Our Gain, DCPS Suckers

[Anonymous]

Is there research that shows the middle-class-with-kids population in DC is growing in any kind of statistically significant way? Middle class meaning teachers, cops, nurses, store managers, used car salesmen, etc. HHI below 100k. (This is what most people mean by middle class, right?)

[Anonymous]

I live in the city - part of the actual city, not one of those in-the-city-but-has-much-more-in-common-with-a-suburb" neighborhoods. I have no idea how anyone could dispute with the sentiment behind this statement. For families with kids, school quality is among the most, if not THE most, important consideration when deciding where to live. If people can't find quality schools in DC, they'll find other options, including moving. And I have no doubt that there are people who are unhappy with their school situation who wish they could move but are underwater.

But the point the prior post misses, and the point that many in the suburbs don't seem understand, is that there are many more good school options now than there were 15 years ago. This increase is due to both charter schools and certain improved DCPS schools. Are ALL DCPS schools good options? No, of course not. But that's not really the issue when deciding if DCPS (or a charter) is an option, is it? My kid can only attend one school at a time. As long as I'm satisfied that her school is a good option and meets her needs, that's all that matters with respect to my decision to stay in DC. (I don't mean to suggest that I don't care about other kids in DC - I do - but the horrendous quality of many schools in Wards 7 and 8 isn't relevant to my decision about whether to stay in DC or decamp to the burbs.)

I get equally frustrated with the suburbanites who believe that all DCPS schools are bullet-ridden hellholes where no kid can get a great education (you're just not paying attention, and do seem like you have an axe to grind), and the city-dwellers who prattle on about how they live in the city because of easy access to museums (please, it's not like the Kennedy Center asks where you live when they sell you tickets, and while I'm sure some tiny number of you do go down to the mall with little Jasper and Dakota to check out a different museum every weekend, the vast majority of us don't take advantage of SC "culture" any more frequently than our suburban neighbors. We're too busy with soccer practice, swimming lessons, tee ball, home repairs, grocery shopping, maybe squeezing in a few hours of work.)

eh, i don't think the schools are what keeps my family in DC. we are city people. my DS is getting a tremendous education just by living in a city surrounded by diverse people and buildings. we actually DO take advantages of the museums since we are but a D6 bus ride away. my DS is a big fan of the Origins of Humans exhibit at the natural history museum. you should check it out. ...and we go to all the festivals we can. we aren't under water on our house (to the contrary...our house has appreciated by almost 75%). my DS is getting an education that maybe won't get him to standford, but we're ok with that. he can go to a state school. not everyone obssesses about their kid education.

[Anonymous]

Ditto. I have conciously made the choice to trade off having the "best" schools for having a sustainable, city type lifestyle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is there research that shows the middle-class-with-kids population in DC is growing in any kind of statistically significant way? Middle class meaning teachers, cops, nurses, store managers, used car salesmen, etc. HHI below 100k. (This is what most people mean by middle class, right?)

Nope. Middle-class means "not wealthy". Which, if you exclude "upper middle-class" probably takes you up to about $200k/year HHI. And the middle-class households in DC are certainly increasing if you look at DC's median HHI. Whether the number of middle class households with *kids* is increasing is an open question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many DC families have only stayed because they are underwater on their homes. Once it rises, absent a good school, the middle class will flee DC again.

Don't be such a silly.

http://www.zillow.com/local-info/DC-Washington/Capitol-Hill-home-value/r_121685/

People may be underwater in the greater Dumfries-Manassass metropolitan area, but most middle-class DC folks have plenty of equity in their houses..even those who bought during the bubble.

Wrong. Instead of cherry picking your stats, why don't you cite the chart for Washington, DC as a whole:

http://www.zillow.com/local-info/DC-Washington/r_41568/

It's not just the "greater Dumfries-Manassass metropolitan area" that is underwater, but Washington, DC as well.

You'll probably want to dig a bit further into that chart. The areas that were hard-hit by the suburban housing bubble are a) the well-heeled areas of DC where households are likely to be both wealthy, and have access to the good public schools (JKLM), or b) the ungentrified areas of DC east of the river, and in the far NE. The middle-class parents who bought homes in places like Capitol Hill and elsewhere even in the "bubble years" are unlikely to be seriously underwater. That's because most of the (relatively small decrease) in home values in DC proper have taken place in ungentrified neighborhoods where new residents with children are unlikely to have settled. Even in your cherry-picked example of Petworth, someone is unlikely to be underwater unless they bought between late 2005 and mid 2009. The strong neighborhoods like Capitol Hill have only increased in value since the peak of the peak. Pretty much anyone who bought at any time other than a six month period in 2006 has made money. And the rents have gone up sufficiently that those people could rent their houses tomorrow and cover their mortgage and maintenance.

