NJ study: Study finds transit village brings far fewer children

[george conklin]

Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get the idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

[William]

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get the idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Most Families like to drive there kid themselves to soccer
practice rather then
letting them take the train. Which in the end is dumb logic.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get the idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get the idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get the idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.

I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

[William]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get the idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

When someone says designed for children, I think suburbs. Is this
wrong of me?
Because I don't think places like Caprini Greens are "designed" for
children

[george conklin]

Post by William

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get the idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

When someone says designed for children, I think suburbs. Is this
wrong of me?
Because I don't think places like Caprini Greens are "designed" for
children

Most people think that the single-family house is the best place to
raise children. My father had the classical 2-bedroom apartment with 2 of
us in the each bedroom. But today people want each child to have a separate
bedroom and thus when design standards calculate the number of children
which will be in a development, the figures are always quite a bit higher
for a single-family house than for an apartment.

[William]

Post by george conklin

Post by William

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get the idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

When someone says designed for children, I think suburbs. Is this
wrong of me?
Because I don't think places like Caprini Greens are "designed" for
children

Most people think that the single-family house is the best place to
raise children. My father had the classical 2-bedroom apartment with 2 of
us in the each bedroom. But today people want each child to have a separate
bedroom and thus when design standards calculate the number of children
which will be in a development, the figures are always quite a bit higher
for a single-family house than for an apartment.

My Latin teacher said once "Children now a days feel they are entitled
to fun.
Then he said something about how Joy is better then "fun" and we
should have that.
What do you think about that statement?

[george conklin]

Post by William

Post by george conklin

Post by William

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get
the
idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good
job
of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

When someone says designed for children, I think suburbs. Is this
wrong of me?
Because I don't think places like Caprini Greens are "designed" for
children

Most people think that the single-family house is the best place to
raise children. My father had the classical 2-bedroom apartment with 2 of
us in the each bedroom. But today people want each child to have a separate
bedroom and thus when design standards calculate the number of children
which will be in a development, the figures are always quite a bit higher
for a single-family house than for an apartment.

My Latin teacher said once "Children now a days feel they are entitled
to fun.
Then he said something about how Joy is better then "fun" and we
should have that.
What do you think about that statement?

Not much. Even Sanskrit verses speak of the necessity of providing children
fun. It was an adult's duty.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get the idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the desire is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get the idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the desire is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get
the
idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the desire is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

I don't know what "black letter law" is, but in New Jersey the children
factor is always, yes always, the first consideration in extending building
permits.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get
the
idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the desire is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design to
convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get
the
idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the desire is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design to
convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Well, if you have your way there won't be a livable environment, period. I
guess that means that you want to convince future generations to go extinct,
so you not only hate current children, but future children.

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get
the
idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the desire is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design to
convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Well, if you have your way there won't be a livable environment, period.
I guess that means that you want to convince future generations to go
extinct, so you not only hate current children, but future children.

Smart growth is a step backwards, not a move towards the future, based on
an idealized past which never existed.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by george conklin
You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the
desire

is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design
to convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Well, if you have your way there won't be a livable environment, period.
I guess that means that you want to convince future generations to go
extinct, so you not only hate current children, but future children.

Smart growth is a step backwards, not a move towards the future, based
on an idealized past which never existed.

Your hatred of future generations is astounding.

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by george conklin
You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the
desire

is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design
to convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Well, if you have your way there won't be a livable environment, period.
I guess that means that you want to convince future generations to go
extinct, so you not only hate current children, but future children.

Smart growth is a step backwards, not a move towards the future, based
on an idealized past which never existed.

Your hatred of future generations is astounding.

You do not protect the future by merely saying you want to. Idealized
pasts are the realm of dictators, fascists and idiots. Smart growth is
nothing more than idealization of a past which never existed, and a
high-crime proposal at that.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by george conklin
You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the
desire

is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design
to convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Well, if you have your way there won't be a livable environment,
period. I guess that means that you want to convince future generations
to go extinct, so you not only hate current children, but future
children.

