Comments on Long-term homeownership does foster civic engagement - Greater Greater Washington

Comment by Ryan

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 21:28:54 EDT

"Renters will allow drug dealers in their neighborhood. It's a fact. It's a doggone fact."

I don't get it. What are renters supposed to do? Murder them? This isn't helpful.

Comment by Trixie

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:57:31 EDT

Goldfish, some of us do. I've lived in my neighborhood for seven years. Be careful with the generalizations, it doesn't do you any favors.

Comment by goldfish

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 09:19:38 EDT

Actually, Mr Barry's quote contains a grain of truth, as his messages often do. Consider the following: nobody bought the food from a certain take-out storefront; it was known far and wide as place to buy drugs. The (homeowning) neighbors went to the Police and ANC meetings to get it shut down. After a sustained, 10 year effort the city pulled the license and the place closed. Point being that renters do not live somewhere long enough to cause significant improvements to a neighborhood.

Comment by Bill

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:59:26 EDT

@Gray.

Thanks! Your critique is persuasive; since no one else thus far has responded to it, and I don't have time to repeat your review of the primary source, I'm sticking with your analysis.

Comment by Jazzy

Wed, 22 Aug 2012 08:00:25 EDT

myth: poor people not civically engaged
myth: renters are not civically engaged

not defined well enough - civic engagement

"Barry is not going to want to hear this, but the only way to get more homeownership in this post-housing-crash and post-easy-money world is gentrification and more middle income residents."

Middle income?! Surely you mean upper income. This is not a place anymore for "middle income" people. Well, correction - yeah, the first year or two when gentrification begins in Ward 8, you're right, it will be for your middle incomers, after that, Katie bar the door. Upper income all the way.

(I guess what makes me scratch my head a bit regarding Barry is the assumption implicit in his comment that his constituents are owners, already. I wonder about the breakdown percentage.)

Renters often MUST be civically engaged in order to advocate on their behalf and their neighbors' behalf when a landlord is delinquent.

Like everyone, the longer a renter stays in DC, the more civically engaged they become, which to some on this blog is bad news.

Comment by Steve S.

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:30:36 EDT

Why not count undervotes for ANC commissioners as no-confidence votes? If undervotes are in the majority, the ANC is suspended for the next two years,

Comment by Tom Coumaris

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 22:16:26 EDT

Anyone can go to Elections and Ethics and get an ANC SMD voter registration list showing who at each address has voted in presidential years and in local election only years.

Voting at rental apartment addresses is awful compared to owner-occupied addresses comparatively in every neighborhood.

Comment by watcher

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 18:15:32 EDT

The City Paper article that the Barry quote comes from does not give any indication what actually prompted him to say this. The thought did come to me that he was afraid of new voters who may not support him.

I myself am a lowly renter. I vote and try to keep informed about my neighborhood but alas I miss out on all the condo board/neighborhood association meetings of which many of my friends so fondly speak.

Comment by Pat

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:18:42 EDT

+2 for Thornton.

I cannot imagine how he came to the conclusion that preventing investment in his ward would be helpful. Strange times, these.

Comment by Steve S.

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 17:05:44 EDT

But isn't having too many people invested (perhaps somewhat desperately, given how deeply they may be in hock) in a neighborhood's status quo not always a good thing? Isn't that why you get hard-core NIMBYs opposed to any change whatsoever?

Comment by spookiness

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:29:19 EDT

+1 Thornton.

Comment by Patrick Thornton

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:24:48 EDT

Barry is not going to want to hear this, but the only way to get more homeownership in this post-housing-crash and post-easy-money world is gentrification and more middle income residents.

More economic diversity would probably help Ward 8, but I doubt that's what Barry really wants. Blocking people from investing in his community will do more harm than good.

Comment by MLD

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:21:42 EDT

Honestly I thought the Barry quote was just stupidity, because certainly the other statements you made are things that actual people say: that they don't want "undesirables" and that they like their neighborhood's exclusivity.

Apparently people in Ward 8 take him seriously enough that they keep electing him...

Comment by Arlington

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 16:01:45 EDT

@justme

I'll try to do better next time. :) Though I do think what I was doing was more satire than trolling. I mean, who in the world still takes Marion Berry seriously?

Comment by JustMe

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:51:20 EDT

Also, allowing more people to own a home in my neighborhood is not something I encourage. I very much like it that everyone here is at least a VP.

You had me going for a while in this thread until you got to this part. The trick to trolling is that you have to go just up to the edge of believability. You were working that pretty well until that last line.

Comment by John Marzabadi

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:38:02 EDT

Clearly, Arlington is trolling...

Although there may be some truth in some renters not being as engaged as some homeowners, it's a bit ludicrous to suggest that renters will tolerate crime and not contribute to their communities. Renters pay taxes (albeit indirectly), send their children to school, and live as part of a community in every part of our city.

Marion Barry's statements regarding renters is simply bunk... no concrete evidence to support his position and is only using this to appease the narrow base he has carved out for himself. From a policy standpoint, is the city in a position to prohibit homeowners from renting out their dwellings because of unfounded opinions? How about prohibiting new apartment buildings...? Me thinks that's neither just nor realistic considering the developer-centric mentality the DC Government currently has.

DC is a unique case because many renters aren't from here. They have their homestate allegiances and many transplants/transients keep out-of-state voter registrations because they don't want to lose their Congressional vote. That is the greatest barrier to civic engagement for renters because they exempt themselves from the process.

Comment by oboe

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:35:12 EDT

Is there any evidence whatsoever that renters in a neighborhood are any different from owners in a neighborhood in socioeconomic terms?

Depends on the neighborhood.

Comment by MLD

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:16:05 EDT

@Arlington

Is there any evidence whatsoever that renters in a neighborhood are any different from owners in a neighborhood in socioeconomic terms? If you live in a neighborhood of all VPs why the hell would those people want to rent their spaces out to "hoodlums"?

And using a Marion Barry quote as "evidence"? Really?

Comment by drumz

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:15:25 EDT

I'm going to become a VP, buy a house in this neighborhood then proceed to put my car up on blocks and let the dogs live under the porch. But at least I won't have an accessory dwelling attached to my home.

Comment by Tina

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:12:00 EDT

it sounds to me like @Arlington is pulling your leg...

Comment by Arlington

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:03:31 EDT

@ MLD

Well, to quote the well respected old mayor of our Nation's capitol: "Renters will allow drug dealers in their neighborhood. It's a fact. It's a doggone fact."

Accessory dwellings would attract hoodlums that are noisy, do not pick up after themselves, and who attract their criminal friends.

Also, allowing more people to own a home in my neighborhood is not something I encourage. I very much like it that everyone here is at least a VP.

Comment by Scoot

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:00:17 EDT

"Renters will allow drug dealers in their neighborhood. It's a fact. It's a doggone fact."

I'm sure it's possible for renters to "allow" drug dealers in their neighborhood, and for homeowners to do the same. However, the data shows that large public housing projects are among the prime centers of drug trafficking operations in major cities including Washington DC. Is enough being done in Ward 8 to attack the drug trade at its source? Or is this mostly about identity politics?

Comment by Gray

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:56:52 EDT

Let me state this clearly: the study you cite is not a causal analysis. Moreover, their entire result is based on a matched sample of renters that they created.

I'm working off of the working paper version here, since that's freely available online. But in that version, the authors don't provide separate details on their sample of renters to show that it's similar to the sample of owners. They note that the renters are from a subset of the metropolitan areas that the owners come from, and don't control for that. Other characteristics could also have a huge effect.

And the outcome variable they end up going with, neighborhood group membership, is something that only 17% of the sample engages in. They explored other outcomes, but those results were significant. They then base their conclusions on finding statistically significant odds ratios in a couple of logistic models.

I don't find this analysis particularly conclusive.

Comment by drumz

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:55:50 EDT

Hi Arlington,

I live in arlington too. I vote in local elections, don't litter, and am generally good citizen. Why is that all bunk if I a. don't own a home and b. don't spend my evenings going to county meetings (I'm generally happy with the direction of things in Arlington county). Why do you want to restrict the places I could live? If I'm ever a bad neighbor there are already ways to deal with that. Why do it through housing policy?

Comment by barry

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:52:13 EDT

Please don't ever quote, or use anything Marion Barry said or did in any article that is supposed to be relevant, informative or productive.

I didn't even bother reading anymore when I saw Barry quoted in the first sentence.

Comment by Ben Ross

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:51:58 EDT

Civic associations usually support preserving the single-family character of neighborhoods and keeping rental buildings out. Lack of renter participation in civic associations is no more revealing than lack of homeowner participation in tenant unions.

A more appropriate thing to study might be participation in PTAs.

Comment by MLD

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:50:27 EDT

And that is why we do not want accessory dwellings.

Wouldn't accessory dwellings allow more people to be able to own homes (because they can get some rental income to help) and therefore increase participation?

Comment by Arlington

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:45:00 EDT

And that is why we do not want accessory dwellings.

Comment by drumz

Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:35:09 EDT

Yeah, from this I'm not so sure if it is a causation with homeownership or a correlation with the fact that renters are generally lower income and therefore don't have time/resources to be as involved especially if they work a non-standard schedule.

Also, this weights being involved in planning meetings as being the "most" civically involved where you could be heavily involved in your child's school for example which would take up time in the evening and prevent one from going to a simultaneous county/town meeting.