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?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
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.
You can, when the developers lobbied to not pay taxes/fees that would have been used to add capacity to schools.
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.