Do you shade parents who rent in your school boundary?

[Anonymous]

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.

yes. we owned a condo wotp in the middle of a neighborhood of expensive houses. We were totally snubbed and so moved EOTP where that kind of thing doesn't happen.

[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.

yes. we owned a condo wotp in the middle of a neighborhood of expensive houses. We were totally snubbed and so moved EOTP where that kind of thing doesn't happen.

Do you rent/own house/apt EOTP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No. I don't give a second thought to what type of housing people have.

Same. My goodness.

+2

Who GAF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are truly tone deaf. You really need to critically analyze everything you've written on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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

We're moving into one of those apartments this summer! Really looking forward to being a part of the school community!

[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.

yes. we owned a condo wotp in the middle of a neighborhood of expensive houses. We were totally snubbed and so moved EOTP where that kind of thing doesn't happen.

We own and lived in a condo wtop and were never snubbed at DC2 school. We bought 2nd condo IB to a different school. We might get snubbed this year when DC1 starts school there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are truly tone deaf. You really need to critically analyze everything you've written on this thread.

You may want to consider that people move after a short while because they don't feel welcome. I've lived in an area where we were considering buying a house, but we decided to buy elsewhere because the people were so hung up on the fact that we were renters (looking at you, Capitol Hill). We moved to a more inclusive neighborhood.

[Anonymous]

In AU Park there aren’t many houses for sale. Most houses get multiple offers. Lots of people rent because there isn’t inventory to buy.

[Anonymous]

How would you even know who rents and who owns unless they tell you? It is not information I seek out. I own and yes this snobbery exists but it absolutely sickens me.

[Anonymous]

I'm are invested in the neighborhood and the school, not the building we live in. If you go to the pool gym use the garage.
c.)The wearing of swimsuits, exercise gear or trunks, in the courtyard, lobby or breezeways is prohibited.
I give props to anybody who moves here for the school-buyer or renter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How would you even know who rents and who owns unless they tell you? It is not information I seek out. I own and yes this snobbery exists but it absolutely sickens me.

Well, apparently "snob" makes it a point to find out -- and if they rent, wow! Your kids won't be playing with hers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How would you even know who rents and who owns unless they tell you? It is not information I seek out. I own and yes this snobbery exists but it absolutely sickens me.

Homes very rarely come on the market in my area. So yes, the rentals are known. On my block, one house is being rented out, and in the past few years, at least three different families have lived in it. Nice families, but keep to themselves--one moved out of the area for a new job after like 3 months, one moved back to their hometown after a year or so, and there's a new family there now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are truly tone deaf. You really need to critically analyze everything you've written on this thread.

Since you have "critically analyzed" what I've written, care to summarize?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm are invested in the neighborhood and the school, not the building we live in. If you go to the pool gym use the garage.
c.)The wearing of swimsuits, exercise gear or trunks, in the courtyard, lobby or breezeways is prohibited.
I give props to anybody who moves here for the school-buyer or renter.

What?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You are truly tone deaf. You really need to critically analyze everything you've written on this thread.

Since you have "critically analyzed" what I've written, care to summarize?

Nope. You're going to have to look deeply within.