Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Hi so -- I'm bringing this one back because I'm not sure where we landed here.
We're considering purchasing our rental home when our lease is up in August -- we love the house, but with conflicting information about Mt Washington and Anderson, I don't want to decide to buy this only to not be able to sell the house in 5-7 years (or however long). If the price is right, is this a smart long-term decision?
The house is in Anderson, but near Mt Washington -- south of Salem and near Sutton. Great neighborhood, well-kept homes.
We're considering purchasing our rental home when our lease is up in August -- we love the house, but with conflicting information about Mt Washington and Anderson, I don't want to decide to buy this only to not be able to sell the house in 5-7 years (or however long). If the price is right, is this a smart long-term decision?
The house is in Anderson, but near Mt Washington -- south of Salem and near Sutton. Great neighborhood, well-kept homes.
I have looked at purchasing several properties in that area and I would NOT hesitate buying a home in that area as long as you are in the Forest Hills School District. It is a great area and generally has pretty good resale values.
The key thing to remember is the houses are generally older. I read that as "BETTER BUILT" than much of the new construction in the area. However, if you have to have huge bathrooms and marble everything, you probably will not be happy.
The critical question YOU have top ask is whether YOU feel comfortable in that area - and you seem to like it. There are also a lot of good places over in Sherwood Forest that are up for sale. (For the record, I have at least fifteen family members living within 2-3 miles of the house and they are all very happy with the area.
Hi so -- I'm bringing this one back because I'm not sure where we landed here.
We're considering purchasing our rental home when our lease is up in August -- we love the house, but with conflicting information about Mt Washington and Anderson, I don't want to decide to buy this only to not be able to sell the house in 5-7 years (or however long). If the price is right, is this a smart long-term decision?
The house is in Anderson, but near Mt Washington -- south of Salem and near Sutton. Great neighborhood, well-kept homes.
The short answer to your question is if you plan on selling in 5-7 years I'd say you be fine.
The long answer is much more complicated. There are certainly parts of Anderson eroding, I know people who currently attend both FHSD high schools and that's definitely the impression I get from them. Anderson High School in particular has dropped off considerably. Ten plus years ago both high schools were rather comparable in everything from sports to academics. Flash forward to now Turpin is ranked #21st in the state and #528 nationally. Anderson is #61st in the state and #1200+ nationally. And while this might seem like an irrelevant difference, consider this, 49% of Turpin students took at least one AP Exam last year and 43% of Turpin students passed at least one AP exam. At Anderson only 32% took at least one AP Exam and only 27% of Anderson students passed at least one AP Exam. Turpin's college readiness index was 42.5. Anderson's was 27.5. In addition Turpin's athletic program is widely regarded as superior and because of FHSD open transfer rule most of the good athletes in certain sports on the Anderson side will chose to go to Turpin over Anderson.
The disparity is open news in the Township as well and was highlighted in the Forest Hills Journal a few months ago and has become a central feature in the levy debates. Almost every voting area on the Anderson side voted against the levy and many want one high school. On the Turpin side opinion was much more split, with a good number of areas voting for the levy and most people opposed to any sort of high school merger whatsoever.
If I were you I would try to get a house on the Turpin side if possible as it seems to be weathering any perceived decline fairly well at the moment.
Hi so -- I'm bringing this one back because I'm not sure where we landed here.
We're considering purchasing our rental home when our lease is up in August -- we love the house, but with conflicting information about Mt Washington and Anderson, I don't want to decide to buy this only to not be able to sell the house in 5-7 years (or however long). If the price is right, is this a smart long-term decision?
The house is in Anderson, but near Mt Washington -- south of Salem and near Sutton. Great neighborhood, well-kept homes.
I believe you have answered your own question. You say you love the house and the neighborhood is well-kept homes. Do you see anything to believe that will not continue? If the purchase price is right I say go ahead. This whole subject about Anderson declining keeps resurfacing. Some say Mt Washington is already gone. But I know areas usually do not decline overnight. There are exceptions but it usually takes time, even decades. If you look around and see people taking an active interest in maintaining their property I say go ahead, the people are the difference. This is true of anywhere you purchase.
The only place I would not touch with a ten-foot pole on the East side is Madisonville. I expect others to denounce my statement and say it is perfectly fine and cheap. My opinion is it cheap because everything is falling down. I only state this because I remember Madisonville from my youth. It was one of the older settlements and annexed to Cincinnati, so not much there is exactly new. When I was young it was vibrant, particularly its business community. The older homes were stately and well-kept. Then it just went into rapid decline. It will take a lot of convincing for me to believe it is on the upswing.
If Anderson is in a serious decline then Cincinnati is in Deep ****, as it is not even within the City limits. If Anderson is declining than the flight out of Cincinnati is still continuing no matter what the ubanists proclaim. If Anderson is declining then all of the rejuvenation of areas like OTR will be a mute point, the City of Cincinnati will be dead. Clermont Co, Warren Co, Butler Co, and NKY will contain the residential population of Cincinnati.
I worked in Madisonville for a while a few years ago. Drove most of the streets, knew some respectable middle-class people whose families had lived there without incident for a couple generations. There's a lot of development and redevelopment occurring on its edges. I can't help but think that will eventually make its way gradually into the neighborhood, working its way from outside in toward the thug-infested center at Madison and Whetsel. If I were a young person willing to put sweat equity into renovating an older house and then living in it for 20 years or so, I think it could be a good investment. The trajectory of the neighborhood is probably up, but it will be slow and it won't be very soon. It's important to keep in mind that it still has some pretty nice historic housing stock. Sooner or later, people want that. Look at restoration consultant's Knox Hill, for example.
I worked in Madisonville for a while a few years ago. Drove most of the streets, knew some respectable middle-class people whose families had lived there without incident for a couple generations. There's a lot of development and redevelopment occurring on its edges. I can't help but think that will eventually make its way gradually into the neighborhood, working its way from outside in toward the thug-infested center at Madison and Whetsel. If I were a young person willing to put sweat equity into renovating an older house and then living in it for 20 years or so, I think it could be a good investment. The trajectory of the neighborhood is probably up, but it will be slow and it won't be very soon. It's important to keep in mind that it still has some pretty nice historic housing stock. Sooner or later, people want that. Look at restoration consultant's Knox Hill, for example.
That might be all well and good for a person willing to live it out. As I said, I remember Madisonville from some 60, almost 70 years ago, when it was a perfectly good solid middle class area to live in. But I still state it would be one of the last neighborhoods I would choose to live in Cincinnati, particularly if I was considering raising a young family there. There is a reason why families with young kids flock to the outer suburbs.
The disparity is open news in the Township as well and was highlighted in the Forest Hills Journal a few months ago and has become a central feature in the levy debates. Almost every voting area on the Anderson side voted against the levy and many want one high school. On the Turpin side opinion was much more split, with a good number of areas voting for the levy and most people opposed to any sort of high school merger whatsoever..
For years, Forest Hills school levies passed by pretty wide margins.
In recent years, there is a real reluctance to pass school levies as many long-term residents believe that the district has wasted a lot of money building new schools that are not needed.
There are MANY districts in Ohio in the same boat throughout the state. With the economic downturn, people are less willing to vote for tax levies that will increase their taxes at a time when their property values are much less than they were only ten years ago.
In recent years, there is a real reluctance to pass school levies as many long-term residents believe that the district has wasted a lot of money building new schools that are not needed.
Especially that scam when the school district closed one school, and then just a few years later tore down Nagel park to build a new school. What incompetence.
For years, Forest Hills school levies passed by pretty wide margins.
In recent years, there is a real reluctance to pass school levies as many long-term residents believe that the district has wasted a lot of money building new schools that are not needed.
There are MANY districts in Ohio in the same boat throughout the state. With the economic downturn, people are less willing to vote for tax levies that will increase their taxes at a time when their property values are much less than they were only ten years ago.
The only school the district has constructed in 30+ years is Nagel. Turpin was the second most recent and it opened in 1977.
While the district has not been the absolute best custodian of the money and I believe the elementary schools should be consolidated to a Turpin one where Wilson is and an Anderson one where Ayer is. However, you truly get what you pay for. Indian Hill and Mariemont both have very high taxes in support of their schools (I don't know about Wyoming) and their schools are Top 5 in the city, which is where FHSD should be striving to go. In fact, at least in terms of price per student Turpin is thousands of dollars cheaper than Wyoming, IH, and Mariemont and is ranked 6th in the Cincinnati area. Unfortunately, there are people in Anderson you have no problem with just a "good" education rather than the best and think a school district resembling the ones across the county line is just fine. All the excuses that the anti-levy people gave seem incredibly bogus when you realize how well the district has done with such a low price per student.
The only school the district has constructed in 30+ years is Nagel. Turpin was the second most recent and it opened in 1977.
While the district has not been the absolute best custodian of the money and I believe the elementary schools should be consolidated to a Turpin one where Wilson is and an Anderson one where Ayer is. However, you truly get what you pay for. Indian Hill and Mariemont both have very high taxes in support of their schools (I don't know about Wyoming) and their schools are Top 5 in the city, which is where FHSD should be striving to go. In fact, at least in terms of price per student Turpin is thousands of dollars cheaper than Wyoming, IH, and Mariemont and is ranked 6th in the Cincinnati area. Unfortunately, there are people in Anderson you have no problem with just a "good" education rather than the best and think a school district resembling the ones across the county line is just fine. All the excuses that the anti-levy people gave seem incredibly bogus when you realize how well the district has done with such a low price per student.
You make a very valid point. If a school district is maintaining quality on a cost per pupil expenditure below average, then consider they may be excellence if you vote them a little more money. It is the cost per pupil I put a lot of consideration in. That is why I am not a fan of CPS, their cost per pupil is huge but their achievement not so. Improving Yes, but arrived No. I certainly hope the schools, which have been a mainstay of Anderson, do not become part of a decline. It would be an enormous shame.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only school the district has constructed in 30+ years is Nagel. Turpin was the second most recent and it opened in 1977. 
