Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think the majority of people fighting this change aren’t as much concerned about an increase in farms for their kids school as they are about losing 50-100k in home value overnight.


Anybody, social justice warrior or not, would be upset if you took that much money away from them.

Real estate agents are predicting up to 1/3 equity loss.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s not theft and it’s dumb for people to argue that it is. It’s not and it just makes you look stupid.

It sucks to potentially lose a lot of equity in your home. But it can happen for a variety of reasons. It sucked when people who bought in 2006 and 2007 were “underwater” in 2010, and this will suck for some people too. But it’s not theft.

It sucks when the counties around here decide that they deliberately want to screw over those that worked hard to get what they have. Which is EXACTLY what this is. Government will make this change and cause people to lose value in their homes, in favor of others. That is the very definition of Robin Hood style theft.

Anonymous wrote:It’s not theft and it’s dumb for people to argue that it is. It’s not and it just makes you look stupid.

It sucks to potentially lose a lot of equity in your home. But it can happen for a variety of reasons. It sucked when people who bought in 2006 and 2007 were “underwater” in 2010, and this will suck for some people too. But it’s not theft.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think the majority of people fighting this change aren’t as much concerned about an increase in farms for their kids school as they are about losing 50-100k in home value overnight.

Anybody, social justice warrior or not, would be upset if you took that much money away from them.

Real estate agents are predicting up to 1/3 equity loss.

Real estate agents are not exactly disinterested parties here.

They know that schools drive value.

Here's the thing - when the government decides that you are too rich or not the right color, and moves your school as a result of that, it's theft.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in Howard County, but agree with the PP. You just don't know. When the Howard County redistricting process was initiated in January, the stated objective was to balance capacity - move students to schools with capacity to address over-crowding. To anyone in the know, they would realize that many of the schools with capacity were schools with higher FARMs concentration, but the equity angle was not emphasized at that time. Next, the staff released its Feasbility Study, which contained several proposals for adjusting boundaries. These did not significantly alter FARMs concentrations, in part because of geographic issues (i.e. thte lower income schools are close together which could lead to shifting students receiving FARMs from one high-FARMs school to another).

Then, when the Superintendent presented his plan in August, the theme was boundary adjustments "through an equity lens." Equity became a driver for a plan that goes beyond minor adjustments, caling for what people are calling "swaps" of populations - chunks in of students receiving FARMs in and chunks out of higher SES out of less diverse schools to promote "equity."

Bottom line - it is important to stay informed. The River Hill outcry demonstrates how blindsided the community was by this plan, even though if you paid careful and close attention, the writing was on the wall. This is a hot topic nationally, and the "increase diversity" forces seem to be gaining momentum.

If there's lots of public discussion about something, but you didn't pay attention to it because you figured it wouldn't apply to you, that's not being blindsided.

You are correct - community didn't pay attention because they didn't think it would impact them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think the majority of people fighting this change aren’t as much concerned about an increase in farms for their kids school as they are about losing 50-100k in home value overnight.

Anybody, social justice warrior or not, would be upset if you took that much money away from them.

Real estate agents are predicting up to 1/3 equity loss.

Real estate agents are not exactly disinterested parties here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people were counting on their home equity for various things and cant afford the loss that will inevitably occur with the move from River Hill to Wilde Lake. FYI

And other people will now be about to count on a home equity bump for various things. That’s life!

Actually, it's theft.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:i think the majority of people fighting this change aren’t as much concerned about an increase in farms for their kids school as they are about losing 50-100k in home value overnight.

Anybody, social justice warrior or not, would be upset if you took that much money away from them.

Real estate agents are predicting up to 1/3 equity loss.

Anonymous wrote:i think the majority of people fighting this change aren’t as much concerned about an increase in farms for their kids school as they are about losing 50-100k in home value overnight.


Anybody, social justice warrior or not, would be upset if you took that much money away from them.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some people were counting on their home equity for various things and cant afford the loss that will inevitably occur with the move from River Hill to Wilde Lake. FYI

And other people will now be about to count on a home equity bump for various things. That’s life!

Anonymous wrote:The Baltimore Sun has a long article about the proposed Howard County Public Schools rezoning: https://www.baltimoresun.com/education/bs-md-howard-school-redistricting-20190906-xhzkmkf2zvgcxdkbd3vqdanblm-story.html (I don't know who wrote it because the journalists are withholding their bylines this week.)

I don't know enough about Howard County to evaluate the proposals, but I do know enough about Montgomery County to be able to say with authority that anybody who is thinking of moving from MCPS to HCPS, in order to try to avoid boundary changes for school capacity and desegregation, should read this article.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I live in Howard County, but agree with the PP. You just don't know. When the Howard County redistricting process was initiated in January, the stated objective was to balance capacity - move students to schools with capacity to address over-crowding. To anyone in the know, they would realize that many of the schools with capacity were schools with higher FARMs concentration, but the equity angle was not emphasized at that time. Next, the staff released its Feasbility Study, which contained several proposals for adjusting boundaries. These did not significantly alter FARMs concentrations, in part because of geographic issues (i.e. thte lower income schools are close together which could lead to shifting students receiving FARMs from one high-FARMs school to another).

Then, when the Superintendent presented his plan in August, the theme was boundary adjustments "through an equity lens." Equity became a driver for a plan that goes beyond minor adjustments, caling for what people are calling "swaps" of populations - chunks in of students receiving FARMs in and chunks out of higher SES out of less diverse schools to promote "equity."

Bottom line - it is important to stay informed. The River Hill outcry demonstrates how blindsided the community was by this plan, even though if you paid careful and close attention, the writing was on the wall. This is a hot topic nationally, and the "increase diversity" forces seem to be gaining momentum.

If there's lots of public discussion about something, but you didn't pay attention to it because you figured it wouldn't apply to you, that's not being blindsided.

Anonymous wrote:

I live in Howard County, but agree with the PP. You just don't know. When the Howard County redistricting process was initiated in January, the stated objective was to balance capacity - move students to schools with capacity to address over-crowding. To anyone in the know, they would realize that many of the schools with capacity were schools with higher FARMs concentration, but the equity angle was not emphasized at that time. Next, the staff released its Feasbility Study, which contained several proposals for adjusting boundaries. These did not significantly alter FARMs concentrations, in part because of geographic issues (i.e. thte lower income schools are close together which could lead to shifting students receiving FARMs from one high-FARMs school to another).

Then, when the Superintendent presented his plan in August, the theme was boundary adjustments "through an equity lens." Equity became a driver for a plan that goes beyond minor adjustments, caling for what people are calling "swaps" of populations - chunks in of students receiving FARMs in and chunks out of higher SES out of less diverse schools to promote "equity."

Bottom line - it is important to stay informed. The River Hill outcry demonstrates how blindsided the community was by this plan, even though if you paid careful and close attention, the writing was on the wall. This is a hot topic nationally, and the "increase diversity" forces seem to be gaining momentum.