Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people said rude stuff to us when we bought a starter house *gasp* a few miles outside the beltway (we work in the suburbs so it’s not even like we were commuting to DC). We got snarky comments about wanting the space of a house and not just staying in a small rental condo to be close to everything.

Fast forward 8 years and we made a bunch of money off that starter house while our friends were busy renting in DC/Arlington. Now we were able to buy a house in N Arlington thanks to our profits and in the meantime our friends who were renting got priced out of close-in neighborhoods and ended up *gasp* outside the beltway where they made fun of us for living.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with those neighborhoods where they moved. But it does irritate me a bit that when we lived just beyond 495 it was the “end of the world” and now that they live there they talk about how great it is.

My point being, focus on you. Any commentary from others is a reflection of their own issues as a PP pointed out.

People are always going to judge, regardless. I would absolutely judge anyone who used the phrase starter home as materialistic and wasteful, regardless of where they chose to live. We bought in a less desirable part of DC 20 years ago and have certainly reaped financial benefits for doing so. But urban living, even in a SFH with a large backyard has pluses and minuses, I would never live in Virginia, but Annapolis sounds nice. I wouldn't have said than 20 years ago, but as you get older, you do want more nature around you to decompress.

So anyone who buys a home just to get on the property ladder knowing that it isn’t where they want to be long term, and actually admits it is just a point of starting out is materialist and wasteful? That’s crazy. Most people can’t afford the house/location they really want with their first purchase and know a piece of real estate is just a means to an end. There’s nothing bad or materialistic about a starting point.

Kinda, yeah. People who refer to their homes as starter homes ARE usually materialistic and wasteful types who view home ownership as a ladder and think that they deserve HGTV-style living. It's like no one in their family had a home less than 3000 SF where children shared bedrooms and there was no "master suite." It's gross.

I grew up in public housing and i love my my pretty yard and and my big kitchen. I think you’re pretty gross.

That's totally fine - I too grew up as a FARMS student, but, it's totally normal for other people to look at people who ascribe to the "bigger, better, shinier" world view as tacky AF.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is unethical. Here is a good example. My mother in law bought a house on a working class block near a junk yard and a factory in 1968. Very long walk to train like over one mile, small plots like 40/100 and were cheap little crappy “telephone” capes. Back when phones and electric were invented they built little shacks for workers.

Flash forward to 2021 and 100 percent of grandkids can’t afford anywhere near her and nearly all moved out of state. Her kids are near retirement and most are being forced to retire elsewhere.

Her block is full of renters, investors. No. English speakers. Home prices have risen so much property taxes are through the roof!! Neighbors now are doing multigenerational. To afford and cars and noise everywhere can’t park in print of house.

Her taxes will soon be $12,000 a year on a 1,400 square foot house. Every time neighbors flip homes it raises her assessed value. The German butcher. Italian, bakery, Greek diner, shoemakers and dry cleaners all forced out due to high rent

My MiL could care less about home values. But on a fixed income paying $1,000 a month tax is crazy

Actually your mother is the winner in this scenario. She can sell her home for a massive return and get a very nice house wherever the grandkids live.

Yeah, I have a hard time with someone who now has $1m+ in real estate being called a victim.

people saying don't call the cops on black people We can only call the cops for white Vagrants and Vagabonds? I don't care what they look like, they got to go if they don't belong and that is what the police are for.

Anonymous wrote:It is unethical. Here is a good example. My mother in law bought a house on a working class block near a junk yard and a factory in 1968. Very long walk to train like over one mile, small plots like 40/100 and were cheap little crappy “telephone” capes. Back when phones and electric were invented they built little shacks for workers.

Flash forward to 2021 and 100 percent of grandkids can’t afford anywhere near her and nearly all moved out of state. Her kids are near retirement and most are being forced to retire elsewhere.

Her block is full of renters, investors. No. English speakers. Home prices have risen so much property taxes are through the roof!! Neighbors now are doing multigenerational. To afford and cars and noise everywhere can’t park in print of house.

