Initial boundary options for Woodward study area are up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To have the luxury to not worry about 100s of thousands of dollars…..lol. Love it.

Omg, so dramatic.

You don't lose 100s of thousands in cash when your property value goes down. Your mortgage stays the same. You have food and shelter and so much more. Good lord.

Oof. The lack of economic sense is a sight to behold, as is the twisting of words. Of course you have less money if your property value declines. It happens when you sell your house.

Yes, when you sell your house and your property value has gone down, you won't make as much money. That is the reality of property ownership. No property carries with it a guarantee of maintaining its value. You'll learn when you are all grown up and have a mortgage yourself.

And some of us need that money to send kids to college. We aren’t like you, who can afford otherwise.

Ok, I'm confused. So, you overspent on a house to get away from some of us, and then you cannot afford college. Sounds like a you problem. We bought a house we can afford and stayed so we can save and afford college, and have the house paid off before college. Would we like a big fancy house? Not sure, but I don't want the upkeep, maintenance, property taxes or stress. What you have. You cannot complain when you aren't willing to make the sacrifices.

what? I overspent on a house because the market sucks right now. I moved from DC to get away from regualry shootings in my neighborhood and don't at all have a fancy house. I put everything I have into it because I wanted my kid to feel safe and to be able to walk to school without that concern.

Plenty of places in MoCo are safe and aren't so expensive that you will lose "100s of thousands" because of a change in school boundaries

You can actually map the school boundary lines in zillow and redfin by the house prices. I don't know if they are hundreds of thousands, but the distinction is pretty noticeable.

This is going to blow your mind - you could have bought in the cheaper area (cheaper because of the schools) if you wanted. Not because you were prescient, but because those cheaper areas are lovely safe places to live, and because diversity is important to you. The bonus is you'd have money left over to save for college.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I don’t you are umc. It’s not an investment if you don’t plan to sell. I don’t see our house as an investment I see it as a money Pitt. We got the cheapest fixer upper and did a lot of the work ourselves to put away for college and retirement. If someone else on the same income spends twice as much, sorry no empathy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To have the luxury to not worry about 100s of thousands of dollars…..lol. Love it.

Omg, so dramatic.

You don't lose 100s of thousands in cash when your property value goes down. Your mortgage stays the same. You have food and shelter and so much more. Good lord.

Oof. The lack of economic sense is a sight to behold, as is the twisting of words. Of course you have less money if your property value declines. It happens when you sell your house.

Yes, when you sell your house and your property value has gone down, you won't make as much money. That is the reality of property ownership. No property carries with it a guarantee of maintaining its value. You'll learn when you are all grown up and have a mortgage yourself.

And some of us need that money to send kids to college. We aren’t like you, who can afford otherwise.

Ok, I'm confused. So, you overspent on a house to get away from some of us, and then you cannot afford college. Sounds like a you problem. We bought a house we can afford and stayed so we can save and afford college, and have the house paid off before college. Would we like a big fancy house? Not sure, but I don't want the upkeep, maintenance, property taxes or stress. What you have. You cannot complain when you aren't willing to make the sacrifices.

what? I overspent on a house because the market sucks right now. I moved from DC to get away from regualry shootings in my neighborhood and don't at all have a fancy house. I put everything I have into it because I wanted my kid to feel safe and to be able to walk to school without that concern.

Plenty of places in MoCo are safe and aren't so expensive that you will lose "100s of thousands" because of a change in school boundaries

You can actually map the school boundary lines in zillow and redfin by the house prices. I don't know if they are hundreds of thousands, but the distinction is pretty noticeable.

This is going to blow your mind - you could have bought in the cheaper area (cheaper because of the schools) if you wanted. Not because you were prescient, but because those cheaper areas are lovely safe places to live, and because diversity is important to you. The bonus is you'd have money left over to save for college.

