U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Long Island
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 10-18-2013, 11:05 AM
 
5,520 posts, read 5,482,942 times
Reputation: 3585

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by trusso11783 View Post
mastic by the water is worse than Mastic. That is Mastic Beach and is full of rednecks and trash
Just out of curiosity, how did that come to be? Usually, areas near the water are expensive, but Mastic Beach seems to be one of the very few exceptions. Was there some failed development project in the past that ruined the area? Or did something else happen? I'm sure the distance from Manhattan doesn't help, but there are better areas on the water that are as far.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 10-18-2013, 11:20 AM
 
5,520 posts, read 5,482,942 times
Reputation: 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galicia#1 View Post
Some people don't have kids and other people aren't afraid to send their kids to average schools.
Although, being in a bad school district makes it harder to sell your house, even if you don't have kids. Although, maybe that is less of a consideration these days now that the days of treating a house as an investment may be over.

Quote:
Also some people would prefer to send their kids to catholic school and could get a much better home in a less regarded place.
The problem is, many "bad" districts are no bargain when it comes to taxes. On the back of my property tax bill, it lists the tax rates for every school district in the town of Islip. Central Islip, one of the worst school districts, has the highest tax rate! Hauppauge has the lowest tax rate (probably due to the industrial park), even though it's a good school district.

Quote:
I believe alot has to do with where one grew up and how they grew up. For those that grew up in fancy north shore schools, many may be opposed to giving their offspring anything less. On the other hand, someone that grew up in NYC public schools might not be opposed to sending their kids to an average school.
That is a very good point. I've always been raised to believe that your kids should have it better than you did. Unfortunately, that seems to have become impossible. For example, I grew up in a good school district, close to my grandparents that I could see them frequently, and I had dinner every night with both of my parents. I want my future kids to have all of those benefits. But others on this board who didn't grow up that way can't understand why I don't want to leave Long Island, or why I don't want to commute from Suffolk to Manhattan (although, that is also partially due to the fact that I believe I have a sleep disorder).

I wonder if in the future, if school districts won't be quite as important as Long Island as they are now. For one, if you are looking at a house entirely as a place to live and not as an investment, then you will only be interested in how the district benefits your kids (or lack of kids), and not how it affects future sales. Also, people like me who graduated from a good school district, but didn't seem to benefit from it in the long term, might take an attitude that school districts aren't as big a deal as they are made out to be. Thirdly, people (like myself) who might be white collar professionals but also have a strong sense of family values who don't want to leave Long Island but also don't want a long commute to the city, and are priced out of the expensive school districts, might be willing to settle for a cheaper school district, as long as it's a shorter commute to the city. Just a bunch of theories, no idea if any of them will pan out.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PrestigiousReputability View Post
There's sometimes AMAZING deals to be had. Houses in a "bad town" are usually priced lower due to having an "undesirable address" so you get an amazing bang for your buck! You can get a big beautiful house for a hefty discount in a BETTER school district as long as you can handle the fact that you won't technically live within the border of that town.

For example, if you buy in a certain part of N.Amityville then you can get Farmingdale schools. A portion of Hempstead get West Hempstead schools. A small part of Roosevelt gets Baldwin schools. A couple blocks of Wyandanch gets W.Bab schools, etc.

It's like searching for a diamond in the rough, as a user put it
That all makes sense. When the OP said "bad areas", I was thinking "bad school districts".

This reminds me of another thread, which I can't seem to find. Someone was asking about a house that has a Bay Shore mailing address, but is in the West Islip school district. Most people in that thread said to avoid that house, since people will only see it as Bay Shore, and the resale value won't be as good as if it were really in West Islip. But I see it differently. I see it as your kids getting a West Islip education at Bay Shore prices. Seems like a good deal. Bay Shore and West Islip are both unincorporated hamlets in the Town of Islip, so you get the same rights and privileges in both areas; it's not as if one or both is an incorporated village. The only thing I would be worried about would be whether or not the kids would fit in with the more affluent kids from West Islip proper.

Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoSeeker52 View Post
On the flip side, sometimes the cheaper parts of a "good" area have relatively worse schools - i.e. parts of Rockville Centre zoned for Malverne or Oceanside schools (and before anyone jumps on me, I know these schools are more mediocre than bad, my point is just that, compared to the reputation of RVC schools, there's no contest). What's the good of the "prestigious" address when your kids are going to the same schools as people who own the same size or larger home at 2/3rds the price?
In those cases, a more prestigious address in a bad school district is a total waste. I would rather have a bad address but be in a good school district.

Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
A HS classmate just bought an adorable house on a canal in Shirley. Her children are adults and no longer living with her, it's just her and her husband. Schools are no longer a concern for them, but access to the water is because they are into fishing and jet skiing.
Normally, I would say that even if you have no kids using the school district, the school district is still important, because of the resale value. In this case, it seems like a special case, since that house targets a specific audience, who needs to be by the water, but has no kids.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-18-2013, 11:20 AM
 
792 posts, read 1,419,239 times
Reputation: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
Just out of curiosity, how did that come to be? Usually, areas near the water are expensive, but Mastic Beach seems to be one of the very few exceptions. Was there some failed development project in the past that ruined the area? Or did something else happen? I'm sure the distance from Manhattan doesn't help, but there are better areas on the water that are as far.
The houses are mostly really tiny bungalows, that were un-winterized when first constructed - back in the 70s/early 80s (and earlier), it was a summer community for middle class city people (my parents actually rented a house there for several summers in the late 70s/early 80s when they lived in Queens). Once the summer traffic died down and it became more of a year-round community (late 80s/early 90s), the bungalows were purchased by career landlords who cheaply winterized the homes and then turned them into rentals, many (most, maybe) rented through Section 8.

Additionally, with the easy mortgages for pretty much anyone ever in the later 90s/early 2000s, and the spike in prices, the career landlords put the little bungalows up for sale, and there was a huge influx of lower-income homeowners from "rough" parts of Queens/Brooklyn/the Bronx who bought the bungalows at outrageous prices. Many of those folks have since lost their homes, and they're either being converted back to rentals or abandoned entirely at present.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-18-2013, 11:25 AM
 
5,520 posts, read 5,482,942 times
Reputation: 3585
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoSeeker52 View Post
The houses are mostly really tiny bungalows, that were un-winterized when first constructed - back in the 70s/early 80s (and earlier), it was a summer community for middle class city people (my parents actually rented a house there for several summers in the late 70s/early 80s when they lived in Queens). Once the summer traffic died down and it became more of a year-round community (late 80s/early 90s), the bungalows were purchased by career landlords who cheaply winterized the homes and then turned them into rentals, many (most, maybe) rented through Section 8.

Additionally, with the easy mortgages for pretty much anyone ever in the later 90s/early 2000s, and the spike in prices, the career landlords put the little bungalows up for sale, and there was a huge influx of lower-income homeowners from "rough" parts of Queens/Brooklyn/the Bronx who bought the bungalows at outrageous prices. Many of those folks have since lost their homes, and they're either being converted back to rentals or abandoned entirely at present.
It seems that the summer resort communities from the past are not able to make the transition to year-round communities. Far Rockaway is another good example.

I wonder what can be done to help those areas transition into middle class areas. I think a major obstacle will be flooding, especially after storms such as Sandy. If you are poor, you might have no choice but to live in such an area. If you are rich, you probably have multiple properties, and can afford to lose one. But a middle class person would want to avoid flood-prone areas, since they can afford other areas, but cannot afford to lose their only residence.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-18-2013, 11:40 AM
 
792 posts, read 1,419,239 times
Reputation: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
It seems that the summer resort communities from the past are not able to make the transition to year-round communities. Far Rockaway is another good example.

I wonder what can be done to help those areas transition into middle class areas. I think a major obstacle will be flooding, especially after storms such as Sandy. If you are poor, you might have no choice but to live in such an area. If you are rich, you probably have multiple properties, and can afford to lose one. But a middle class person would want to avoid flood-prone areas, since they can afford other areas, but cannot afford to lose their only residence.
The only thing that would help a place like Mastic Beach "transition into a middle class area" is finding another area to send all the poor people to live. Seriously. Poor people have to live somewhere, and in that particular part of Suffolk, it's Mastic/Shirley (and a few other towns, but you get my point).
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-18-2013, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Prince Georges County, MD (formerly Long Island, NY)
1,558 posts, read 2,414,099 times
Reputation: 1651
Mits, also keep in mind that, even though a house in a "poor" school district will obviously sell for less, keep in mind that the buy-in is also less. In most instances, you won't be in a situation where you're buying a $300k house and then trying to sell it for $225k twenty years down the line. Again, nothing is certain, but the methodology is usually buy for less, sell for less.

