Gentrification in DC - Wash Post Article Shows The Bad Side

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

Same.

She was a federal employee and her husband had a good job as well which comes with life insurance if they didn't have a private family plan.

Just a tiny bit of planning or foresight and she and either of her spouses could have been in a home right where they are now. With the money she has, if she's been saving, she could still buy in further out NE which basically has the same levels of living as when she first moved to U Street (there was no Trader Joes there until 10 years ago).

Personally, I see this on these boards all the time. Long-time renters in central D.C. and Arlington and what-have-you who think that a low rate rental is OWED to them.

No. Save for it. Strive for it. Put that stable salary you've had for decades towards it.

Yes. I don't understand why they are unable to find another place to live and are moving in with family, separately to boot. Both are employed. A federal employee of 40 years makes a decent living. Something else must be going on.

Money aside, I do still understand she must be hurting. I have never lived anywhere for that long and it really is a fantastic neighborhood with lots of character and history.

The only thing I felt bad about was the part where she said she was essentially the caretaker of the building. Sweeping it, painting, Christmas tree, etc.

That's basically the building supervisor and if she didn't get paid for all that, she got burned. But if she did get paid in the form of a bigger unit or at least first choice (why else move from the 2nd to the 1st floor), or straight out - a decrease in market rent ($500/mo still doesn't seem like enough for a 2 or 3 bedroom, I think there are places in Baltimore that charge more and you're living in some pretty depressed areas), then it was fair.

I can't even think of any 1 bedrooms or studios in the area that cost $500 per month. That's the cost of a single room in a shared group house somewhere far out in the suburbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

The problem is she was probably taught that something is owed to her and that she can’t ever accomplish anything on her own. She didn’t even consider trying to make a better life for herself.

Reduced or government paid rent seems to have contributed heavily to generational poverty in many large cities. If that $500 would have been market rate she’d probably be better off now, which is counterintuitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

Same.

She was a federal employee and her husband had a good job as well which comes with life insurance if they didn't have a private family plan.

Just a tiny bit of planning or foresight and she and either of her spouses could have been in a home right where they are now. With the money she has, if she's been saving, she could still buy in further out NE which basically has the same levels of living as when she first moved to U Street (there was no Trader Joes there until 10 years ago).

Personally, I see this on these boards all the time. Long-time renters in central D.C. and Arlington and what-have-you who think that a low rate rental is OWED to them.

No. Save for it. Strive for it. Put that stable salary you've had for decades towards it.

Yes. I don't understand why they are unable to find another place to live and are moving in with family, separately to boot. Both are employed. A federal employee of 40 years makes a decent living. Something else must be going on.

Money aside, I do still understand she must be hurting. I have never lived anywhere for that long and it really is a fantastic neighborhood with lots of character and history.

The only thing I felt bad about was the part where she said she was essentially the caretaker of the building. Sweeping it, painting, Christmas tree, etc.

That's basically the building supervisor and if she didn't get paid for all that, she got burned. But if she did get paid in the form of a bigger unit or at least first choice (why else move from the 2nd to the 1st floor), or straight out - a decrease in market rent ($500/mo still doesn't seem like enough for a 2 or 3 bedroom, I think there are places in Baltimore that charge more and you're living in some pretty depressed areas), then it was fair.

I can't even think of any 1 bedrooms or studios in the area that cost $500 per month. That's the cost of a single room in a shared group house somewhere far out in the suburbs.

Wrong.

I have artist friends who live in Baltimore City. One is paying $900/mo for a 2-bedroom (in a giant 3,000 square foot house) but the person on a different floor is paying $500/mo simply because its completely unrenovated/untouched without central AC, no W/D, and appliances from the 80s.

You can find a lot of rundown and semi-abandoned homes in Baltimore where the absentee landlord/homeowner has long-term tenants who have been paying the same thing for decades or For Rent signs in the yards/posted at local shops.