Many of the cheaper area have housing that is crazy high now. This is why we need more affordable housing. I’m shocked at what the houses in our neighborhood are going for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think anyone should feel owed the right to remain zoned to any particular school, but I do think people should be able to expect for their kids to attend a school within reasonable proximity to their house without needing to be bussed past three or four other schools at taxpayer expense.

If they want to offer people the option to sign up for optional busing, then maybe that’s ok. Still a waste of money, carbon and traffic but not the end of the world. But mandatory long bus rides are just terrible.

I think a lot of people can agree with this even if we wish our schools were less segregated and want to use our school buildings efficiently

Some of us don’t need to wish as we are in schools that are not segregated. You choose that. We need more schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To have the luxury to not worry about 100s of thousands of dollars…..lol. Love it.

Omg, so dramatic.

You don't lose 100s of thousands in cash when your property value goes down. Your mortgage stays the same. You have food and shelter and so much more. Good lord.

Oof. The lack of economic sense is a sight to behold, as is the twisting of words. Of course you have less money if your property value declines. It happens when you sell your house.

Yes, when you sell your house and your property value has gone down, you won't make as much money. That is the reality of property ownership. No property carries with it a guarantee of maintaining its value. You'll learn when you are all grown up and have a mortgage yourself.

And some of us need that money to send kids to college. We aren’t like you, who can afford otherwise.

Ok, I'm confused. So, you overspent on a house to get away from some of us, and then you cannot afford college. Sounds like a you problem. We bought a house we can afford and stayed so we can save and afford college, and have the house paid off before college. Would we like a big fancy house? Not sure, but I don't want the upkeep, maintenance, property taxes or stress. What you have. You cannot complain when you aren't willing to make the sacrifices.

what? I overspent on a house because the market sucks right now. I moved from DC to get away from regualry shootings in my neighborhood and don't at all have a fancy house. I put everything I have into it because I wanted my kid to feel safe and to be able to walk to school without that concern.

Plenty of places in MoCo are safe and aren't so expensive that you will lose "100s of thousands" because of a change in school boundaries

Look, I didn't say hundreds of thousands. That was the person saying she was fine if her home value tanked.

I’d love for mine to tank. Less property taxes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I don’t you are umc. It’s not an investment if you don’t plan to sell. I don’t see our house as an investment I see it as a money Pitt. We got the cheapest fixer upper and did a lot of the work ourselves to put away for college and retirement. If someone else on the same income spends twice as much, sorry no empathy.

+1 this

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To have the luxury to not worry about 100s of thousands of dollars…..lol. Love it.

Omg, so dramatic.

You don't lose 100s of thousands in cash when your property value goes down. Your mortgage stays the same. You have food and shelter and so much more. Good lord.

Oof. The lack of economic sense is a sight to behold, as is the twisting of words. Of course you have less money if your property value declines. It happens when you sell your house.

Yes, when you sell your house and your property value has gone down, you won't make as much money. That is the reality of property ownership. No property carries with it a guarantee of maintaining its value. You'll learn when you are all grown up and have a mortgage yourself.

And some of us need that money to send kids to college. We aren’t like you, who can afford otherwise.

It is truly not my fault, nor is it MCPSs, that you decided to lock up your savings in your home. You should have bought a smaller house or one in a less expensive area. That is just bad financial planning.

A home isn't savings. Its where you live and you take a huge hit selling it. Its very bad financial planning as it could tank or you cannot sell as too many on the market.

Certainly, the county should be invested in making sure that people don't buy homes here due to increasing home-buying uncertainty.

Oh give it a rest. Realtors have been crowing about this "uncertainty" for years and "warning" buyers about this. People seem to still want to live here and pay a premium for it

I am the person who just bought and no, a realtor did not "crow" about "uncertainty" (? why would a realtor crow about something bad?). People want to live her for the schools. take that away, and the price premium changes. You know this, though. And think everyone is a sucker except for you.

