. Just keeping in real.

You can't, can you? Asking the question is fine. Making inflamatory, offensive statements criticizing others' choices is certainly your right, but don't be surprised when others react strongly. Saying just having one child is "a shame" and the result of parents who are "not willing to give anything for their kids" is offensive, and acting wounded when you're called on it (and attributing the reaction to defensiveness and the subconscious knowledge that you are correct) is either intellectually dishonest or intellectually deficient. So, which are you?

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

Just because you do not make the same decisions as others does not mean that they are wrong. I choose to have one child, partially because I couldn't not afford to live where I live and send my children to school here or travel extensively if I had more than one. That is not the only reason, but it is a major consideration. This is not just because I am selfish. I think this would be best for my child. I love being able to show my child the world and exposing him to different cultures everyday. I am able to dedicate my time and energy to his education (both formal and otherwise) and to the community, and I am able to give him happy parents. In my opinion, this is the very best that I, given who I am, can give my child. Moreover, having one child and maintaining our walkable life aligns with my strong beliefs about sustainability and the environment. You may be different, and that is fine too. But, it is not fair to think that those who are making the decision to have one child are thinking only of themselves or treating their child like a pet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it fascinating that urban posters are so preoccupied with traffic, but not with crime.

That's because the crime where I live is as low as the 'burbs. But you wouldn't know that out in Reston. I bet you think DC is the big bad city.

Exactly. The reason most urban posters aren't preoccupied with crime is that we don't spend our lives watching alarmist local news reports. Is there violent crime in the city? Sure. Is it likely to affect *us* particularly in any greater numbers than living in the 'burbs? Nope.

I've posted a link here a few times to a recent Brookings report that showed you were much more likely to die in a traffic accident in the burbs than of any cause in the city, and that incidents of "homicide by stranger" were actually more prevalent in the suburbs than the city. Bottom line? Don't want to get shot? Don't deal crack.

More accurately, don't have the misfortune of growing up in a neighborhood where crack dealing goes on. I'm sure you've seen the stories about academically serious kids who attracted the ire of thugs in their neighborhoods and got killed as a result.

Well that excludes about 99.999% of the DCUM community so that's irrelevant to this conversation. When I drive down Rte 7 to take my car to my Volvo dealer I see tons of immigrants just standing around near the Uhaul store looking shiftless. I never see that on Wisconsin or in my neighborhood. That's suburban decay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It remains to be seen whether RTC or Tysons, or White Flint will be retrofitted properly. Everything we've seen up until this point has shown that they're incapable of executing. Also, it's a bit of a fallacy to think that tomorrow's "biotech execs" are going to be as enamored of McMansions and sprawl as today's Baby Boomers are.

Retrofitted properly? Not sure what that means, but RTC seems pretty nice to me an the revitalized downtown Silver Spring seems to be doing it right. It's got a Metro stop, Discovery is headquartered there, lots of restaurants, diverse types and price ranges of housing and a nice mix of ethnicities. You may be right about people being over sprawl, but the reason sprawl developed in the first place was peoples' desire for a comfortable environment. I question whether that desire will be any less pronounced in the future, even if the cost of attaining it becomes higher.

Not trying to take a side in suburbs vs city debate but I must point out that the reason sprawl developed was because government policies encouraged the growth of suburbs. There's a reason that some European cities have wonderful downtowns and poor suburbs whereas it's the reverse in many US cities. Didn't happen by accident or nature but by government policy. I'm not criticizing you, pp. Just trying to point out that we often assume that develop patterns were "natural" when actually they are the result of clear government policies.

And, of course, it's interesting that the most influential policies that European governments intentionally pushed during the 70s and 80s that the US is going to experience over the coming decades: specifically high fuel costs, and the attendant change in the way we do logistics.

As far as the meaning of "retrofitted properly", there are good ways and bad ways to do urbanism. While the planners understand that things need to change, and that growth needs to be pushed inward to the transit-accessible nodes, they've still got to get past suburban voters: who are mostly NIMBYs, love ample parking, and in general, will always push for policies that undercut the execution of the smart-growth planning.

Folks who understand and desire walkable communties are moving into urban areas: DC, Philly, Chicago, etc... People move to the suburbs because they largely want a "convenient" suburban experience. When push comes to shove, you can *always* count on suburban voters to do the wrong thing when it comes to urbanist design.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it fascinating that urban posters are so preoccupied with traffic, but not with crime.

That's because the crime where I live is as low as the 'burbs. But you wouldn't know that out in Reston. I bet you think DC is the big bad city.

Exactly. The reason most urban posters aren't preoccupied with crime is that we don't spend our lives watching alarmist local news reports. Is there violent crime in the city? Sure. Is it likely to affect *us* particularly in any greater numbers than living in the 'burbs? Nope.

I've posted a link here a few times to a recent Brookings report that showed you were much more likely to die in a traffic accident in the burbs than of any cause in the city, and that incidents of "homicide by stranger" were actually more prevalent in the suburbs than the city. Bottom line? Don't want to get shot? Don't deal crack.

More accurately, don't have the misfortune of growing up in a neighborhood where crack dealing goes on. I'm sure you've seen the stories about academically serious kids who attracted the ire of thugs in their neighborhoods and got killed as a result.

Got cites for those? What does that happen? Once a decade? For every single story you can find that fits that criteria, I'll give you a dozen about academically serious kids who were killed while driving around the 'burbs. If you're going to protect your kids, it's important that you understand what is and what is not a legitimate threat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[Well that excludes about 99.999% of the DCUM community so that's irrelevant to this conversation. When I drive down Rte 7 to take my car to my Volvo dealer I see tons of immigrants just standing around near the Uhaul store looking shiftless. I never see that on Wisconsin or in my neighborhood. That's suburban decay.

It's relevant to a discussion of city life vs. suburban life. Immigrants standing around constitute suburban decay? Wow! That's a pretty offensive racial remark. When the economy was booming a few years ago, those now "shiftless" immigrants were busy providing affordable lifestyle services. Now they're a form of decay huh? Is this an example of the enlightened sensibility that city living is supposed to produce?

[Anonymous]

OP of that post here. I said that limiting your family to one child is a shame if the reason is to live in an overpriced area or because you insist on sending your kid to "just the right" private school and you can only afford to do that with one child. Children are not pets that you have mainly to magnify your own ego or just something to have as long as they don't intrude too much on your pursuit of material satisfaction. If you have a medical conditioon that makes it impractical to raise another child or your relationship falls apart, that's different. But if you have a child because you've always wanted an Audi and a baby and now that you have one of each, your needs are satisfied, that's pretty selfish. You and others (only kids and parents of only kids mainly) can get as snarky as you like, but it doesn't alter the fact that if the main consideration for your family size is YOU, YOU , YOU and what's most convient for YOU, YOU, YOU, then, yes, you're being very selfish.

This little rant presupposes that having siblings is good for kids, all the time. You've apparently taken that as an article of faith, and so if someone decided not to have multiple children for reasons you do not deem acceptable, they are very selfish. You can't even allow for the possibility that someone could come to a different conclusion than you did. Your dogmatic approach to this issue demonstrates the intellectual deficiency referred to earlier, and renders rational discussion pointless.

In other words, as to this issue, you're a tea-partier.