Smart growth is a step backwards, not a move towards the future, based
on an idealized past which never existed.

Your hatred of future generations is astounding.

You do not protect the future by merely saying you want to. Idealized
pasts are the realm of dictators, fascists and idiots. Smart growth is
nothing more than idealization of a past which never existed, and a
high-crime proposal at that.

It's a shame you're so ignorant and hateful, and can only respond with
drivel.

[george conklin]

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by george conklin
You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the
desire

is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want
design to convince them not to move there, although it is legally
possible.

Well, if you have your way there won't be a livable environment,
period. I guess that means that you want to convince future
generations to go extinct, so you not only hate current children, but
future children.

Smart growth is a step backwards, not a move towards the future,
based on an idealized past which never existed.

Your hatred of future generations is astounding.

You do not protect the future by merely saying you want to. Idealized
pasts are the realm of dictators, fascists and idiots. Smart growth is
nothing more than idealization of a past which never existed, and a
high-crime proposal at that.

It's a shame you're so ignorant and hateful, and can only respond with
drivel.

Asserting that fake utopian dreams protect the future is nonsense of the
highest order.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by george conklin

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by george conklin
You do not protect the future by merely saying you want to. Idealized
pasts are the realm of dictators, fascists and idiots. Smart growth is
nothing more than idealization of a past which never existed, and a
high-crime proposal at that.

It's a shame you're so ignorant and hateful, and can only respond with
drivel.

Asserting that fake utopian dreams protect the future is nonsense of the
highest order.

I didn't assert that. Besides, I called your position "drivel" before you
called what you represented as my position "nonsense", so I win. And to
complete my rhetorical victory, I further add "so nyah".

[Pat]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get
the
idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good job of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the desire is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a very hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design to
convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Any ATTEMPT to deny anyone housing based on Familial Status (i.e.
presence ot children) is illegal. Period. End of sentence.

It cannot even be discussed by a public board.

It doesn't matter if they are technically allowed or not, it is the
end result that matters: the pattern.

If you have been involved in Planning Board meetings that attempt to
keep children out of an area -- or if you have attended such a meeting
and not reported it -- then you are part of the discriminatory
process.

[george conklin]

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
Unfortunately the link is broken with the newspaper, but you get
the
idea.
Build a transit village with smart growth, and you won't have to
educate
children.

Is this where you found it?
http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/recentheadarch.html
Glad to see you're embracing Smart Growth.

That and other articles show that advocates of smart growth want to design
children out, and are out open about it. Portland has done a good
job
of
this.

Nothing about WANTING to design children out is implied by the
headline.
I think that they WANT to design for rich, white folk and rich, white
folk just don't happen to have many kids.

You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the
desire
is
to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning guides to show
this. It is part of official discussions about development, and a
very
hot
topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design to
convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Any ATTEMPT to deny anyone housing based on Familial Status (i.e.
presence ot children) is illegal. Period. End of sentence.
It cannot even be discussed by a public board.

Well, in fact, it is, and is all the time. It might now show up in the
minutes, but the number of future possible student enrollees is contained in
the submissions given by developers, and is even given to the school board
for comments on a school-by-school basis too.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the
desire is to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning
guides to show this. It is part of official discussions about
development, and a very hot topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design to
convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Any ATTEMPT to deny anyone housing based on Familial Status (i.e.
presence ot children) is illegal. Period. End of sentence.
It cannot even be discussed by a public board.

Well, in fact, it is, and is all the time. It might now show up in the
minutes, but the number of future possible student enrollees is contained
in the submissions given by developers, and is even given to the school
board for comments on a school-by-school basis too.

If you have proof that it actually happens, then take it to the FBI and get
the perpetrators indicted. Since you haven't, we must assume that, like
most of the crap that comes out of your mouth, it's not actually true and
it's just yet another FAct you've made up to support your position.