Examples of what I'm talking about -

$650 for a 2-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-beautiful-2-bedroom-rowhome/6972194971.html

$850 for a 2-bedroom
https://www.zumper.com/apartment-buildings/p273980/5401-catalpha-rd-harford-echodale-perring-parkway-baltimore-md

$778 for a 3-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-open-house-on-sun-9-22-from/6984672979.html

$570 for a 3-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-d0nt-miss-0ut-0n-this/6982789123.html

These types of homes are all over the city.

[Anonymous]

This article supports the stereotype that black women are looking for handouts. Where is the info about her saving for a house?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article supports the stereotype that black women are looking for handouts. Where is the info about her saving for a house?

As pointed on page one, this isn't race-specific. I've seen men and women of every race who take the cheapest route in the short-term and then ends up stretching until they've f'ed themselves over in the long-term.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

Same.

She was a federal employee and her husband had a good job as well which comes with life insurance if they didn't have a private family plan.

Just a tiny bit of planning or foresight and she and either of her spouses could have been in a home right where they are now. With the money she has, if she's been saving, she could still buy in further out NE which basically has the same levels of living as when she first moved to U Street (there was no Trader Joes there until 10 years ago).

Personally, I see this on these boards all the time. Long-time renters in central D.C. and Arlington and what-have-you who think that a low rate rental is OWED to them.

No. Save for it. Strive for it. Put that stable salary you've had for decades towards it.

Yes. I don't understand why they are unable to find another place to live and are moving in with family, separately to boot. Both are employed. A federal employee of 40 years makes a decent living. Something else must be going on.

Money aside, I do still understand she must be hurting. I have never lived anywhere for that long and it really is a fantastic neighborhood with lots of character and history.

The only thing I felt bad about was the part where she said she was essentially the caretaker of the building. Sweeping it, painting, Christmas tree, etc.

That's basically the building supervisor and if she didn't get paid for all that, she got burned. But if she did get paid in the form of a bigger unit or at least first choice (why else move from the 2nd to the 1st floor), or straight out - a decrease in market rent ($500/mo still doesn't seem like enough for a 2 or 3 bedroom, I think there are places in Baltimore that charge more and you're living in some pretty depressed areas), then it was fair.

I can't even think of any 1 bedrooms or studios in the area that cost $500 per month. That's the cost of a single room in a shared group house somewhere far out in the suburbs.

Wrong.

I have artist friends who live in Baltimore City. One is paying $900/mo for a 2-bedroom (in a giant 3,000 square foot house) but the person on a different floor is paying $500/mo simply because its completely unrenovated/untouched without central AC, no W/D, and appliances from the 80s.

You can find a lot of rundown and semi-abandoned homes in Baltimore where the absentee landlord/homeowner has long-term tenants who have been paying the same thing for decades or For Rent signs in the yards/posted at local shops.

Examples of what I'm talking about -

$650 for a 2-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-beautiful-2-bedroom-rowhome/6972194971.html

$850 for a 2-bedroom
https://www.zumper.com/apartment-buildings/p273980/5401-catalpha-rd-harford-echodale-perring-parkway-baltimore-md

$778 for a 3-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-open-house-on-sun-9-22-from/6984672979.html

$570 for a 3-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-d0nt-miss-0ut-0n-this/6982789123.html

These types of homes are all over the city.

Wait - I thought we were talking about DC?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

Same.

She was a federal employee and her husband had a good job as well which comes with life insurance if they didn't have a private family plan.

Just a tiny bit of planning or foresight and she and either of her spouses could have been in a home right where they are now. With the money she has, if she's been saving, she could still buy in further out NE which basically has the same levels of living as when she first moved to U Street (there was no Trader Joes there until 10 years ago).

Personally, I see this on these boards all the time. Long-time renters in central D.C. and Arlington and what-have-you who think that a low rate rental is OWED to them.

No. Save for it. Strive for it. Put that stable salary you've had for decades towards it.

Yes. I don't understand why they are unable to find another place to live and are moving in with family, separately to boot. Both are employed. A federal employee of 40 years makes a decent living. Something else must be going on.

