Reality and suburban aspirations

June 19th, 2008 11:13 am · 38 comments

The young couple lives outside a major city in a nearby state, and life has been good. They have two young children; he’s a lawyer, and she has stayed at home with the kids these past few years. They lived about 10 minutes from the city, and his job, in a solid older home.

But you know how it is with young couples. At some point, the older home just doesn’t cut it anymore. Sure, it might be big enough; sufficient square footage for the brood. But it’s, you know, old. The neighborhood isn’t particularly exclusive. It doesn’t convey the affluence that many people want to convey.

So they’re moving, to a home further out, about half-hour from the city. But here’s the catch: In order to afford the new home, she has to go back to work full-time. And as she’ll also work in the city, both of them are going to have to make that half-hour commute daily, as opposed to the single 10-minute commute.

I think they’re crazy.

But this is the suburban pattern of the past 20 years, isn’t it? That’s why you have people living in Ephrata who work in Philly. In the era of $4 per gallon gasoline, a lot of people are beginning to question the widsom of this deal, but that even now people are opting for the longer commute in order to attain the affluence they think they need - and will have to work twice as hard to pay for - shows how much staying power the suburban idea has, and will continue to have for at least some time.

In the era of expensive energy and a sort of enforced austerity that may stem from the financial crises we’re now beginning to see, the suburban idea simply becomes less rational. Some other friends have said that though they now live in a larger home, they’re thinking of downsizing - because they’d like to not have a mortgage. In the current economic environment, I simply cannot imagine getting into a situation where you’re mortgaged to the hilt, unless you have no choice. But I suppose “no choice” is a relative term. You want newer and you want bigger and you want more exclusive, what’s “need” got to do with it, anyway?

I wish the young couple the best of luck, and hope that, for their sake, the era of high energy prices doesn’t last too long. But you can’t help but feel you’re watching a train wreck about to happen - predetermined, so long as the suburban aspirations, rather than reality, sit behind the wheel.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  38 comments  Tags: Economy · Suburban sprawl

There are currently 38 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
Mansfield
6/19/08
12:33 PM		Great Posting!

I'm sorry, but I don't feel much for everyone who drank the proverbial "Kool-Aid" of the SUV Suburban dream, since by upbringing or choice, I've never chosen it, and in fact, choose the converse.

And now people in auto-oriented, low density, no-thru-access Cul-de-Sac suburbia are up in arms (throughout the country) that transit doesn't serve "their" needs.

I've been riding city transit in numerous cities, including Lancaster City, and its almost always served my needs- WHY?

Partly because I choose to live NEAR work, and then found places near transit lines that would TAKE me to work, and generally without 2-3 transfers!

Heck, I'd love to have my Clock Towers to downtown Lancaster walk/bike commute back, any day!

Save-the-Land
6/19/08
3:50 PM		Gil - Thanks for posting this - Excellent points!

In a time of rising fuel costs, dwindling natural resources and disappearing open space/farmland how can we as a society be so selfish as to not apply Smart Growth Principles (TNDs, higher density, compact, mixed use, wakable communities that are linked to public transportation) whenever possible? The idea that the entrenched locals (namely E Hempfield Twp) are demanding lower density, sprawling growth is ridiculous and very selfish. They have their desired mode of living, it's not fair that are dictacting what lifestyle choices other people have.

If we do not drastically change the way we are growing and developing in Lancaster County we will see a serious decline in the older suburban neighborhoods. We can not sustain that type of wasteful development pattern.....we must make sacrifices for the good of all. There will be a time in the not tooo distant future when it will get so expensive to transport food that we will be terribly sorry if we let our prime farmland that is so close to us get built over by large lot subdivisions.



Shawn
6/19/08
4:06 PM
QUOTE(Save-the-Land @ Jun 19 2008, 03:50 PM) [snapback]402947[/snapback]
Gil -
If we do not drastically change the way we are growing and developing in Lancaster County we will see a serious decline in the older suburban neighborhoods. We can not sustain that type of wasteful development pattern.....we must make sacrifices for the good of all. There will be a time in the not tooo distant future when it will get so expensive to transport food that we will be terribly sorry if we let our prime farmland that is so close to us get built over by large lot subdivisions.




We will also be terribly sorry if we let our prime farmland get built over by large small-lot subdivisions. Either way, the land is getting used up. The only difference is the size of the yards.



Later...Shawn

LicenseForMayhem
6/19/08
4:11 PM
QUOTE(Mansfield @ Jun 19 2008, 12:33 PM) [snapback]402840[/snapback]


And now people in auto-oriented, low density, no-thru-access Cul-de-Sac suburbia are up in arms (throughout the country) that transit doesn't serve "their" needs.

I've been riding city transit in numerous cities, including Lancaster City, and its almost always served my needs- WHY?

Partly because I choose to live NEAR work, and then found places near transit lines that would TAKE me to work, and generally without 2-3 transfers!

Heck, I'd love to have my Clock Towers to downtown Lancaster walk/bike commute back, any day!



The whole local mindset about public transportation will have to change for people to use it consistently, and that includes employer expectations. If people are going to place themselves at the mercy of transportation that is largely out of their control, employers will have to allow arrival windows and on-time departures so carless employees are not stranded at work after missing the last bus. Good luck with that happening around here.
Lysol54
6/19/08
4:23 PM
QUOTE(LicenseForMayhem @ Jun 19 2008, 04:11 PM) [snapback]402957[/snapback]


Good luck with that happening around here.