And don't say the feds aren't interested; the FBI has set up an ongoing task
force here just to indict our city council members and the developers who
bribe them. They _love_ hitting dirty politicians as long as they're
outside
DC (where they know better than to investigate).

S

[[e-mail]]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the
desire is to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning
guides to show this. It is part of official discussions about
development, and a very hot topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design to
convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Any ATTEMPT to deny anyone housing based on Familial Status (i.e.
presence ot children) is illegal. Period. End of sentence.
It cannot even be discussed by a public board.

Well, in fact, it is, and is all the time. It might now show up in the
minutes, but the number of future possible student enrollees is contained
in the submissions given by developers, and is even given to the school
board for comments on a school-by-school basis too.

If you have proof that it actually happens, then take it to the FBI and get
the perpetrators indicted. Since you haven't, we must assume that, like
most of the crap that comes out of your mouth, it's not actually true and
it's just yet another FAct you've made up to support your position.
And don't say the feds aren't interested; the FBI has set up an ongoing task
force here just to indict our city council members and the developers who
bribe them. They _love_ hitting dirty politicians as long as they're
outside
DC (where they know better than to investigate).
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

GEORGE YOU ARE CONKED AGAIN. ARE YOU NOT GETTING TIRED OF GETTING HIT
UP SIDE THE HEAD? QUIT LYING, GEORGE.


Randy

[o***@hotmail.com]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the
desire is to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning
guides to show this. It is part of official discussions about
development, and a very hot topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design to
convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Any ATTEMPT to deny anyone housing based on Familial Status (i.e.
presence ot children) is illegal. Period. End of sentence.
It cannot even be discussed by a public board.

Well, in fact, it is, and is all the time. It might now show up in the
minutes, but the number of future possible student enrollees is contained
in the submissions given by developers, and is even given to the school
board for comments on a school-by-school basis too.

If you have proof that it actually happens, then take it to the FBI and get
the perpetrators indicted. Since you haven't, we must assume that, like
most of the crap that comes out of your mouth, it's not actually true and
it's just yet another FAct you've made up to support your position.
And don't say the feds aren't interested; the FBI has set up an ongoing task
force here just to indict our city council members and the developers who
bribe them. They _love_ hitting dirty politicians as long as they're
outside
DC (where they know better than to investigate).

The bribery reference isn't clear, but it is standard in all
development applications in New Jersey, for example, for planning and
zoning boards to demand estimates of the number of schoolchildren. Of
course, their efficacy is open to question. What is not open to
question is that in states like New Jersey that permit exclusionary
communities, age limits and the number of dependents are strictly
enforced. The municipalities view such communities as revenue cows,
without incurring the expense of education.

That expense, by the way, constitutes two-thirds of the tax levy in a
typical municipality.

[george conklin]

Post by o***@hotmail.com

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the
desire is to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning
guides to show this. It is part of official discussions about
development, and a very hot topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want
design
to
convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Any ATTEMPT to deny anyone housing based on Familial Status (i.e.
presence ot children) is illegal. Period. End of sentence.
It cannot even be discussed by a public board.

Well, in fact, it is, and is all the time. It might now show up in the
minutes, but the number of future possible student enrollees is contained
in the submissions given by developers, and is even given to the school
board for comments on a school-by-school basis too.

If you have proof that it actually happens, then take it to the FBI and get
the perpetrators indicted. Since you haven't, we must assume that, like
most of the crap that comes out of your mouth, it's not actually true and
it's just yet another FAct you've made up to support your position.
And don't say the feds aren't interested; the FBI has set up an ongoing task
force here just to indict our city council members and the developers who
bribe them. They _love_ hitting dirty politicians as long as they're
outside
DC (where they know better than to investigate).

