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.

For example. We live in a house in DC that has doubled in value. Not exactly underwater.

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.

blah blah blah. Could it possibly that the lifestyle in DC is worlds better than anywhere else? Could that be the reason families stay in DC despite the kooky school situation? And guess what? It is only getting better by the day. With new development, invigorated neighborhoods, art and culture galore. AND NO COMMUTE. Tell me about your lifestyle in your affordable house ( excuse me, mcMansion ) and quick dash into the museums. Tell me the last time you WALKED your kid somewhere. Tell me the last time you were at the shopping mall.

This post is so arrogant and blatantly incorrect on so many levels that it is laughable (although you are right about the "kooky school situation" in DC). DC is not the center of the universe, and life there isn't "worlds better than anywhere else". We have lived in many different places, including DC proper, and DC is hardly at the top of our list of desirable places to live. Getting better by the day? With all of the recent robberies and the completely dysfunctional DCPS that will only get worse with the new round of massive budget cuts? And as far as commuting goes, here is a newsflash: not everyone works in DC. In fact, Tysons Corner is a bigger job center than DC is now, and that disparity is only growing. Also, not everyone in the suburbs lives in a "McMansion", and you have only revealed yourself as a trashy person for using such a pejorative term and haphazardly applying it to everyone who doesn't live in your DC fantasyland. And here is another newsflash: there are many suburban areas that are walkable and close to Metro (Bethesda, Old Town, Falls Church City, Arlington, etc.) and many parts of DC that are not very walkable and/or not close to Metro (parts of Palisades and other parts of Upper Northwest, among many other areas). I could go on about how lacking DC is in urban amenities compared to real cities like New York, Chicago, London, and about how "suburban" DC itself feels compared to those cities, but that would take too long.

I think I hit a nerve.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:32, where have you been lower enrollment does mean people left the city. Case in point when Tony Williams started ridding the city of housing projects, immediately schools with busting enrollment went down suddenly. When vouchers were being accepted in PG county from transplanted DC residents the school that went benefited at the high school level was Suitland HS, which is surrounded by low income apartment complexes. You have projected enrollments for at least 5 comprehensive high-schools next year to be under 500. You have two middle-schools that was surrounded by housing projects that will have projected enrollments less than 120.

Yep. Furthermore, the number of school aged children has fallen as DC population has continued to grow. That's because poor people have a lot of school-aged kids. Middle-class people are often childless, or have one or two kids. Since DC's population has climbed, that means it's almost certain the total number of households has increased. Just fewer children.

Calm down. I didn't say that past drop in dcps enrollment wasn't due to people leaving the city. I was pointing out that IF there was a drop in DCPS enrollment in the fall, it won't indicate that people are leaving the city. All it would indicate is that people have left DCPS. for charters or privates in the city in many cases.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:14:32, where have you been lower enrollment does mean people left the city. Case in point when Tony Williams started ridding the city of housing projects, immediately schools with busting enrollment went down suddenly. When vouchers were being accepted in PG county from transplanted DC residents the school that went benefited at the high school level was Suitland HS, which is surrounded by low income apartment complexes. You have projected enrollments for at least 5 comprehensive high-schools next year to be under 500. You have two middle-schools that was surrounded by housing projects that will have projected enrollments less than 120.

Yep. Furthermore, the number of school aged children has fallen as DC population has continued to grow. That's because poor people have a lot of school-aged kids. Middle-class people are often childless, or have one or two kids. Since DC's population has climbed, that means it's almost certain the total number of households has increased. Just fewer children.

Anonymous wrote:Thanks for making this dedicated teacher available to FCPS, you DCPS nuts with your IMPACT matrix that doesn't account for past manipulation of test results.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/creative--motivating-and-fired/2012/02/04/gIQAwzZpvR_story.html

What a fiasco. You can just hear some of the barely literate administrators in DCPS justifying their decision to fire this young teacher.

