Anonymous wrote:All the money in the world wouldn't convince me to move to NW with you fools.

Anonymous wrote:Not at all. I give the renters lots of respect for putting their children’s education before a larger house.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I should add - we still own, so that line about not being as invested in the neighborhood is bull. Our oldest is in private now and ironically it is hardly an issue there.

You make zero sense. Why is that ironic?

Anonymous wrote:What? No. Of course not. Is this a Janney thing?

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.

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.

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.

I should add - we still own, so that line about not being as invested in the neighborhood is bull. Our oldest is in private now and ironically it is hardly an issue there.

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.