Her taxes will soon be $12,000 a year on a 1,400 square foot house. Every time neighbors flip homes it raises her assessed value. The German butcher. Italian, bakery, Greek diner, shoemakers and dry cleaners all forced out due to high rent

My MiL could care less about home values. But on a fixed income paying $1,000 a month tax is crazy

Actually your mother is the winner in this scenario. She can sell her home for a massive return and get a very nice house wherever the grandkids live.

Long post, sorry. A lot of thoughts. I am a white gentrifier in DC. I don't say that with pride, but I also don't say it from a place of guilt, either. Like OP, we are a white couple who bought in a predominantly black neighborhood because we wanted to stay in the city, wanted a neighborhood that was close in with density and walkability, and had limited funds. But I know what we are. We knew it when we bought, and we were among the only white people around. And we really know it now that our block is more white than black and the general vibe of the neighborhood has changed.

I feel really conflicted about it because it certainly wasn't our intention to usher in an influx of UMC white people to the neighborhood. And we know it would have happened whether we had bought our home or not, because the gentrification trend in DC is bigger and more powerful than our individual choice. But I am also certain that some of new, white neighbors only felt comfortable buying here once we, and other like us, already had. We're part of it whether we want to be or not, because we are white and we are relatively economically privileged. We can't pretend we aren't because we've lived here longer or because we aren't as rich as the new neighbors.

I do think the advice in this thread about how to be a good neighbor is smart. Yes, do not call the cops on black people in your new, predominantly black neighborhood. If you can, send your kids to the neighborhood school and don't go in wanting to prioritize the needs of your UMC white kids over the needs of the many less privileged black and brown kids already attending the school. Get to know your neighbors. Participate in neighborhood clean ups. Say hi on the street! All of this is good.

But it's also more complex than that and I still don't know the answer. Now we feel caught in between at all times -- we are far more privileged than our original neighbors, many of whom are still around. But we're nowhere close to as privileged as our newest neighbors, mostly DINKs who paid close to a million for their row homes and have very high expectations for the kind of lifestyle and amenities their neighborhood should offer at that price point. We were happy when the WF and the TJs went in. We are glad the schools are improving. We like having more bars and restaurants going in, though increasingly they are too expensive for us and we wonder if we, too, are being priced out of the neighborhood.

I'd like to see more policy in DC that supports affordable housing, that supports a socioeconomic mix in neighborhoods and that leads to more development that benefits local businesses, especially black-owned businesses. We have actually worked with a couple organization that do just that, and it feels good. But when I compare it to the forces they are working against -- massive developers, wealthy professionals with money to burn and a newfound interest in a specific kind of urban lifestyle -- and I just feel like it might be too late to balance the scales.

We talk about moving again, seeing if we can find a close in suburbs that still has some density and real racial and socioeconomic diversity, but where prices aren't accelerating at quite the same rate and where we'd feel more kinship with our neighbors. I don't even know if one exists. I do think what's happening is unsustainable and I wish I knew th answer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

Right - but the question becomes - as an UMC white family - what should you do? I don't want to live surrounded by all white people. I want my kid to have a diverse friend group, racially, ethnically, and socio-economically. While yes, UMC white people moving into historically black neighborhoods pushes black people out. But the alternative is to move to a white-only area, which seems worse to me.

It seems to me that the system here is clearly racist, but that individual families moving to black neighborhoods (as primary residences) aren't doing anything wrong, and may in fact be doing the best they can to fight racism. What would you propose they do instead? Move to Arlington?

Can you teach your kids about racism without displacing black people? No?

there aren't being displaced into refugee camps for the love of god, they are moving like all do form time to time. Nice homes/things held in weak hands will never be held long as is self apparent. This is why Capitol Hill changes faster than Shepherd Park where the legacy residents have more money and are slower to move out. Still most new sales are pretty white when talking about 1mil and up. It still isn't going to be nearly as diverse in 10 years and beyond.