Money aside, I do still understand she must be hurting. I have never lived anywhere for that long and it really is a fantastic neighborhood with lots of character and history.

The only thing I felt bad about was the part where she said she was essentially the caretaker of the building. Sweeping it, painting, Christmas tree, etc.

That's basically the building supervisor and if she didn't get paid for all that, she got burned. But if she did get paid in the form of a bigger unit or at least first choice (why else move from the 2nd to the 1st floor), or straight out - a decrease in market rent ($500/mo still doesn't seem like enough for a 2 or 3 bedroom, I think there are places in Baltimore that charge more and you're living in some pretty depressed areas), then it was fair.

I can't even think of any 1 bedrooms or studios in the area that cost $500 per month. That's the cost of a single room in a shared group house somewhere far out in the suburbs.

Wrong.

I have artist friends who live in Baltimore City. One is paying $900/mo for a 2-bedroom (in a giant 3,000 square foot house) but the person on a different floor is paying $500/mo simply because its completely unrenovated/untouched without central AC, no W/D, and appliances from the 80s.

You can find a lot of rundown and semi-abandoned homes in Baltimore where the absentee landlord/homeowner has long-term tenants who have been paying the same thing for decades or For Rent signs in the yards/posted at local shops.

Examples of what I'm talking about -

$650 for a 2-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-beautiful-2-bedroom-rowhome/6972194971.html

$850 for a 2-bedroom
https://www.zumper.com/apartment-buildings/p273980/5401-catalpha-rd-harford-echodale-perring-parkway-baltimore-md

$778 for a 3-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-open-house-on-sun-9-22-from/6984672979.html

$570 for a 3-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-d0nt-miss-0ut-0n-this/6982789123.html

These types of homes are all over the city.

Wait - I thought we were talking about DC?

Ahh, then you're right. I meant $500/mo doesn't seem like enough for 2 or 3 bedroom based on the fact she moved in more 40 years ago. Baltimore now is basically what DC was back then, so I think the prices would be the same.

Which is why I think she was paying below market rent even in the beginning.

[Anonymous]

I think it’d be different if she owned her house, though. My aunt (were black) bought a rowhouse in the 70s for dirt cheap. She’s since passed but left the house in her kids names who are now pushing 50 themselves and keep getting lowball offers to sell, like maybe only 300k. That and the city is drastically raising property taxes. My cousin says they’re holding on as long as they can, but it is a shame when you own and still can get screwed out because a flipper wants to do a cheap reno and sell it for 1 mil.


But in this article, the woman is renting for 40 years. That’s on her.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

Same.

She was a federal employee and her husband had a good job as well which comes with life insurance if they didn't have a private family plan.

Just a tiny bit of planning or foresight and she and either of her spouses could have been in a home right where they are now. With the money she has, if she's been saving, she could still buy in further out NE which basically has the same levels of living as when she first moved to U Street (there was no Trader Joes there until 10 years ago).

Personally, I see this on these boards all the time. Long-time renters in central D.C. and Arlington and what-have-you who think that a low rate rental is OWED to them.

No. Save for it. Strive for it. Put that stable salary you've had for decades towards it.

Yes. I don't understand why they are unable to find another place to live and are moving in with family, separately to boot. Both are employed. A federal employee of 40 years makes a decent living. Something else must be going on.

Money aside, I do still understand she must be hurting. I have never lived anywhere for that long and it really is a fantastic neighborhood with lots of character and history.

The only thing I felt bad about was the part where she said she was essentially the caretaker of the building. Sweeping it, painting, Christmas tree, etc.

That's basically the building supervisor and if she didn't get paid for all that, she got burned. But if she did get paid in the form of a bigger unit or at least first choice (why else move from the 2nd to the 1st floor), or straight out - a decrease in market rent ($500/mo still doesn't seem like enough for a 2 or 3 bedroom, I think there are places in Baltimore that charge more and you're living in some pretty depressed areas), then it was fair.