Its not going to. Our cities aren't designed to support mass transit the way they do in Europe for example. Everything over there is tightly packed together, its easy for people to use mass transit to get to where they need to go because the cities are designed to allow that. Most of our cities are rather young in comparrision and were laid out with easier transportation in mind. (Cars, Carriages etc.) Not foot traffic like most of old cities of Europe.

dragonrider
6/19/08
4:28 PM
QUOTE(Lysol54 @ Jun 19 2008, 04:23 PM) [snapback]402966[/snapback]




Its not going to. Our cities aren't designed to support mass transit the way they do in Europe for example. Everything over there is tightly packed together, its easy for people to use mass transit to get to where they need to go because the cities are designed to allow that. Most of our cities are rather young in comparrision and were laid out with easier transportation in mind. (Cars, Carriages etc.) Not foot traffic like most of old cities of Europe.

some employers will not hire you if you do not have a car becuase they feel public transportation is too unreliable.
Mansfield
6/19/08
5:01 PM
QUOTE(Lysol54 @ Jun 19 2008, 04:23 PM) [snapback]402966[/snapback]




Its not going to. Our cities aren't designed to support mass transit the way they do in Europe for example. Everything over there is tightly packed together, its easy for people to use mass transit to get to where they need to go because the cities are designed to allow that. Most of our cities are rather young in comparrision and were laid out with easier transportation in mind. (Cars, Carriages etc.) Not foot traffic like most of old cities of Europe.




Well, yes and no.

Most US cities, except those in the Sunbelt and SW that sprouted in the age of AC and cars, grew considerably between 1890 and 1930, also the Streetcar AGE! So, until you get pretty far out, most cities, while certainly not as dense as most European cities, wer can easily still support transit, esp with intelligent tweaking to speed and improve the service.

The reason I mention this is I don't want people to simply throw in the towel, the classic "We're not like Europe" arguement.

Streetscape and street connectivity issues can have almost as much weight as raw pop density in determining ridership levels.

And of course, not every line has to have a 3 min rush hour headway....Even hourly or rush-hour only buses can serve a useful purpose.

Much of the work in the past and ahead in the planning profession is in guiding the retrofitting of our common built environment as conditions change and warrant.

Save-the-Land
6/19/08
5:03 PM
QUOTE
We will also be terribly sorry if we let our prime farmland get built over by large small-lot subdivisions. Either way, the land is getting used up. The only difference is the size of the yards.


Shawn - If you build 100 houses on 1 acres lots you use 100 acres. If you build 100 houses on 1/4 acre lots you use 25 acres, so on and so on. Which scenario will you burn through more land and therefore be more likely need to tap into the prime farmland earlier? It seems like common sense to me.

If you take the Smart Growth logic a step further, not only are you using less land to for the same amount of houses, but because of the compact and dense nature of the developments you are constructing less lengths of streets and curbs, less length of sanitary and storm sewer, water lines, etc. Not only does this save money up front, it will be be more efficient for the Township to maintain less infrastructure in the future - it's more sustainable! If you think Townships will be able to continue maintaining infrastructure like they are now......you are in for a rude awakening. As developmentt starts to tail off (which it eventually will) the Townships won't have the growing tax base to continue maintaining the infrastructure. More compact and less of it is better in the long term.

See, the developers pay to put all of the infrastructure in for free - streets, curbs, traffic signals, inlets, storm pipes, sanitary sewer pipes, storm water basins, ponds and open space......but after it's dedicated to the Twp.......the Twp has to pay for the up keep and maintenance. Most suburban development occured in the 80's, and 90's so when that infrastructure starts to crumble and wear out.......you the tax payer will be paying to replace it. The sprawling suburban growth model is so unsustainable and wasteful, we must cut our loses now and turn to smart growth - that includes, renovations and adaptive re-use in our city and town centers, infill in our towns and cities, and when greenfield development occurs...it must be dense and compact to maximize the use.



anonymouse
6/19/08
6:40 PM
QUOTE
Shawn - If you build 100 houses on 1 acres lots you use 100 acres. If you build 100 houses on 1/4 acre lots you use 25 acres, so on and so on. Which scenario will you burn through more land and therefore be more likely need to tap into the prime farmland earlier? It seems like common sense to me.


We just look at things from a completely different perspective. If we have 100 acres we are going to allow development on, if we restrict it to Veranda's density, we'd get 330 houses. If it's zoned R!, we'd get 350. If we passed TND we'd get what, 700-1000. I'll take A-the NDO or the no change at all option-Ag Holding 1 per acre and get 100.

East Hempfield only has so much land. Virtually all the land south of 283 which lies in the urban growth bopundary will be built out in the next twenty years. The size of that growth will determine how high school taxes will rise (any high school increase means a new school and another $1000-1200 per year per houshold in property taxes just to pay for construction costs.) How many seniors in East Pete will lose their homes if East Hempfield buys into the "smart growth" farce?
rogueGOP
6/20/08
4:32 AM		Smart's simplistic premise that all move away from the city proximity to obtain newer construction and status is naive. Most are simply looking for a safe environment, good schools, and an affordable area. Dense development calls for increased infrastructure and services with the resultant higher taxes. TND will not save the land. Only a moratorium on rezoning farmland. But that doesn't fill campaign coffers so rule that out!