Time moves on without us all eventually and their kids have the same access to the neighborhood as everybody else going forward. Black by right neighborhoods are as stupid as white by right. No one wants their home to change while they are there but just like it is reprehensible to protest black people moving into an area it is lame to protest when white people moving in. The Arguments are different but the selfish motives and dislike of the other side are very similar. The claims of breaking up the community are almost identical

This !!! The whole gentrification argument is just about the losing side trying to brand their plight about how they hate outsiders moving in. It is the same argument most racists make that our area was perfect before you got here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Huh? Because you're pushing people out of the neighborhood who possibly lived there for generations and can't afford it anymore (rent or property taxes) due to people like you.

Whether this bothers you or not is one thing but it's absolutely true that this is a real thing going on.

Right - but the question becomes - as an UMC white family - what should you do? I don't want to live surrounded by all white people. I want my kid to have a diverse friend group, racially, ethnically, and socio-economically. While yes, UMC white people moving into historically black neighborhoods pushes black people out. But the alternative is to move to a white-only area, which seems worse to me.

It seems to me that the system here is clearly racist, but that individual families moving to black neighborhoods (as primary residences) aren't doing anything wrong, and may in fact be doing the best they can to fight racism. What would you propose they do instead? Move to Arlington?

Can you teach your kids about racism without displacing black people? No?

there aren't being displaced into refugee camps for the love of god, they are moving like all do form time to time. Nice homes/things held in weak hands will never be held long as is self apparent. This is why Capitol Hill changes faster than Shepherd Park where the legacy residents have more money and are slower to move out. Still most new sales are pretty white when talking about 1mil and up. It still isn't going to be nearly as diverse in 10 years and beyond.

Time moves on without us all eventually and their kids have the same access to the neighborhood as everybody else going forward. Black by right neighborhoods are as stupid as white by right. No one wants their home to change while they are there but just like it is reprehensible to protest black people moving into an area it is lame to protest when white people moving in. The Arguments are different but the selfish motives and dislike of the other side are very similar. The claims of breaking up the community are almost identical

Anonymous wrote:Well, the viking were here first so whites really are the first people.

Uh, no. NA peoples were here before vikings

Up in Baltimore, gentrification happens in poor white neighborhoods like Hampden and the old working class waterfront areas. Yet no one complains even though the base arguments remain the same. It shows that most of the race complaints are really class complaints.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people said rude stuff to us when we bought a starter house *gasp* a few miles outside the beltway (we work in the suburbs so it’s not even like we were commuting to DC). We got snarky comments about wanting the space of a house and not just staying in a small rental condo to be close to everything.

Fast forward 8 years and we made a bunch of money off that starter house while our friends were busy renting in DC/Arlington. Now we were able to buy a house in N Arlington thanks to our profits and in the meantime our friends who were renting got priced out of close-in neighborhoods and ended up *gasp* outside the beltway where they made fun of us for living.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with those neighborhoods where they moved. But it does irritate me a bit that when we lived just beyond 495 it was the “end of the world” and now that they live there they talk about how great it is.

My point being, focus on you. Any commentary from others is a reflection of their own issues as a PP pointed out.

People are always going to judge, regardless. I would absolutely judge anyone who used the phrase starter home as materialistic and wasteful, regardless of where they chose to live. We bought in a less desirable part of DC 20 years ago and have certainly reaped financial benefits for doing so. But urban living, even in a SFH with a large backyard has pluses and minuses, I would never live in Virginia, but Annapolis sounds nice. I wouldn't have said than 20 years ago, but as you get older, you do want more nature around you to decompress.

So anyone who buys a home just to get on the property ladder knowing that it isn’t where they want to be long term, and actually admits it is just a point of starting out is materialist and wasteful? That’s crazy. Most people can’t afford the house/location they really want with their first purchase and know a piece of real estate is just a means to an end. There’s nothing bad or materialistic about a starting point.