Anonymous wrote:If people could stop arguing about whether the suburbs or the city are better for a minute, please note that one of the main reasons there was cheating which led to this teacher's firing was because of the pressures the administration put on teachers to make sure their students improve on DC CAS. The article notes that DC CAS accounts for 50% of a teacher's score whereas in other school systems it counts for a much smaller percentage.

And who was it that instituted this kind of lopsided teacher evaluation? And instituted it without a trial period, so any flaws could become apparent before they were used to evaluate teachers? And who was it that dismissed subsequent reports of cheating? The heroine of many folks in DC's white middle class, Michelle Rhee - who continues to make scads of money as a consultant despite the mess she left behind.

Yes, I think the system will improve as more middle class people decide to stay in DC and raise their kids here. But we've got to do a better job of picking our chancellors. Rhee lacked the proper experience to run a school system and this article shows us one more reason why.

Of course, it's also deeply embarrassing that DCPS is saying that this teacher would have been fired anyway even if she had reported her suspicions about cheating. (That can't be blamed on Michelle Rhee - other mindless administrators did that.) Jeez, it's like the Supreme Court saying that a condemned man has to die anyway even though there may still be evidence exonerating him....oh wait.

At any rate, as a former DCPS parent, I find this story deeply embarrassing and you folks in FCPS may laugh all you want. You have every right to!

Anonymous wrote:14:32, where have you been lower enrollment does mean people left the city. Case in point when Tony Williams started ridding the city of housing projects, immediately schools with busting enrollment went down suddenly. When vouchers were being accepted in PG county from transplanted DC residents the school that went benefited at the high school level was Suitland HS, which is surrounded by low income apartment complexes. You have projected enrollments for at least 5 comprehensive high-schools next year to be under 500. You have two middle-schools that was surrounded by housing projects that will have projected enrollments less than 120.

Anonymous wrote:An earlier post said that what DCPS needed was more middle-class (professional) families. Of course, this is true, but many middle-class, professional families have tried to improve their neighborhood public schools. Some have succeeded, at least so far (Brent on Capitol Hill--don't know how they did it) and some have not (Francis-Stevens in Foggy Bottom/West End--dud of a principal; bullying goes unchecked; horrible language by students and staff tolerated by all). Don't blame middle class families for leaving DCPS when they can, especially if they have tried. Hard.
And this teacher, dismissed from DCPS, will thrive in almost any other school system.

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.

For example. We live in a house in DC that has doubled in value. Not exactly underwater.

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.

blah blah blah. Could it possibly that the lifestyle in DC is worlds better than anywhere else? Could that be the reason families stay in DC despite the kooky school situation? And guess what? It is only getting better by the day. With new development, invigorated neighborhoods, art and culture galore. AND NO COMMUTE. Tell me about your lifestyle in your affordable house ( excuse me, mcMansion ) and quick dash into the museums. Tell me the last time you WALKED your kid somewhere. Tell me the last time you were at the shopping mall.

This post is so arrogant and blatantly incorrect on so many levels that it is laughable (although you are right about the "kooky school situation" in DC). DC is not the center of the universe, and life there isn't "worlds better than anywhere else". We have lived in many different places, including DC proper, and DC is hardly at the top of our list of desirable places to live. Getting better by the day? With all of the recent robberies and the completely dysfunctional DCPS that will only get worse with the new round of massive budget cuts? And as far as commuting goes, here is a newsflash: not everyone works in DC. In fact, Tysons Corner is a bigger job center than DC is now, and that disparity is only growing. Also, not everyone in the suburbs lives in a "McMansion", and you have only revealed yourself as a trashy person for using such a pejorative term and haphazardly applying it to everyone who doesn't live in your DC fantasyland. And here is another newsflash: there are many suburban areas that are walkable and close to Metro (Bethesda, Old Town, Falls Church City, Arlington, etc.) and many parts of DC that are not very walkable and/or not close to Metro (parts of Palisades and other parts of Upper Northwest, among many other areas). I could go on about how lacking DC is in urban amenities compared to real cities like New York, Chicago, London, and about how "suburban" DC itself feels compared to those cities, but that would take too long.