QUOTE(Save-the-Land @ Jun 19 2008, 03:50 PM) [snapback]402947[/snapback]
Gil - Thanks for posting this - Excellent points!

In a time of rising fuel costs, dwindling natural resources and disappearing open space/farmland how can we as a society be so selfish as to not apply Smart Growth Principles (TNDs, higher density, compact, mixed use, wakable communities that are linked to public transportation) whenever possible? The idea that the entrenched locals (namely E Hempfield Twp) are demanding lower density, sprawling growth is ridiculous and very selfish. They have their desired mode of living, it's not fair that are dictacting what lifestyle choices other people have.

If we do not drastically change the way we are growing and developing in Lancaster County we will see a serious decline in the older suburban neighborhoods. We can not sustain that type of wasteful development pattern.....we must make sacrifices for the good of all. There will be a time in the not tooo distant future when it will get so expensive to transport food that we will be terribly sorry if we let our prime farmland that is so close to us get built over by large lot subdivisions.

Your moniker should be Pave-the-Land. Losing our quality of life in EHT will not prevent rezoning and development of farmland elsewhere. Your premise is as silly as an assumption that if you get the flu, it will spare me. Throw some county-wide moritoriums in the mix to prevent rezoning of existing farmland and then we will talk. But the realtors and developers wouldn't fill your coffers in pursuit of True's seat with that propsal would they?
Shawn
6/20/08
11:06 AM
QUOTE(Save-the-Land @ Jun 19 2008, 05:03 PM) [snapback]402982[/snapback]

Shawn - If you build 100 houses on 1 acres lots you use 100 acres. If you build 100 houses on 1/4 acre lots you use 25 acres, so on and so on. Which scenario will you burn through more land and therefore be more likely need to tap into the prime farmland earlier? It seems like common sense to me.

If you take the Smart Growth logic a step further, not only are you using less land to for the same amount of houses, but because of the compact and dense nature of the developments you are constructing less lengths of streets and curbs, less length of sanitary and storm sewer, water lines, etc. Not only does this save money up front, it will be be more efficient for the Township to maintain less infrastructure in the future - it's more sustainable! If you think Townships will be able to continue maintaining infrastructure like they are now......you are in for a rude awakening. As developmentt starts to tail off (which it eventually will) the Townships won't have the growing tax base to continue maintaining the infrastructure. More compact and less of it is better in the long term.

See, the developers pay to put all of the infrastructure in for free - streets, curbs, traffic signals, inlets, storm pipes, sanitary sewer pipes, storm water basins, ponds and open space......but after it's dedicated to the Twp.......the Twp has to pay for the up keep and maintenance. Most suburban development occured in the 80's, and 90's so when that infrastructure starts to crumble and wear out.......you the tax payer will be paying to replace it. The sprawling suburban growth model is so unsustainable and wasteful, we must cut our loses now and turn to smart growth - that includes, renovations and adaptive re-use in our city and town centers, infill in our towns and cities, and when greenfield development occurs...it must be dense and compact to maximize the use.




If you are just looking to postpone the inevitable, then you aren't really "saving" anything are you? However, what you could potentially end up with is more population than the resources of the township can handle. The question you have to ask, is whether or not that is worth simply postponing development of land that is eventually going to get developed anyways. You would also have much more credibility if you adressed the specific downsides of dense developments, and dense populations within townships. As with everything, there are costs. There are costs associated with super dense developments, and there are costs associated with sparse developments. Simply pointing out the perceived benefits of super dense developments without addressing the costs is disengenuous. What will the effects be on crime? On the schools? On Traffic? On Sewage? On Quality of life? How do you propose to mitigate those effects? Or is it all justified just to postpone development of land for a few decades that is going to get developed one way or the other?


Later...Shawn

LicenseForMayhem
6/20/08
11:18 AM
QUOTE(Mansfield @ Jun 19 2008, 05:01 PM) [snapback]402981[/snapback]


Most US cities, except those in the Sunbelt and SW that sprouted in the age of AC and cars, grew considerably between 1890 and 1930, also the Streetcar AGE! So, until you get pretty far out, most cities, while certainly not as dense as most European cities, wer can easily still support transit, esp with intelligent tweaking to speed and improve the service.


Something that interests me is that Lancaster Countians used to rely on a streetcar system. Our small town's newspaper publishes highlights from years past each week, and many of the stories mention townspeople riding the trolley to spend an afternoon at Rocky Springs or to go visiting. Old postcards from Main Streets all around the county show the streetcar lines that used to be there. Hooking up the county again for mass transit can be done logistically--it's a mindset issue, IMO. I think that's why very few here carpool to work, either.
Michael Jordan
6/20/08
11:25 AM
QUOTE(Save-the-Land @ Jun 19 2008, 05:03 PM) [snapback]402982[/snapback]



If you take the Smart Growth logic a step further, not only are you using less land to for the same amount of houses, but because of the compact and dense nature of the developments you are constructing less lengths of streets and curbs, less length of sanitary and storm sewer, water lines, etc. Not only does this save money up front, it will be be more efficient for the Township to maintain less infrastructure in the future - it's more sustainable! If you think Townships will be able to continue maintaining infrastructure like they are now......you are in for a rude awakening. As developmentt starts to tail off (which it eventually will) the Townships won't have the growing tax base to continue maintaining the infrastructure. More compact and less of it is better in the long term.