Kinda, yeah. People who refer to their homes as starter homes ARE usually materialistic and wasteful types who view home ownership as a ladder and think that they deserve HGTV-style living. It's like no one in their family had a home less than 3000 SF where children shared bedrooms and there was no "master suite." It's gross.

I grew up in public housing and i love my my pretty yard and and my big kitchen. I think you’re pretty gross.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I recently bought a place in Columbia Heights and multiple liberal friends of mine have called me a gentrifier.

I don’t understand why buying the best house we could afford is somehow unethical. Should we look at white only neighborhoods? I mean, truly, what are people proposing? Even if we wanted to self segregate (we don’t), we couldn’t afford those super white parts of DC.

I truly don’t understand... what are these anti gentrification people suggesting homebuyers do? By the way, it is ONLY our White friends who care. None of our POC friends have said anything negative at all.

I mean, you are a gentrifier. Whether you choose to feel badly about it is up to you and not your friends.

Lots of gripping by renters Cities change just like DC did when it became mostly black. This is really just the city reverting back to the way it was

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people said rude stuff to us when we bought a starter house *gasp* a few miles outside the beltway (we work in the suburbs so it’s not even like we were commuting to DC). We got snarky comments about wanting the space of a house and not just staying in a small rental condo to be close to everything.

Fast forward 8 years and we made a bunch of money off that starter house while our friends were busy renting in DC/Arlington. Now we were able to buy a house in N Arlington thanks to our profits and in the meantime our friends who were renting got priced out of close-in neighborhoods and ended up *gasp* outside the beltway where they made fun of us for living.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with those neighborhoods where they moved. But it does irritate me a bit that when we lived just beyond 495 it was the “end of the world” and now that they live there they talk about how great it is.

My point being, focus on you. Any commentary from others is a reflection of their own issues as a PP pointed out.

People are always going to judge, regardless. I would absolutely judge anyone who used the phrase starter home as materialistic and wasteful, regardless of where they chose to live. We bought in a less desirable part of DC 20 years ago and have certainly reaped financial benefits for doing so. But urban living, even in a SFH with a large backyard has pluses and minuses, I would never live in Virginia, but Annapolis sounds nice. I wouldn't have said than 20 years ago, but as you get older, you do want more nature around you to decompress.

So anyone who buys a home just to get on the property ladder knowing that it isn’t where they want to be long term, and actually admits it is just a point of starting out is materialist and wasteful? That’s crazy. Most people can’t afford the house/location they really want with their first purchase and know a piece of real estate is just a means to an end. There’s nothing bad or materialistic about a starting point.

The notion that everyone should only buy a home they are prepared to stay in for 30 years is quaint, but does not comport with modern home ownership for many people. It's real estate as a caste system.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people said rude stuff to us when we bought a starter house *gasp* a few miles outside the beltway (we work in the suburbs so it’s not even like we were commuting to DC). We got snarky comments about wanting the space of a house and not just staying in a small rental condo to be close to everything.

Fast forward 8 years and we made a bunch of money off that starter house while our friends were busy renting in DC/Arlington. Now we were able to buy a house in N Arlington thanks to our profits and in the meantime our friends who were renting got priced out of close-in neighborhoods and ended up *gasp* outside the beltway where they made fun of us for living.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with those neighborhoods where they moved. But it does irritate me a bit that when we lived just beyond 495 it was the “end of the world” and now that they live there they talk about how great it is.

My point being, focus on you. Any commentary from others is a reflection of their own issues as a PP pointed out.

People are always going to judge, regardless. I would absolutely judge anyone who used the phrase starter home as materialistic and wasteful, regardless of where they chose to live. We bought in a less desirable part of DC 20 years ago and have certainly reaped financial benefits for doing so. But urban living, even in a SFH with a large backyard has pluses and minuses, I would never live in Virginia, but Annapolis sounds nice. I wouldn't have said than 20 years ago, but as you get older, you do want more nature around you to decompress.

