Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
by jessaustin on Saturday April 16, 2016 @03:45PM
(#11511960)
That's what I thought. It is in fact a major flaw of the entire USA public school concept that "kids will only be covered by one such domain", but you can't blame developers for that. School districts partition the state, and they do so in every state. Therefore this objection amounts to "the school district in which this development is located didn't prepare for new students while it was being built", and that objection may be lodged against any new development. Do public school boosters really want to reject all new development? Or is this more of what was mentioned upthread, that they only like development for certain types of people?
Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
by ktRolster on Sunday April 17, 2016 @01:06AM
(#11513562)
> but you can't blame developers for that.
Re:In Cramped and Costly Bay Area, Cries to Build, Baby, Build
by jessaustin on Sunday April 17, 2016 @11:44AM
(#11514913)
Because "developers lobbied to not pay taxes/fees" (stipulating, for the sake of discussion, a premise not in evidence), they can be blamed for the asinine concept of public school districts? That is not logical.
Within that domain, this new source of housing has not been factored in to the balance of how to divide resources. (Think of classroom seats as hyperthreads and teachers as processor cores).
The kids going to different schools (lack of CPU affinity) is the issue as differently aged kids might go to different schools, have to travel needlessly far to get to a school with free resources, and potentially even two kids of the same age from the same family might not go to the same school.