NP. I get that no one wants to lose out on property value. I certainly don't either. And for transparency I have a big mortgage but not in an area likely to be affected.

At the same time, if your mortgage is large on the reputation of comparatively excellent schools, presumably you would stand to lose equity whether you were rezoned or whether MCPS did actually somehow manage to raise up the perceived quality of schools elsewhere in cheaper areas. It isn't in students' or MCPS's interest to weigh this as a consideration....

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

YOU are the one using the poors, saying they can just get financial aid. Some of them are just trying to scrape their way into home ownership, though, and it is odd that you would stereotype them as not having the wherewithall and ability to not be able to do that.

Look, you are exhibiting progressive hypocrisy all over the place.

You are pretending somebody who bought a $900k home and now can't afford to contribute to 529s is poor. Gmafb

??? did you just make that up out of nothing?

So who are you talking about? The seniors that paid $300k and might "only" be able to sell their home for $1.1 million instead of $1.2? Cry me a river.

again, what? who....who are you talking about? Do you just make up people to argue with?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

We have zero family money or help. We live in a crummy little house. It’s gone up $200k over the years so if it decline that much or more I’d be fine as we lived in it. But, the bonus would be property taxes would go down.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

YOU are the one using the poors, saying they can just get financial aid. Some of them are just trying to scrape their way into home ownership, though, and it is odd that you would stereotype them as not having the wherewithall and ability to not be able to do that.

Look, you are exhibiting progressive hypocrisy all over the place.

You are pretending somebody who bought a $900k home and now can't afford to contribute to 529s is poor. Gmafb

??? did you just make that up out of nothing?

So who are you talking about? The seniors that paid $300k and might "only" be able to sell their home for $1.1 million instead of $1.2? Cry me a river.

My senior parent paid 50k but that’s not relevant. If you have a million dollar house and no college fund that’s on you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

The average home price near Woodward is close to $550,000. Silver Spring is $565,000. Kensington is $845,000. Chevy Chase is $1.4 million. Bethesda is $1.2 million. These are indeed assets and investments (could also be money pits

I’m wondering where you found this affordable, fixer upper. All the homes here are expensive and interest rates are high. People need to live close to their jobs (DC) especially if raising kids so not much choice.

Not in an area you’d live in. It needed everything. Very few work in dc. There are homes for 500-600k, some less.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

Some lower income own homes, they just are not in areas you’d live in, but we do. They rent out rooms, 2-3 jobs, and find ways to make it work. The issue is not the lower income. Rich use them as talking points as they have no other good arguments.

Yeah those homes are not at risk of losing value because of boundary changes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

Some lower income own homes, they just are not in areas you’d live in, but we do. They rent out rooms, 2-3 jobs, and find ways to make it work. The issue is not the lower income. Rich use them as talking points as they have no other good arguments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why the overcomplexity? Leave kids in the school they are closest to instead of bringing them by bus to places farther out.

agree

Many kids are not currently assigned to the school that is closest. It is impossible to do this for every family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

The average home price near Woodward is close to $550,000. Silver Spring is $565,000. Kensington is $845,000. Chevy Chase is $1.4 million. Bethesda is $1.2 million. These are indeed assets and investments (could also be money pits

I’m wondering where you found this affordable, fixer upper. All the homes here are expensive and interest rates are high. People need to live close to their jobs (DC) especially if raising kids so not much choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

YOU are the one using the poors, saying they can just get financial aid. Some of them are just trying to scrape their way into home ownership, though, and it is odd that you would stereotype them as not having the wherewithall and ability to not be able to do that.

Look, you are exhibiting progressive hypocrisy all over the place.

You are pretending somebody who bought a $900k home and now can't afford to contribute to 529s is poor. Gmafb

??? did you just make that up out of nothing?

So who are you talking about? The seniors that paid $300k and might "only" be able to sell their home for $1.1 million instead of $1.2? Cry me a river.

Anonymous wrote:Why the overcomplexity? Leave kids in the school they are closest to instead of bringing them by bus to places farther out.

agree

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I don’t you are umc. It’s not an investment if you don’t plan to sell. I don’t see our house as an investment I see it as a money Pitt. We got the cheapest fixer upper and did a lot of the work ourselves to put away for college and retirement. If someone else on the same income spends twice as much, sorry no empathy.

such kindness and community spirit. it's like covid all over again.

Why the overcomplexity? Leave kids in the school they are closest to instead of bringing them by bus to places farther out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

YOU are the one using the poors, saying they can just get financial aid. Some of them are just trying to scrape their way into home ownership, though, and it is odd that you would stereotype them as not having the wherewithall and ability to not be able to do that.

Look, you are exhibiting progressive hypocrisy all over the place.

You are pretending somebody who bought a $900k home and now can't afford to contribute to 529s is poor. Gmafb

??? did you just make that up out of nothing?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A home certainly is savings, if you buy it and stay for say longer than 5 years. It’s actually an extremely important asset and investment. But totally agree you should try not to be house poor.

To the PPs who don’t care about losing $100 to $200k, wish I could be you. But I’m just a regular UMC person, trying to be kind and get through life.

I remain flummoxed with people who are fine losing 100 to 200K. That's....some kind of generational wealth to be like that.

And then to lecture others about their financial acumen? And that the poors don't need it because "they will get financial aid"?

It's not that we're happy about it. We just accept the reality that assets go up and down in price, and we have some perspective about it. My home losing some value is not going to leave me homeless, cause me to be food insecure, or even tank my retirement. I am not counting on it for that. It is a place to live.

"the poors" are not worried about their home values dropping. They don't own their homes. Stop using them to advance your own financial interests..that's gross.

YOU are the one using the poors, saying they can just get financial aid. Some of them are just trying to scrape their way into home ownership, though, and it is odd that you would stereotype them as not having the wherewithall and ability to not be able to do that.

Look, you are exhibiting progressive hypocrisy all over the place.

You are pretending somebody who bought a $900k home and now can't afford to contribute to 529s is poor. Gmafb