Anonymous wrote:Bradley Hills in Bethesda. Not as rich as Somerset, very family/kid friendly, very diverse.

Anonymous wrote:I went to too many mansion parties with "W" grads snorting coke up their noses and living off their parents well through their late 20s.

Anonymous wrote:This is the OP, I actually used to sled down Cumberland Ave as a kid! That said, I’m not sure I want the same neighborhood for my kids. It was wealthy then and it seems like it’s even more wealthy now. Can a place where all the houses are $2m + be ideal for kids, even if we can afford it? I guess I’m trying to figure out where the Somerset of the 80’s is now. Because Somerset of now feels more like Kenwood then, or something. Maybe I’m being unfair.

You have to ask these things on dcum, because no one can have this conversation in real life. It’s too obnoxious. But I think we must not be the only ones in a situation where if we were childless, we might spend more, but for now we’re basically crafting our home life in service of raising our kids, and it’s maybe not optimal to just buy the most expensive house we can.

I’m not even sure what I’m worried about with the homogenous wealth, I just feel wary of it. Maybe it’s entitlement? Maybe it’s a sort of helplessness that some kids develop from having the skids greased too much? Maybe it’s pressure to maintain that lifestyle that I don’t want my kid to have?

But who am I kidding that if I buy my kid a used Camry instead of a Range Rover or whatever it’s going to make a meaningful difference? And in the meantime, would it be a better life if we lived in a big house near a pool?

Anonymous wrote:Flora Singer, Forest Knolls, or Rock Creek Forest ES areas of Silver Spring

Bancroft or Ludlow-Taylor ES zones in DC

Not as familiar with VA--Falls Church, Del Ray, and South Arlington all seem nice. I know a recent grad of ACHS who is lovely and had a great childhood, so it seems like lots of parts of Alexandria could work.

Anonymous wrote:Trying to avoid wealthy neighbors is, frankly, odd. You're stereotyping, assuming that all wealthy parents raise their children poorly and impart bad values; you're assuming exposure to a well to do lifestyle is somehow going to have a negative influence on your own children. There is no basis for believing either proposition is necessarily true.

You could just as easily assume that wealthier parents model behaviors necessary for success - ambition, education, determination, persistence, organization, flexibility, self-discipline, vision, and other behaviors sometimes absent in those who achieve less financially.

You seem to have forgotten that you have a role to play in imparting values to your children, who are exposed every day to behaviors and beliefs which you may find abhorrent and which have nothing to do with income or assets.

Forget about using income as a criterion in itself, and focus instead on objectively valuiable neighborehood attributes, like excellent schools, without regard to whether they are in high-income neighborhoods. Consider, too, why such schools are usually/always in higher-income neighborhoods.