You're fantasies of nervous "underwater" parents wishing they could leave is just wishful thinking. Which, come to think of it, is a bit sad.

These aren't "fantasies." We know many such parents personally. They are underwater and wishing that they could leave for a much better school district, but are forced instead to apologize for DCPS and "boost" it on forums such as this in the hope that the system will actually improve, or at least appear to have improved enough to attract another middle class home buyer to purchase their home for more than they paid for it during the boom years. Perhaps you are another example of this, which, come to think of it, is quite sad.

Moreover, your arguments don't refute the fact that the chart cited clearly shows that DC property values have declined. In fact, the chart doesn't even show the full extent of the decline, since it only goes back to early 2007, whereas the peak prices were around May 2006. The only "cherry picking" was by the PP who tried to cite Capitol Hill and certain other neighborhoods as examples of areas where prices hadn't declined as much, if at all. My point was that for DC as a whole, the prices have declined, and the chart proves that.

Name the neighborhood. My guess is that you know people in either Columbia Heights or Petworth who bought in, what? 2006? 2007? Either that or they're in the "suburban" neighborhoods west of the Park. I feel sorry for your personal acquaintances, but they're outliers.

What do you mean by "name the neighborhood"? We know parents from many different parts of the city that are underwater. Again, the facts that I have demonstrated show that they are not "outliers." Where are your facts demonstrating that property values in DC are now higher than at the peak of the boom?

It's not enough to show that property values "in DC" are lower than at the peak-of-the-peak. You need to show that the neighborhoods that saw high middle-class growth are down significantly, and that there are a significant percentage of homeowners who bought in the 2.5 year period where the peak-of-the-peak exceeds current prices. The number of residents who fit that bill are the one's you're talking about. And they're likely to be miniscule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Love how someone is using anecdotal info and "most people" (along with cherry picked data) to refute anedoctal info.

We bought in '01 in Mt P/Columbia Heights. Maybe "everyone" has kids just a few short years after marrying/buying houses, but "most" people around us with kids in early childhood elementary (K and younger) are sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars of value. We're maybe 100K off from peak - but still sitting on 300K in potential profit, and houses here, while rarely offered, are snapped up quickly.

I love how certain people here seem to fail at basic reading comprehension. I used facts (the chart of real estate prices for all of DC for the past five years) to refute the "cherry picked" data that one poster was using to claim that DC real estate prices had not fallen after the bubble (citing data only for one neighborhood). It is you, along with the others here who are trying to "boost" their DC property values (including one who thinks that buying in an area "with frequent gunfire" is a great investment, nevermind the children, since they'll learn to duck the stray bullets), that are using anecdotal evidence (in fact, just one single property!) in a vain attempt to refute the demonstrated facts. Truly, the stupidity of some people is just astounding.

You used a fatuous and incredibly shallow "analysis" of the DC housing market to try and support your preconceived biases. As everyone knows, it's all about the neighborhood level. In a city where large swaths of the market are held by elderly folks who've lived in their homes for decades, that's the only thing that matters. When you talk about "DC real estate prices" you just come across as a know-nothing. Refferring to Case-Schiller as though that had anything meaningful to say about the strength of the DC housing market (as opposed to a massive regional market) was the other giveaway. Please stop before you embarrass yourself further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Many DC families have only stayed because they are underwater on their homes. Once it rises, absent a good school, the middle class will flee DC again.

I live in the city - part of the actual city, not one of those in-the-city-but-has-much-more-in-common-with-a-suburb" neighborhoods. ...

You and I are on the same side of the "families will flee" debate, but you really undermine your point with this bullshit sort of statement. You sound like Sarah Palin asserting who is part of the "real America." Ugh. Get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Middle class parent and not so middle class teacher. Am I doomed for failure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Many DC families have only stayed because they are underwater on their homes. Once it rises, absent a good school, the middle class will flee DC again.