I can't even think of any 1 bedrooms or studios in the area that cost $500 per month. That's the cost of a single room in a shared group house somewhere far out in the suburbs.

Wrong.

I have artist friends who live in Baltimore City. One is paying $900/mo for a 2-bedroom (in a giant 3,000 square foot house) but the person on a different floor is paying $500/mo simply because its completely unrenovated/untouched without central AC, no W/D, and appliances from the 80s.

You can find a lot of rundown and semi-abandoned homes in Baltimore where the absentee landlord/homeowner has long-term tenants who have been paying the same thing for decades or For Rent signs in the yards/posted at local shops.

Examples of what I'm talking about -

$650 for a 2-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-beautiful-2-bedroom-rowhome/6972194971.html

$850 for a 2-bedroom
https://www.zumper.com/apartment-buildings/p273980/5401-catalpha-rd-harford-echodale-perring-parkway-baltimore-md

$778 for a 3-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-open-house-on-sun-9-22-from/6984672979.html

$570 for a 3-bedroom
https://baltimore.craigslist.org/apa/d/baltimore-d0nt-miss-0ut-0n-this/6982789123.html

These types of homes are all over the city.

Wait - I thought we were talking about DC?

Ahh, then you're right. I meant $500/mo doesn't seem like enough for 2 or 3 bedroom based on the fact she moved in more 40 years ago. Baltimore now is basically what DC was back then, so I think the prices would be the same.

Which is why I think she was paying below market rent even in the beginning.

Oh yeah, I definitely meant the DMV. Even looking as far out as Hagerstown MD and Fredericksburg VA, I just did a quick search and it's pretty much impossible to find anything for what the lady was paying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’d be different if she owned her house, though. My aunt (were black) bought a rowhouse in the 70s for dirt cheap. She’s since passed but left the house in her kids names who are now pushing 50 themselves and keep getting lowball offers to sell, like maybe only 300k. That and the city is drastically raising property taxes. My cousin says they’re holding on as long as they can, but it is a shame when you own and still can get screwed out because a flipper wants to do a cheap reno and sell it for 1 mil.


But in this article, the woman is renting for 40 years. That’s on her.

If they put it on the market, they will get much more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

Same.

She was a federal employee and her husband had a good job as well which comes with life insurance if they didn't have a private family plan.

Just a tiny bit of planning or foresight and she and either of her spouses could have been in a home right where they are now. With the money she has, if she's been saving, she could still buy in further out NE which basically has the same levels of living as when she first moved to U Street (there was no Trader Joes there until 10 years ago).

Personally, I see this on these boards all the time. Long-time renters in central D.C. and Arlington and what-have-you who think that a low rate rental is OWED to them.

No. Save for it. Strive for it. Put that stable salary you've had for decades towards it.

Yes. I don't understand why they are unable to find another place to live and are moving in with family, separately to boot. Both are employed. A federal employee of 40 years makes a decent living. Something else must be going on.

Money aside, I do still understand she must be hurting. I have never lived anywhere for that long and it really is a fantastic neighborhood with lots of character and history.

The only thing I felt bad about was the part where she said she was essentially the caretaker of the building. Sweeping it, painting, Christmas tree, etc.

That's basically the building supervisor and if she didn't get paid for all that, she got burned. But if she did get paid in the form of a bigger unit or at least first choice (why else move from the 2nd to the 1st floor), or straight out - a decrease in market rent ($500/mo still doesn't seem like enough for a 2 or 3 bedroom, I think there are places in Baltimore that charge more and you're living in some pretty depressed areas), then it was fair.