So anyone who buys a home just to get on the property ladder knowing that it isn’t where they want to be long term, and actually admits it is just a point of starting out is materialist and wasteful? That’s crazy. Most people can’t afford the house/location they really want with their first purchase and know a piece of real estate is just a means to an end. There’s nothing bad or materialistic about a starting point.

Kinda, yeah. People who refer to their homes as starter homes ARE usually materialistic and wasteful types who view home ownership as a ladder and think that they deserve HGTV-style living. It's like no one in their family had a home less than 3000 SF where children shared bedrooms and there was no "master suite." It's gross.

You're created a stereotype in your head that allows you to make sweeping arguments, with little basis in reality. So people who live in a 1 BR who have kids are gross because they want more space?

You're an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This argument of "I don't want my kids to live in an all-white neighborhood" is a bit silly. You know you can just teach your kids to be a good person by exemple? Black people are not there as an experience for your child to have. You can afford to buy somewhere else, it doesn't have to be "all-white". My neighborhood here in VA is anything but all-white! There are literally kids from all over the world, what else do you want? I don't blame the gentrifiers for making the most profitable move, because the system is messed up. But don't make silly excuses. And don't expect others to be please by your choice.

+ 1

Gentrifiers buy where they do because that's the best they can afford. Nothing wrong with that, given the way real estate works here. Just don't try to dress it up and defend what you're doing by saying you are "seeking diversity." Because we all know that if you could afford it, you'd in the mostly all white, super affluent, urban area too.

We bought in Columbia Heights in 2004 because we wanted to live in a walkable neighborhood, could afford to live there, and not a comparable place in DuPont or Logan Circle or Adams Morgan. But, we bought a place that already had been redone, 18 months before, from a young biracial couple who nearly doubled their investment in a year and a half. So, were we gentrifiers? We didn't displace anyone, and the proverbial grandmother who grew up there couldn't have afforded the place when it was initially redeveloped, so we didn't deprive anyone. Didn't send kids to Tubman, but to a diverse public charter school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, people said rude stuff to us when we bought a starter house *gasp* a few miles outside the beltway (we work in the suburbs so it’s not even like we were commuting to DC). We got snarky comments about wanting the space of a house and not just staying in a small rental condo to be close to everything.

Fast forward 8 years and we made a bunch of money off that starter house while our friends were busy renting in DC/Arlington. Now we were able to buy a house in N Arlington thanks to our profits and in the meantime our friends who were renting got priced out of close-in neighborhoods and ended up *gasp* outside the beltway where they made fun of us for living.

FWIW, there’s nothing wrong with those neighborhoods where they moved. But it does irritate me a bit that when we lived just beyond 495 it was the “end of the world” and now that they live there they talk about how great it is.

My point being, focus on you. Any commentary from others is a reflection of their own issues as a PP pointed out.

People are always going to judge, regardless. I would absolutely judge anyone who used the phrase starter home as materialistic and wasteful, regardless of where they chose to live. We bought in a less desirable part of DC 20 years ago and have certainly reaped financial benefits for doing so. But urban living, even in a SFH with a large backyard has pluses and minuses, I would never live in Virginia, but Annapolis sounds nice. I wouldn't have said than 20 years ago, but as you get older, you do want more nature around you to decompress.

So anyone who buys a home just to get on the property ladder knowing that it isn’t where they want to be long term, and actually admits it is just a point of starting out is materialist and wasteful? That’s crazy. Most people can’t afford the house/location they really want with their first purchase and know a piece of real estate is just a means to an end. There’s nothing bad or materialistic about a starting point.

Kinda, yeah. People who refer to their homes as starter homes ARE usually materialistic and wasteful types who view home ownership as a ladder and think that they deserve HGTV-style living. It's like no one in their family had a home less than 3000 SF where children shared bedrooms and there was no "master suite." It's gross.