My parents bought in a neighborhood that is occasionally derided on this forum, and their property values doubled in less than ten years. Even after the market collapse and rebound, the house is doing well. The last ten years, it's been rather stagnant, but the house hasn't lost value.

Regarding your comment about our upbringings, there's no need to get all high and mighty to make a point. I also grew up close to my family-- family dinners, family vacations, family prayer, family games, weekends together, etc. The thing is, my parents also told me that I can't always get everything I want and that life is full of compromises. They also taught me that complaining doesn't solve anything.

So, please, don't extrapolate things about the upbringing of strangers on a forum.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-18-2013, 02:21 PM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,966 posts, read 31,085,528 times
Reputation: 7619
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoSeeker52 View Post
The houses are mostly really tiny bungalows, that were un-winterized when first constructed - back in the 70s/early 80s (and earlier), it was a summer community for middle class city people (my parents actually rented a house there for several summers in the late 70s/early 80s when they lived in Queens). Once the summer traffic died down and it became more of a year-round community (late 80s/early 90s), the bungalows were purchased by career landlords who cheaply winterized the homes and then turned them into rentals, many (most, maybe) rented through Section 8.

Additionally, with the easy mortgages for pretty much anyone ever in the later 90s/early 2000s, and the spike in prices, the career landlords put the little bungalows up for sale, and there was a huge influx of lower-income homeowners from "rough" parts of Queens/Brooklyn/the Bronx who bought the bungalows at outrageous prices. Many of those folks have since lost their homes, and they're either being converted back to rentals or abandoned entirely at present.
Mastic Beach development goes MUCH further back than that. The developers were acquiring land in the 19teens and started selling off plots in the 1920's. This website has the history of Mastic. It is interesting and has a number of old ads and pictures.

Untitled Document

With respect to becoming a year-round community, that happened much earlier than you think.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-18-2013, 02:24 PM
 
792 posts, read 1,419,239 times
Reputation: 666
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhBeeHave View Post
Mastic Beach development goes MUCH further back than that. The developers were acquiring land in the 19teens and started selling off plots in the 1920's. This website has the history of Mastic. It is interesting and has a number of old ads and pictures.

Untitled Document

With respect to becoming a year-round community, that happened much earlier than you think.
My understanding, based on the personal recollections of people older than I am who used to "summer" there, is that the summer traffic dropped off in the 80s - obviously there were people living there full-time before that, but the lack of "summer" traffic undeniably drove a significant boom in the year-round population as the summer houses were (cheaply, badly) converted.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-18-2013, 02:49 PM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,966 posts, read 31,085,528 times
Reputation: 7619
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitsguy2001 View Post
Normally, I would say that even if you have no kids using the school district, the school district is still important, because of the resale value. In this case, it seems like a special case, since that house targets a specific audience, who needs to be by the water, but has no kids.


In terms of value -- if you're a water person and don't have kids, you can't beat it. Walk out your back door and onto your boat. No trailers, no renting a slip.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 10-18-2013, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Inis Fada
16,966 posts, read 31,085,528 times
Reputation: 7619
Quote:
Originally Posted by InfoSeeker52 View Post
My understanding, based on the personal recollections of people older than I am who used to "summer" there, is that the summer traffic dropped off in the 80s - obviously there were people living there full-time before that, but the lack of "summer" traffic undeniably drove a significant boom in the year-round population as the summer houses were (cheaply, badly) converted.

Based on my own personal recollection of friends who bought out there and who lived out there -- the summer traffic dropped off much earlier than the 80's. When NYC was becoming a cesspool in the late 1960's is when you started to see families move to Mastic year round by converting their summer homes. These folk were the ones responsible for many of the cheap do-it-yourself conversions. By the mid 70's Mastic was predominantly year round housing -- whether owner occupied or rental.
Rate this post positively
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.


 


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York > Long Island
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2021, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top