The bribery reference isn't clear, but it is standard in all
development applications in New Jersey, for example, for planning and
zoning boards to demand estimates of the number of schoolchildren. Of
course, their efficacy is open to question. What is not open to
question is that in states like New Jersey that permit exclusionary
communities, age limits and the number of dependents are strictly
enforced. The municipalities view such communities as revenue cows,
without incurring the expense of education.
That expense, by the way, constitutes two-thirds of the tax levy in a
typical municipality.

This is happening all over the nation. However, in NC the state pays for
the teachers. All teachers are state, not local, employees. Local areas
might supplement the pay, if they wish, and they need to construct the
school buildings themselves.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by o***@hotmail.com

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by george conklin
Well, in fact, it is, and is all the time. It might now show up in
the minutes, but the number of future possible student enrollees
is contained in the submissions given by developers, and is
even given to the school board for comments on a school-by-
school basis too.

If you have proof that it actually happens, then take it to the FBI
and get the perpetrators indicted. Since you haven't, we must
assume that, like most of the crap that comes out of your mouth,
it's not actually true and it's just yet another FAct you've made up
to support your position.
And don't say the feds aren't interested; the FBI has set up an
ongoing task force here just to indict our city council members
and the developers who bribe them. They _love_ hitting dirty
politicians as long as they're outside DC (where they know
better than to investigate).

The bribery reference isn't clear, but it is standard in all
development applications in New Jersey, for example, for
planning and zoning boards to demand estimates of the number
of schoolchildren. Of course, their efficacy is open to question.
What is not open to question is that in states like New Jersey that
permit exclusionary communities, age limits and the number of
dependents are strictly enforced. The municipalities view such
communities as revenue cows, without incurring the expense of
education.

Either it's illegal and the perps should be indicted, it's legal and the law
needs to be changed to address it, or there simply isn't any proof it's
happening (if it really is).

Post by o***@hotmail.com
That expense, by the way, constitutes two-thirds of the tax levy in a
typical municipality.

The schools account for 48% of the property tax bill where I live (in the
city) and 30% where my parents live (in the suburbs) -- but they have much
better schools than I do.

S

[o***@hotmail.com]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by o***@hotmail.com

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by george conklin
Well, in fact, it is, and is all the time. It might now show up in
the minutes, but the number of future possible student enrollees
is contained in the submissions given by developers, and is
even given to the school board for comments on a school-by-
school basis too.

If you have proof that it actually happens, then take it to the FBI
and get the perpetrators indicted. Since you haven't, we must
assume that, like most of the crap that comes out of your mouth,
it's not actually true and it's just yet another FAct you've made up
to support your position.
And don't say the feds aren't interested; the FBI has set up an
ongoing task force here just to indict our city council members
and the developers who bribe them. They _love_ hitting dirty
politicians as long as they're outside DC (where they know
better than to investigate).

The bribery reference isn't clear, but it is standard in all
development applications in New Jersey, for example, for
planning and zoning boards to demand estimates of the number
of schoolchildren. Of course, their efficacy is open to question.
What is not open to question is that in states like New Jersey that
permit exclusionary communities, age limits and the number of
dependents are strictly enforced. The municipalities view such
communities as revenue cows, without incurring the expense of
education.

Either it's illegal and the perps should be indicted, it's legal and the law
needs to be changed to address it, or there simply isn't any proof it's
happening (if it really is).

Post by o***@hotmail.com
That expense, by the way, constitutes two-thirds of the tax levy in a
typical municipality.

The schools account for 48% of the property tax bill where I live (in the
city) and 30% where my parents live (in the suburbs) -- but they have much
better schools than I do.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

There was a fascinating article several years comparing the relatively
low expenditures of the South Brunswick, N.J, schools and their
performance with those of hugely subsidized urban districts elsewhere
in New Jersey. It was no contest.

And 10 years and billions spent for the 30 so-called Abbott districts
bears that out in clarion terms.