See, the developers pay to put all of the infrastructure in for free - streets, curbs, traffic signals, inlets, storm pipes, sanitary sewer pipes, storm water basins, ponds and open space......but after it's dedicated to the Twp.......the Twp has to pay for the up keep and maintenance. Most suburban development occured in the 80's, and 90's so when that infrastructure starts to crumble and wear out.......you the tax payer will be paying to replace it. The sprawling suburban growth model is so unsustainable and wasteful, we must cut our loses now and turn to smart growth - that includes, renovations and adaptive re-use in our city and town centers, infill in our towns and cities, and when greenfield development occurs...it must be dense and compact to maximize the use.







Very interesting, I never thought about that.

PedroHead
6/20/08
11:40 AM		Great premise. Live near where you work as that makes everyone's lives easier. One problem with that idea; people now change jobs, I believe, an average of seven times in their adult lives. You cannot move everytime you end up on a different side of town. Likewise, you will not make the most of your life if you only look for jobs in your little neck of the woods.
dc
6/20/08
11:54 AM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ Jun 19 2008, 11:15 AM) [snapback]402786[/snapback]
The young couple lives outside a major city in a nearby state, and life has been good. They have two young children; he's a lawyer, and she has stayed at home with the kids these past few years. They lived about 10 minutes from the city, and his job, in a solid older home.

But you know how it is with young couples. At some point, the older home just doesn't cut it anymore. Sure, it might be big enough; sufficient square footage for the brood. But it's, you know, old. The neighborhood isn't particularly exclusive. It doesn't convey the affluence that many people want to convey.

So they're moving, to a home further out, about half-hour from the city. But here's the catch: In order to afford the new home, she has to go back to work full-time. And as she'll also work in the city, both of them are going to have to make that half-hour commute daily, as opposed to the single 10-minute commute.

I think they're crazy.
Crazy and foolish. Priorities completely out of whack.........

Shawn
6/20/08
11:58 AM
QUOTE(dc @ Jun 20 2008, 11:54 AM) [snapback]403251[/snapback]
Crazy and foolish. Priorities completely out of whack.........




How so? Different situations work differently for different people. How do you know the family won't be happier with their new arrangement?



Later...SHawn

BuffaloBill
6/20/08
12:04 PM		Well, for one, there is obviously no employment opportunities in the burbs. rolleyes.gif



Although the payscale in the bigger cities may be higher, there will be a break even point on that commute. I know I can get a job with a competitor in the same industry with the same job responsibilities about 10 -15 minutes from home but I can make 20 grand a year more working 40 minutes from my home, gas prices will take a while to offset the difference, so I commute.

dc
6/20/08
12:08 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 20 2008, 11:58 AM) [snapback]403253[/snapback]
How so? Different situations work differently for different people. How do you know the family won't be happier with their new arrangement?
I realize that this is not necessarily going to be a popular thought, but in my opinion, my wife's and my greatest assets are our children. That being the case, we prioritize everything that we do with that in mind. If the wife in this story can afford to stay home and take care of her children instead of putting them in day care and allowing some one else to raise them, I do not understand why they would not do this........
Mansfield
6/20/08
12:21 PM		Lets look at it this way, for arguement's sake- what if Baltimore and Philadelphia and all their suburbs had been built at 1, or even 2 or 3 houses, per acre- do you think there would be any farmland in SE Lancaster County at the moment?



And again, it goes BEYOND simple raw density calculations and numbers.

You don't get walkable, bikeable, transit-friendly communities at lower densities.

And many of us prefer the aesthetics of a tree-lined rowhouse street, or of a village or town.

Has anyone tried a two mile stroll in many of these barren developments? Granted, over the years, the trees will grow, but I spent several years delivering pizzas in EHT, so I have some idea of the area and the issues.

Shawn
6/20/08
12:31 PM
QUOTE(dc @ Jun 20 2008, 12:08 PM) [snapback]403261[/snapback]
I realize that this is not necessarily going to be a popular thought, but in my opinion, my wife's and my greatest assets are our children. That being the case, we prioritize everything that we do with that in mind. If the wife in this story can afford to stay home and take care of her children instead of putting them in day care and allowing some one else to raise them, I do not understand why they would not do this........




I don't think it is a matter of unpopular or popular. I'm just saying that what works for one family/person isn't necessarily the best thing for another person/family. If that works for you, then great. You found what works best for your family. Given the nature and personalities of the couple involved, and the children, what this family has chosen might work best for them.



Later...Shawn

Paul Sweedlepipe
6/20/08
1:21 PM
QUOTE(dc @ Jun 20 2008, 09:08 AM) [snapback]403261[/snapback]

I realize that this is not necessarily going to be a popular thought, but in my opinion, my wife's and my greatest assets are our children. That being the case, we prioritize everything that we do with that in mind. If the wife in this story can afford to stay home and take care of her children instead of putting them in day care and allowing some one else to raise them, I do not understand why they would not do this........

I think if more people had that philosophy this country would be a better place. Unfortunately, staying at home and raising kids has long lost its shine...and much to our society's detriment.
dc
6/20/08
1:38 PM
QUOTE(Paul Sweedlepipe @ Jun 20 2008, 01:21 PM) [snapback]403285[/snapback]

I think if more people had that philosophy this country would be a better place. Unfortunately, staying at home and raising kids has long lost its shine...and much to our society's detriment.
I completely agree. Yet with all of the materialism that exists today, many decide to go after the big house instead of what you suggested. I also do believe that it is to our society's detriment. Just expressing this causes some to become irritated...........

QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 20 2008, 12:31 PM) [snapback]403271[/snapback]
I don't think it is a matter of unpopular or popular. I'm just saying that what works for one family/person isn't necessarily the best thing for another person/family. If that works for you, then great. You found what works best for your family. Given the nature and personalities of the couple involved, and the children, what this family has chosen might work best for them.
There is no doubt that what we have chosen does work best for us. My wife loves being home with the girls. I realize that not everyone can do it. But I do believe that there are many that can, and decided not to. Some feel as you suggested. That they would not be happy at home, or feel like a second class person "just" being a stay at home parent. Fortunately, I married a person that does not feel this way........
PedroHead
6/20/08
1:46 PM		Correct, but look at how people spend their income's (Gotta have an import car, big house, new clothes, etc.). Look at the lack of a 401k balance. Look at the huge credit card or HELOC balances that do not get paid off. There are very few families who are financially intelligent enough and in good enough financial shape to allow for a parent to stay at home.



QUOTE(Paul Sweedlepipe @ Jun 20 2008, 01:21 PM) [snapback]403285[/snapback]

I think if more people had that philosophy this country would be a better place. Unfortunately, staying at home and raising kids has long lost its shine...and much to our society's detriment.


Shawn
6/20/08
1:51 PM
QUOTE(dc @ Jun 20 2008, 01:38 PM) [snapback]403291[/snapback]

There is no doubt that what we have chosen does work best for us. My wife loves being home with the girls. I realize that not everyone can do it. But I do believe that there are many that can, and decided not to. Some feel as you suggested. That they would not be happy at home, or feel like a second class person "just" being a stay at home parent. Fortunately, I married a person that does not feel this way........




I just don't think there is a universal "right" answer to this question. After our daughter was born, my wife went back to work. Her heart wasn't in it, and she decided to stop working. I told her that the decision was hers, and whatever she chose would be the right answer for our family, and that either way, we'd make it work for the family. This reminds me of the discussions I've had with people who claim breastfeeding is the "right" thing to do. For them, maybe. But not for us. These global declarations of what I'm doing is "right" and you chose something else, so you're "wrong" are bothersome to me.



Later...Shawn

dc
6/20/08
2:10 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 20 2008, 01:51 PM) [snapback]403309[/snapback]
I just don't think there is a universal "right" answer to this question. After our daughter was born, my wife went back to work. Her heart wasn't in it, and she decided to stop working. I told her that the decision was hers, and whatever she chose would be the right answer for our family, and that either way, we'd make it work for the family. This reminds me of the discussions I've had with people who claim breastfeeding is the "right" thing to do. For them, maybe. But not for us. These global declarations of what I'm doing is "right" and you chose something else, so you're "wrong" are bothersome to me.
My goals are certainly not to be bothersome to you. As I looked at the scenario given in the story, I saw a family that decided to get a bigger home in a more affluent neighborhood. This is what my initial comment was geared towards. Do not take this as a personal attack on you or anyone else out there whose wife went back to work after having a baby......

QUOTE(PedroHead @ Jun 20 2008, 01:46 PM) [snapback]403304[/snapback]
Correct, but look at how people spend their income's (Gotta have an import car, big house, new clothes, etc.). Look at the lack of a 401k balance. Look at the huge credit card or HELOC balances that do not get paid off. There are very few families who are financially intelligent enough and in good enough financial shape to allow for a parent to stay at home.
I know quite a few families that have dual incomes, and are not very intelligent when it comes to how they spend and save their money........
Shawn
6/20/08
2:17 PM
QUOTE(dc @ Jun 20 2008, 02:10 PM) [snapback]403321[/snapback]
My goals are certainly not to be bothersome to you. As I looked at the scenario given in the story, I saw a family that decided to get a bigger home in a more affluent neighborhood. This is what my initial comment was geared towards. Do not take this as a personal attack on you or anyone else out there whose wife went back to work after having a baby......




Why would it automatically be considered a negative to seek a bigger home in a more affluent neighborhood? Why is that so crazy? Just because that wouldn't work for you family doesn't mean it isn't the right choice for the family in the story. Its not that I find your goals bothersome. I find it bothersome that you are so quick to pass judgment on a family that has decided to do things differently than yours. I don't consider it a personal attack, since my wife only went back to work for a few months, and has been home with our daughter for the past 3 years except for those few months. We have decided to do the same as you. But that doesn't mean I presume to think that our decision is the "right" decision for every other family. It works for us. But I think it would have also worked just fine if my wife had decide to continue working, and I'm sure things can work out just fine for the family in the article.



Later...Shawn

dc
6/23/08
10:41 AM
QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 20 2008, 02:17 PM) [snapback]403328[/snapback]
Why would it automatically be considered a negative to seek a bigger home in a more affluent neighborhood? Why is that so crazy? Just because that wouldn't work for you family doesn't mean it isn't the right choice for the family in the story. Its not that I find your goals bothersome. I find it bothersome that you are so quick to pass judgment on a family that has decided to do things differently than yours. I don't consider it a personal attack, since my wife only went back to work for a few months, and has been home with our daughter for the past 3 years except for those few months. We have decided to do the same as you. But that doesn't mean I presume to think that our decision is the "right" decision for every other family. It works for us. But I think it would have also worked just fine if my wife had decide to continue working, and I'm sure things can work out just fine for the family in the article.
There is a huge maze outside of Strasburg. It is cut into a corn field, and covers several acres. We went there a few years ago. As you wonder through the endless rows in the maze, your goal is to find different pieces to a puzzle that you put together. This puzzle ends up being a map of the entire maze. Once you get this, you can clearly see which way to navigate, so that you can confidently travel through the maze, knowing that you are heading in the right direction. Occasionally, you run into dead ends, and have to turn around and head in to another direction. Some times, as you are heading down paths, the people that you are passing will tell you that it is a dead end, and that there are no puzzle pieces ahead. This saves you from wasting time and effort.



I look at life in a similar way. I highly value the words of wisdom that I have received over the years from those older and wiser than myself. They have already been down some of the paths of life that I have not yet traveled. So I listen to their advice, and try not to waste effort and time on "paths" that end up with little or no benefit.



My opinion on this subject has been highly affected by others like this that I have talked to. I have conversed with many people over the years that have shared this same thought with me. Some have looked back and expressed contentment that they decided to pour their resources into their children. Others have looked back and shared regret that they have not. Children are only young for a short time. Any parent will tell you that they are amazed at how quickly time flies by. They bring their new born home from the hospital. Before they know it, their baby is crawling, walking, talking, running, going to school, reading, writing, singing, driving, and graduating from high school. What I try to do is make sure that I am not one of those people that experience regrets later in life. If you have ever spent time with a person that was on their death bed (which I have), I doubt very much that they will be regretting not buying a bigger house, or living in a more affluent neighborhood. They will be thinking about time spent with loved ones, and those memories that they have treasured with those that are the closest to them.



I realize that there are many out there that simply cannot live on one income. It is not an easy thing to do. But, I do believe that there are SOME that can, yet do not. Kind of like that song by Harry Chapin, "Cats in the Cradle". At the time, they think that it is the right thing to do. Yet, later in life, they regret the path that they took. Hopefully, this provides some insight as to my mind set on this subject. I am sorry if you feel that my opinion is bothersome to you. It is my own personal opinion. It is not some sort of crusade that I have taken on. We have friends that are of both sides. I do not consider any of them "less of a friend" because they do not subscribe to my line of thinking........





dragonrider
6/23/08
11:30 AM		In this period of diminishing availability of energy, I would think moving farther from work which will require more gas usage and more land taken out of agriculture is harder to defend. Buying a larger house for the sole reason of having a larger house that again will require a larger use of energy use to heat and cool is becoming harder to defend. I see so many of these 3000 sqft Mcmansions with only a couple living in. Yes people have a right to make that choice but it is a choice which as energy becomes more expensive is harder to defend. Particulerly if that person turns around and asks for help on their mortgage becuase of higher energy costs and raising interest rates makes their home unaffordable to their income.



As far as staying home with the kiddies. Some seem to think is a womans right to choose. It prolly is preferable that one person stays home with the children but if that forces the other spouse to work 12 hour days and 60+ hour weeks I see no net gain.

Shawn
6/23/08
11:37 AM
QUOTE(dc @ Jun 23 2008, 10:41 AM) [snapback]404107[/snapback]

I realize that there are many out there that simply cannot live on one income. It is not an easy thing to do. But, I do believe that there are SOME that can, yet do not. Kind of like that song by Harry Chapin, "Cats in the Cradle". At the time, they think that it is the right thing to do. Yet, later in life, they regret the path that they took. Hopefully, this provides some insight as to my mind set on this subject. I am sorry if you feel that my opinion is bothersome to you. It is my own personal opinion. It is not some sort of crusade that I have taken on. We have friends that are of both sides. I do not consider any of them "less of a friend" because they do not subscribe to my line of thinking........




I don't find your opinion on how you feel you should best raise your family at all bothersome. I'm glad you are able to do what you feel is best for your family. The only thing I find bothersome is the automatic degrading of people who, all things considered, have decided to raise their family in a different way. The automatic assumption being that because they are doing things differently than you, their family is by definition worse off. I'm contending that a family can be just as successful either way. Likewise, a family can be just as messed up either way. You might not consider your friends to be "less of a friend" because of how they choose to raise their family, but it certainly sounds like you might cosider them to be inadequate parents because of their decision.



My perspective is this. Currently, my wife stays at home with our daughter. That is working out great, and I'm glad we are able to afford to to do. However, growing up, both of my parents worked. Often times, my dad worked two jobs, and my mom had a job as well. I was termed a "latch-key" kid. I certainly don't feel it harmed our family in any way. Particularly because outside of work, the focus was on the family, including myself and my sister. Every night of the week dinner was eaten together as a family. Every sporting event was attended by one or both parents. We took several week long vacations together every year. Every weekend was spent together running errands, or taking day trips, or doing whatever, as a family. Every night, my homework was checked. I believe that these are some of the things that lead to a successful family. None of these things is necessarily preculded by having a dual-income family, nor are they gauranteed by a single income family.



Later...Shawn

Livin-in-Lancaster
6/23/08
11:51 AM
QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 19 2008, 04:06 PM) [snapback]402954[/snapback]

We will also be terribly sorry if we let our prime farmland get built over by large small-lot subdivisions. Either way, the land is getting used up. The only difference is the size of the yards.
Later...Shawn




I think there is more of a difference than the size of the yards. A lot of people move to Lancaster to get away from the high density, high congestion, rush-rush way of life. If not they'd move to Philly, Baltimore, or even Lancaster City.



People move to the suburbs to live in the suburbs.If they want high density they'd move to the city. Quality of life does affect the decisions people make. If not, we'd just slam 10 houses on every acre. The real nightmare is when townships decide to change the suburbs into cities for the sake of density.



Density does not equate to prosperity. Look at the mess the School District of Lancaster is in and I think they'd be considered high density. Look at the mess Donegal is because they can't fit all the kids in existing schools.



If the answer to every question is DENSITY, I would guess there is some sort of hidden agenda by the person giving the answer.



Beware of those extolling density as the solution to everything.







dc
6/23/08
12:05 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 23 2008, 11:37 AM) [snapback]404122[/snapback]
I don't find your opinion on how you feel you should best raise your family at all bothersome. I'm glad you are able to do what you feel is best for your family. The only thing I find bothersome is the automatic degrading of people who, all things considered, have decided to raise their family in a different way. The automatic assumption being that because they are doing things differently than you, their family is by definition worse off. I'm contending that a family can be just as successful either way. Likewise, a family can be just as messed up either way. You might not consider your friends to be "less of a friend" because of how they choose to raise their family, but it certainly sounds like you might cosider them to be inadequate parents because of their decision.
We have many friends that we do not completely agree with on issues. There are some that treat their kids differently than we do. Some allow their 10 year old kids to have cells. We do not. Some allow their kids to have computers in their rooms, where they can be online unsupervised. We do not. Some allow their kids to have TV's in their room. We do not. This does not mean that we consider ourselves better parents than they are. Nor do we consider them inadequate........

QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 23 2008, 11:37 AM) [snapback]404122[/snapback]
My perspective is this. Currently, my wife stays at home with our daughter. That is working out great, and I'm glad we are able to afford to to do. However, growing up, both of my parents worked. Often times, my dad worked two jobs, and my mom had a job as well. I was termed a "latch-key" kid. I certainly don't feel it harmed our family in any way. Particularly because outside of work, the focus was on the family, including myself and my sister. Every night of the week dinner was eaten together as a family. Every sporting event was attended by one or both parents. We took several week long vacations together every year. Every weekend was spent together running errands, or taking day trips, or doing whatever, as a family. Every night, my homework was checked. I believe that these are some of the things that lead to a successful family. None of these things is necessarily preculded by having a dual-income family, nor are they gauranteed by a single income family.
In my opinion, pouring your resources into your children does not end with staying at home with them. It goes beyond that, as you well illustrated. If all your wife were to do was stay at home with your girl, sit in front of the TV, watching the soaps and eating Bon Bon's, it would be a waste of opportunity........





Hope
6/23/08
12:35 PM
QUOTE(Shawn @ Jun 23 2008, 11:37 AM) [snapback]404122[/snapback]

I don't find your opinion on how you feel you should best raise your family at all bothersome. I'm glad you are able to do what you feel is best for your family. The only thing I find bothersome is the automatic degrading of people who, all things considered, have decided to raise their family in a different way. The automatic assumption being that because they are doing things differently than you, their family is by definition worse off. I'm contending that a family can be just as successful either way. Likewise, a family can be just as messed up either way. You might not consider your friends to be "less of a friend" because of how they choose to raise their family, but it certainly sounds like you might cosider them to be inadequate parents because of their decision.



My perspective is this. Currently, my wife stays at home with our daughter. That is working out great, and I'm glad we are able to afford to to do. However, growing up, both of my parents worked. Often times, my dad worked two jobs, and my mom had a job as well. I was termed a "latch-key" kid. I certainly don't feel it harmed our family in any way. Particularly because outside of work, the focus was on the family, including myself and my sister. Every night of the week dinner was eaten together as a family. Every sporting event was attended by one or both parents. We took several week long vacations together every year. Every weekend was spent together running errands, or taking day trips, or doing whatever, as a family. Every night, my homework was checked. I believe that these are some of the things that lead to a successful family. None of these things is necessarily preculded by having a dual-income family, nor are they gauranteed by a single income family.



Later...Shawn



QUOTE(dc @ Jun 23 2008, 12:05 PM) [snapback]404130[/snapback]

We have many friends that we do not completely agree with on issues. There are some that treat their kids differently than we do. Some allow their 10 year old kids to have cells. We do not. Some allow their kids to have computers in their rooms, where they can be online unsupervised. We do not. Some allow their kids to have TV's in their room. We do not. This does not mean that we consider ourselves better parents than they are. Nor do we consider them inadequate........