I live in the city - part of the actual city, not one of those in-the-city-but-has-much-more-in-common-with-a-suburb" neighborhoods. ...

You and I are on the same side of the "families will flee" debate, but you really undermine your point with this bullshit sort of statement. You sound like Sarah Palin asserting who is part of the "real America." Ugh. Get over yourself.

That's a fair point, but maybe you can explain something to me. (For real, no snark.) I understand people who live in the "urban" parts of DC, such as it is - close to a metro, walkable to lots of things, etc. I understand people who live in the near suburbs - it may be me someday. I even understand people who live in the exurbs - it'll never be what I want, but I see their reasons. But I cannot for the life of me understand people who live in side the DC city limiys in a suburban lifestyle. It seems like the worst of both worlds - you don't get the benefits of actually living in an urban environment, but you have all of the irritations of any DC resident (and they are legion). So - what gives? Why do you do it?

[Anonymous]

perhaps your idea of suburban is different from theirs. Even neighborhoods without easy access to metro or shopping are often more convenient than suburban areas and they are closer to work, if work is downtown.

I live 3 blocks from 2 subways and lots of shopping in Cleveland park, but some urbanites would consider this suburban because there are no townhouses and it's not very racially diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Many DC families have only stayed because they are underwater on their homes. Once it rises, absent a good school, the middle class will flee DC again.

I live in the city - part of the actual city, not one of those in-the-city-but-has-much-more-in-common-with-a-suburb" neighborhoods. ...

You and I are on the same side of the "families will flee" debate, but you really undermine your point with this bullshit sort of statement. You sound like Sarah Palin asserting who is part of the "real America." Ugh. Get over yourself.

That's a fair point, but maybe you can explain something to me. (For real, no snark.) I understand people who live in the "urban" parts of DC, such as it is - close to a metro, walkable to lots of things, etc. I understand people who live in the near suburbs - it may be me someday. I even understand people who live in the exurbs - it'll never be what I want, but I see their reasons. But I cannot for the life of me understand people who live in side the DC city limiys in a suburban lifestyle. It seems like the worst of both worlds - you don't get the benefits of actually living in an urban environment, but you have all of the irritations of any DC resident (and they are legion). So - what gives? Why do you do it?

15:01 here. I live in upper NW but can walk to metro, stores, my kids' DCPS. So I can't answer your question from personal experience. But it's not hard to think of reasons: They found the perfect house. They like the neighborhood. They like Lafayette or Janney or Murch or Mann and don't believe that ESs in Arlington or Bethesda are any better. They don't find living in DC to be a hassle. They like free pre-K. They work downtown and the commute from upper NW is a little shorter than from Bethesda. They believe in the city and want to be part of it but want a yard and a lawn.

It doesn't take a ton of imagination to figure this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is there research that shows the middle-class-with-kids population in DC is growing in any kind of statistically significant way? Middle class meaning teachers, cops, nurses, store managers, used car salesmen, etc. HHI below 100k. (This is what most people mean by middle class, right?)

Nope. Middle-class means "not wealthy". Which, if you exclude "upper middle-class" probably takes you up to about $200k/year HHI. And the middle-class households in DC are certainly increasing if you look at DC's median HHI. Whether the number of middle class households with *kids* is increasing is an open question.

Is this an official definition? You sound so certain. I didn't think there was such a thing as an "official definition" for missle class. Doesn't everyone think they are middle class?

When the vast majority of Americans describe the middle class, I don't think they are counting the 150-200k HHI types. That's upper upper middle class. Or wealthy. To most normal people.

[Anonymous]

I bought in close-in NE (what realtors at the time cheekily called Capitol Hill North, but most people still know as Trinidad) in 2006. I'm certainly deeply underwater, and this is supposed to be a happening place, with H Street and all. Curiously, new restaurants continue to open there but real estate is still in the crapper.

I never intended to stay there so the state of local schools never concerned me. I moved to McLean, the place is rented and barely covering my old mortgage. That's fine; I can take it. I think there are lots of people like me who bought when I bought. My old neighbors have a slightly trapped look to them.

[Anonymous]

We have now moved the conversation to upper middle class. Wow! It happened so fast, middle class is the new poor. The anxiety of it all.

[Anonymous]

Please carry your conversation offline. Or at least on another thread.

The last thing I want to read about is your housing woes.