[Clark F Morris]

On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 14:21:27 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin

Post by Pat

Post by george conklin
You have not participated in years of zoning decisions where the
desire is to cut out children. There are fomulas built into zoning
guides to show this. It is part of official discussions about
development, and a very hot topic in Raleigh, for example.

Cool. Sue them. If they are trying to cut out children, they are
violating Fair Housing law. That's black letter law.

No it is not. Children are allowed. It is just that they want design to
convince them not to move there, although it is legally possible.

Any ATTEMPT to deny anyone housing based on Familial Status (i.e.
presence ot children) is illegal. Period. End of sentence.
It cannot even be discussed by a public board.

Well, in fact, it is, and is all the time. It might now show up in the
minutes, but the number of future possible student enrollees is contained
in the submissions given by developers, and is even given to the school
board for comments on a school-by-school basis too.

If you have proof that it actually happens, then take it to the FBI and get
the perpetrators indicted. Since you haven't, we must assume that, like
most of the crap that comes out of your mouth, it's not actually true and
it's just yet another FAct you've made up to support your position.

Since this would be an added burden on the school district in states
other than George's where the schools are funded the state, making a
contribution to the school district for the capital costs of adding
capacity might be a requirement to get a permit. Having said this,
communities throughout the nation really don't want affordable housing
and the suburbs that encourage office and retail developments can get
quite creative about it. George is right that most suburbs don't want
too many children and don't even want to provide the ability for lower
wage employees to live in them.

Post by Stephen Sprunk
And don't say the feds aren't interested; the FBI has set up an ongoing task
force here just to indict our city council members and the developers who
bribe them. They _love_ hitting dirty politicians as long as they're
outside
DC (where they know better than to investigate).
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov

[Stephen Sprunk]

Having said this, communities throughout the nation really don't
want affordable housing and the suburbs that encourage office
and retail developments can get quite creative about it. George
is right that most suburbs don't want too many children and
don't even want to provide the ability for lower wage employees
to live in them.

You got that half-right. They don't want lower wage employees; the median
income in an average suburb here is double the median in the "city", and in
the best ones it's triple.

However, the reason they don't want lower wage earners, besides elitism, is
that income levels and crime rates are inversely related. Our inner-city
schools get 50% more tax revenue per kid, yet have all kinds of gang and
drug problems, low test scores, etc. The suburbs don't want those problems
spreading to their areas, so they put up zoning obstacles to prevent
low-income folks from moving out of the city. Now some are also passing
ordinances on maximum occupancy, citizenship checks, criminal background
checks, minimum deposits/down payments, etc. But, of course, they need
subsidized freeways so all those poor people can come out to clean their
toilets, mow their lawns, and raise their children...

S

[Clark F Morris]

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 15:03:49 -0500, "Stephen Sprunk"

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Having said this, communities throughout the nation really don't
want affordable housing and the suburbs that encourage office
and retail developments can get quite creative about it. George
is right that most suburbs don't want too many children and
don't even want to provide the ability for lower wage employees
to live in them.

You got that half-right. They don't want lower wage employees; the median
income in an average suburb here is double the median in the "city", and in
the best ones it's triple.
However, the reason they don't want lower wage earners, besides elitism, is
that income levels and crime rates are inversely related. Our inner-city
schools get 50% more tax revenue per kid, yet have all kinds of gang and
drug problems, low test scores, etc. The suburbs don't want those problems
spreading to their areas, so they put up zoning obstacles to prevent
low-income folks from moving out of the city. Now some are also passing
ordinances on maximum occupancy, citizenship checks, criminal background
checks, minimum deposits/down payments, etc. But, of course, they need
subsidized freeways so all those poor people can come out to clean their
toilets, mow their lawns, and raise their children...

They want the work done but not the people who do the work. They want
the industrial, retail or office rateable but not the people who make
that rateable work (the janitors, maintenance people, clerks, etc.).

Post by Stephen Sprunk
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov