Quote of the Day
The places that will suffer most in real estate losses are the suburbs where the hedge fund managers and all those guys who made all their money off this crisis they created, paid many millions of dollars for huge houses they can only sell to the similarly very rich. There was a recent article in…
The places that will suffer most in real estate losses are the suburbs where the hedge fund managers and all those guys who made all their money off this crisis they created, paid many millions of dollars for huge houses they can only sell to the similarly very rich. There was a recent article in the NY Times about that, if anybody saw it. I’d rather be in my little Brooklyn neighborhood that’s still affordable to those from many OTHER industries, than sitting in a huge house in one of these suburbs, knowing my former Wall Street neighbors are all going bankrupt and their houses will sit unsold and unuccupied for possibly years.
— by traditionalmod in A Letter From The Inside
Actually, wer are going to non-gold coast Westchester. We looked all over. House prices and taxes were both high, pretty much everywhere. Remember, my husband is commuting to Greenwich, not NYC, and the whole point of moving is to cut down his commute. Jersey and the Island were not choices for us.
CT and Westchester are expensive, not two ways about it, but once you get about 35-40 minutes away from Greenwich, you find some house prices that are consistent with what our house in Brooklyn is worth. We alreay have the two cars (which we can justify), and enough kids to run up a private school bill well over $100K per year for many years to come (if we had chosen to send them to private school)… We may actually do better in the ‘burbs, or more acurately, semi-rural northern Westchester. A big change for this city girl, but more appealing than hardcore burbs like Rye and Scarsdale. However, I have to say, I am a big fan of Pelham/Pelham Manor… even with the sky high taxes. That would have been my second choice.
slick, if owning a car is too much of a strain on your finances than I think you cannot afford a house anywhere.
Honestly slick, people on welfare own cars, y’know?
I’ve compared to some degree. the suburbs strike me as very expensive unless you have multiple children.
transportation costs are the killer b/c everyone “needs” a car.
Boy there are some major snobs on this blog, I must confess, when I say “nicer suburbs” I don’t mean just Greenwich, Connecticut. Honestly, that’s like saying “nice art” and assuming I am talking about a Rembrandt. I don’t even think about Greenwich. that’s la-la rich-peopleville. I wouldn’t want to live there. But there are other places around, you know. The choice is not between Clinton Hill, Brooklyn, and Greenwich, Connecticut. Go to Long island, go to Jersey, non-gold coast Westchester, there are plenty of lovely affordable leafy towns with excellent schools, honestly…..
Greenwich!
puleese!
I’m not saying Stamford is worse than Brooklyn, not necessarily. I don’t know. I know this – for the hefty suburban taxes I’d be paying, the schools better be fantastic.
Also, you have to hope your children test into the better schools.
Suburban communities don’t have these loop holes, as far as I can tell. Kids don’t apply to MS and HS based on test scores. Great scores on the ELA are not going to help them in the suburbs if the school district stinks.
With the schools my children currently attend – yes. There are some excellent public schools in Brooklyn. But you have to be play the game.
So, you really think Stamford schools are inferior in comparison with Brooklyn?
Polemicist –
Schools. Period.
We have multiple children.