Big effing deal. I bought a condo in a 4 unit rowhouse condo building nearly 10 years ago in Mt Pleasant. I was pretty much the caretaker for the time I owned my condo. Our fees were low, so we couldn't afford property management, cleaning, yard work, a super etc. While my neighbors helped some of the time, I cared more than they did, so this means that I pretty much did 99% of the maintenance for our building, which included the work I've mentioned above but also periodic exterior painting, cleaning gutters, etc. I could go on forever. I also handled the finances. I don't think my position was unique, and as much as I would have loved special privileges for doing all that work, I knew that wasn't happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it’d be different if she owned her house, though. My aunt (were black) bought a rowhouse in the 70s for dirt cheap. She’s since passed but left the house in her kids names who are now pushing 50 themselves and keep getting lowball offers to sell, like maybe only 300k. That and the city is drastically raising property taxes. My cousin says they’re holding on as long as they can, but it is a shame when you own and still can get screwed out because a flipper wants to do a cheap reno and sell it for 1 mil.


But in this article, the woman is renting for 40 years. That’s on her.

There's no reason to get screwed though. Don't sell to a flipper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it’d be different if she owned her house, though. My aunt (were black) bought a rowhouse in the 70s for dirt cheap. She’s since passed but left the house in her kids names who are now pushing 50 themselves and keep getting lowball offers to sell, like maybe only 300k. That and the city is drastically raising property taxes. My cousin says they’re holding on as long as they can, but it is a shame when you own and still can get screwed out because a flipper wants to do a cheap reno and sell it for 1 mil.


But in this article, the woman is renting for 40 years. That’s on her.

There's no reason to get screwed though. Don't sell to a flipper.

OK, this is about the third person who has said "the city is drastically raising property taxes," and to my knowledge that just isn't true. I don't believe DC tax rates have increased materially in the past 20 years. However, the *value* of property has increased, which increases the total tax bill. But that's just math, not an action by the DC government.

And in case you were wondering, having your property go up in value is a good thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m black and I agree with posters here. She didn’t manage her money well all these years. When her husband died in 2003, that’s when she should’ve been planning better. 2003 is when the dc area starting gentrifying , so she should have been saving up her money on buying a property, instead of continuing to rent.

Many of the white gentrifyers coming into DC do tend to be a holes and snobby, but this one was on her.

Same.

She was a federal employee and her husband had a good job as well which comes with life insurance if they didn't have a private family plan.

Just a tiny bit of planning or foresight and she and either of her spouses could have been in a home right where they are now. With the money she has, if she's been saving, she could still buy in further out NE which basically has the same levels of living as when she first moved to U Street (there was no Trader Joes there until 10 years ago).

Personally, I see this on these boards all the time. Long-time renters in central D.C. and Arlington and what-have-you who think that a low rate rental is OWED to them.

No. Save for it. Strive for it. Put that stable salary you've had for decades towards it.

Yes. I don't understand why they are unable to find another place to live and are moving in with family, separately to boot. Both are employed. A federal employee of 40 years makes a decent living. Something else must be going on.

Money aside, I do still understand she must be hurting. I have never lived anywhere for that long and it really is a fantastic neighborhood with lots of character and history.

The only thing I felt bad about was the part where she said she was essentially the caretaker of the building. Sweeping it, painting, Christmas tree, etc.

That's basically the building supervisor and if she didn't get paid for all that, she got burned. But if she did get paid in the form of a bigger unit or at least first choice (why else move from the 2nd to the 1st floor), or straight out - a decrease in market rent ($500/mo still doesn't seem like enough for a 2 or 3 bedroom, I think there are places in Baltimore that charge more and you're living in some pretty depressed areas), then it was fair.

Big effing deal. I bought a condo in a 4 unit rowhouse condo building nearly 10 years ago in Mt Pleasant. I was pretty much the caretaker for the time I owned my condo. Our fees were low, so we couldn't afford property management, cleaning, yard work, a super etc. While my neighbors helped some of the time, I cared more than they did, so this means that I pretty much did 99% of the maintenance for our building, which included the work I've mentioned above but also periodic exterior painting, cleaning gutters, etc. I could go on forever. I also handled the finances. I don't think my position was unique, and as much as I would have loved special privileges for doing all that work, I knew that wasn't happening.

Big difference between a homeowner in a tiny HOA taking on that responsibility and a renter doing so for an absentee landlord who obviously doesn’t care.

[Anonymous]

I thought DC was renter friendly, how do you force her out legally?