In my opinion, pouring your resources into your children does not end with staying at home with them. It goes beyond that, as you well illustrated. If all your wife were to do was stay at home with your girl, sit in front of the TV, watching the soaps and eating Bon Bon's, it would be a waste of opportunity........


You two are having a very interesting discussion. I have one question for each of you.

DC, since your children are in school all day, would you consider it a detriment for your wife to work durning school hours?

Shawn, what will your wife do when your child reaches school age?
dc
6/23/08
12:47 PM
QUOTE(Hope @ Jun 23 2008, 12:35 PM) [snapback]404146[/snapback]
DC, since your children are in school all day, would you consider it a detriment for your wife to work durning school hours?
No, she actually has picked up a couple small jobs that have been very intermittent during the times that the girls are in school. The main thing is that she is able to be home if the girls are home. Also, she is able to be available to volunteer in the girls classes as needed, and go on field trips. This goes back to our philosophy of pouring our resources into our children..........
Hope
6/23/08
1:49 PM
QUOTE(dc @ Jun 23 2008, 12:47 PM) [snapback]404152[/snapback]

No, she actually has picked up a couple small jobs that have been very intermittent during the times that the girls are in school. The main thing is that she is able to be home if the girls are home. Also, she is able to be available to volunteer in the girls classes as needed, and go on field trips. This goes back to our philosophy of pouring our resources into our children..........

I knew she vounteered at the school but didn't know if she ever worked outside the home.

I stayed home with my children until the youngest was in preschool. My sister and I worked out our work schedules so that we each had off when the other worked. It was the best of both worlds for me. I got to have adult conversation two to three days a week and when I did, my sister had my daughter.

Please take this question in the spirit in which it is meant. Do you think you are doing your children a disservice by not allowing them to learn to come home by themselves and be self-sufficient? If your wife is there every day after school, they won't learn those life skills and may end up being a bit naive` when they go off to college.
dc
6/23/08
1:52 PM
QUOTE(Hope @ Jun 23 2008, 01:49 PM) [snapback]404176[/snapback]
Please take this question in the spirit in which it is meant. Do you think you are doing your children a disservice by not allowing them to learn to come home by themselves and be self-sufficient? If your wife is there every day after school, they won't learn those life skills and may end up being a bit naive` when they go off to college.
I do not think that a 7 year old should be coming home to an empty house. Since she comes home an hour before her older sister, I would not feel comfortable having her home by herself for an hour every week day.........
Shawn
6/23/08
2:23 PM
QUOTE(Hope @ Jun 23 2008, 12:35 PM) [snapback]404146[/snapback]

Shawn, what will your wife do when your child reaches school age?




Right now, she plans on going back to work. But, we'd still like to have another child, so it will be several years before both kids would be in school. That being said, she was also pretty adamant that she was going to go back to work after our daughter was born. That only lasted a few months. Turns out she was miserable because she wanted to be at home with our daughter. So, we adjusted and she quit her job. Either way, the decision will be hers when the time comes. She needs to do what is most comfortable for her.



Later...Shawn

Hope
6/23/08
3:44 PM
QUOTE(dc @ Jun 23 2008, 01:52 PM) [snapback]404178[/snapback]

I do not think that a 7 year old should be coming home to an empty house. Since she comes home an hour before her older sister, I would not feel comfortable having her home by herself for an hour every week day.........

I agree, seven years old is too young. I thought both of your girls were older than that, sorry for the mistake.

We were fortunate that our girls were able to take baby steps (for lack of a better term) when they learned to come home alone. They never had to be alone for more than an hour and they eased into that amount of time over a few years. My 19 year old lives on her own but I still don't like leaving my 14 year old for very long. She walks home from school and has to call me when she gets home but she is very self sufficient. We take turns making dinner and she takes her turn. She also can do her own laundry as well as her other chores.

QUOTE
Right now, she plans on going back to work. But, we'd still like to have another child, so it will be several years before both kids would be in school. That being said, she was also pretty adamant that she was going to go back to work after our daughter was born. That only lasted a few months. Turns out she was miserable because she wanted to be at home with our daughter. So, we adjusted and she quit her job. Either way, the decision will be hers when the time comes. She needs to do what is most comfortable for her.


It's nice to know that she has your support to do whatever she feel comfortable doing. Good for you!
dc
6/23/08
3:54 PM
QUOTE(Hope @ Jun 23 2008, 03:44 PM) [snapback]404249[/snapback]
I agree, seven years old is too young. I thought both of your girls were older than that, sorry for the mistake.
We were fortunate that our girls were able to take baby steps (for lack of a better term) when they learned to come home alone. They never had to be alone for more than an hour and they eased into that amount of time over a few years. My 19 year old lives on her own but I still don't like leaving my 14 year old for very long. She walks home from school and has to call me when she gets home but she is very self sufficient. We take turns making dinner and she takes her turn. She also can do her own laundry as well as her other chores.
We have begun to leave them alone for short periods of time. We will run a few errands. Since they get home from school at different times, my wife takes this opportunity to spend time with each of them, listening to them tell her about their days while it is still fresh in their minds.......
View Topic | Comment on this blog
Home | News | Sports | Business | Entertainment | Lifestyle | Opinion | Spanish | Classifieds | Jobs | Homes | Autos
Terms of Service | Contact Us | Ephrata Review | Lititz Record | Lancaster Farming
Copyright 2004-2008