If you just bought you choose to pay a crazy premium and stop complaining. Not a chance I’d pay a million or more for most of these homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

Crazy talk. Also sadly who knows what will become of financial aid or even student loans in today’s world. Maybe need that home equity now more than ever.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To have the luxury to not worry about 100s of thousands of dollars…..lol. Love it.

Omg, so dramatic.

You don't lose 100s of thousands in cash when your property value goes down. Your mortgage stays the same. You have food and shelter and so much more. Good lord.

Oof. The lack of economic sense is a sight to behold, as is the twisting of words. Of course you have less money if your property value declines. It happens when you sell your house.

Yes, when you sell your house and your property value has gone down, you won't make as much money. That is the reality of property ownership. No property carries with it a guarantee of maintaining its value. You'll learn when you are all grown up and have a mortgage yourself.

And some of us need that money to send kids to college. We aren’t like you, who can afford otherwise.

Ok, I'm confused. So, you overspent on a house to get away from some of us, and then you cannot afford college. Sounds like a you problem. We bought a house we can afford and stayed so we can save and afford college, and have the house paid off before college. Would we like a big fancy house? Not sure, but I don't want the upkeep, maintenance, property taxes or stress. What you have. You cannot complain when you aren't willing to make the sacrifices.

what? I overspent on a house because the market sucks right now. I moved from DC to get away from regualry shootings in my neighborhood and don't at all have a fancy house. I put everything I have into it because I wanted my kid to feel safe and to be able to walk to school without that concern.

Plenty of places in MoCo are safe and aren't so expensive that you will lose "100s of thousands" because of a change in school boundaries

Look, I didn't say hundreds of thousands. That was the person saying she was fine if her home value tanked.

I’d love for mine to tank. Less property taxes.

you....don't care about losing value in your home? because you've got a lot of other income?

[Anonymous]

Also only a sociopath would expect the government to prop up their home value by keeping certain kids out of their public schools. Unfortunately, there appear to be a lot of sociopaths here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To have the luxury to not worry about 100s of thousands of dollars…..lol. Love it.

Omg, so dramatic.

You don't lose 100s of thousands in cash when your property value goes down. Your mortgage stays the same. You have food and shelter and so much more. Good lord.

Oof. The lack of economic sense is a sight to behold, as is the twisting of words. Of course you have less money if your property value declines. It happens when you sell your house.

Yes, when you sell your house and your property value has gone down, you won't make as much money. That is the reality of property ownership. No property carries with it a guarantee of maintaining its value. You'll learn when you are all grown up and have a mortgage yourself.

And some of us need that money to send kids to college. We aren’t like you, who can afford otherwise.

Ok, I'm confused. So, you overspent on a house to get away from some of us, and then you cannot afford college. Sounds like a you problem. We bought a house we can afford and stayed so we can save and afford college, and have the house paid off before college. Would we like a big fancy house? Not sure, but I don't want the upkeep, maintenance, property taxes or stress. What you have. You cannot complain when you aren't willing to make the sacrifices.

what? I overspent on a house because the market sucks right now. I moved from DC to get away from regualry shootings in my neighborhood and don't at all have a fancy house. I put everything I have into it because I wanted my kid to feel safe and to be able to walk to school without that concern.

Plenty of places in MoCo are safe and aren't so expensive that you will lose "100s of thousands" because of a change in school boundaries

Look, I didn't say hundreds of thousands. That was the person saying she was fine if her home value tanked.

I’d love for mine to tank. Less property taxes.

you....don't care about losing value in your home? because you've got a lot of other income?

Home values go up and down. It is part of living in the real world. You'll learn when you get older.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

YOU are the one using the poors, saying they can just get financial aid. Some of them are just trying to scrape their way into home ownership, though, and it is odd that you would stereotype them as not having the wherewithall and ability to not be able to do that.

Look, you are exhibiting progressive hypocrisy all over the place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Man, I didn't realize just how massive the variation in EML/FARMS is between high schools right now, and these options barely touch it (even option 3, which looks like it does the most to balance those factors, still has really large disparities)...

It is not up to schools to social engineer this.

+1