Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [carfree_cities] Do public schools cause sprawl ??

Expand Messages
  • Jym Dyer
    ... =v= There are good and bad schools in both cities and suburbs. I can see how it may seem more economic and practical to find a hyped-as-better school in
    Message 1 of 2 , Jan 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > Even if the parents prefer to live in town, moving to the
      > suburbs becomes the economic and practical way to get their
      > children into a better school.

      =v= There are good and bad schools in both cities and suburbs.
      I can see how it may seem more "economic and practical" to find
      a hyped-as-better school in the 'burbs than in a more expensive
      part of the city, but is this perception or reality? The car-
      sprawl suburban lifestyle often has higher out-of-pocket costs
      in the long term, and of course the hidden and subsidized costs
      are always higher.

      =v= I haven't seen any evidence showing that suburban schools
      provide a consistently better education than urban schools, and
      my own experience suggests otherwise. I *have* seen evidence
      that living in the suburbs is more dangerous for children than
      living in the cities, primarily because of cars, which puts
      the lie to the other prevailing perception about moving to the
      'burbs for the sake of the children.

      > Any real estate agent will tell the importance of school
      > district in determining real estate demand and values.

      =v= Hmm, and yet urban demand and property values are generally
      higher.

      > So here's the very un-PC question:

      =v= Ugh. Since "peecee" is a chimeric appeal to a form of
      _ad_hominem_ argument, it really adds nothing to discourse.
      It's an appeal to ignore actual considerations by making an
      association with chimeric elements. Introducing the term
      into discourse tends to dumb it down, and it's been proven
      by top scientists that doing so lowers your IQ by one point.
      (You may have points to spare, but a mind is a terrible thing
      to ... you know.)

      > Does the current public school system create sprawl?

      =v= For the most part, you've the cart is ahead of the horse
      here. There is problem with states and localities establishing
      zoning laws that force schools to use a lot of land, which leads
      to having them sited further away, and *that* creates sprawl,
      but that's a separate problem.

      > And conversely, will true school choice help the cities, and
      > create more compact urban geographies?

      =v= "True school choice" is conservative/propertarian code for
      applying the so-called free market to yet another venture where
      it's never really worked. Conservatives and propertarians might
      better expend their energies on the fact that sprawl was created
      with massive public sector subsidy and requires much more of
      same to prop it up. Get ahold of _The_Elephant_in_the_Bedroom_,
      by Stanley Hart _et_al_.
      <_Jym_>
    • turpin
      ... Yeah, but the parents aren t moving to arbitrary suburbs. If it s easier to move to a good school district in the suburbs than one in town, this would
      Message 2 of 2 , Jan 3, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In carfree_cities@y..., Jym Dyer <jym@e...> wrote:
        > I haven't seen any evidence showing that suburban schools
        > provide a consistently better education than urban schools,
        > and my own experience suggests otherwise. ..

        Yeah, but the parents aren't moving to arbitrary suburbs.
        If it's easier to move to a good school district in the
        suburbs than one in town, this would encourage sprawl.
        This might be the case because the presence of good
        schools drives even higher the already expensive real
        estate in town. The point is that coupling school
        selection to where one lives interferes with factors
        that otherwise drive this choice. I don't think the
        migration of new parents out of the city is just my
        imagination, nor that school district plays a role in
        this.

        Without this artificial coupling, cities would be
        attractive to parents of school-age children precisely
        *because* they naturally offer a wide choice of schools
        in a compact area. Even without knowing the needs of
        their children in advance, parents in a city would
        be confident of a good school nearby. If parents had
        such choice, that might actually drive some parents
        from the suburbs into cities. Suzy could attend the
        High School for Performing Arts, while Jimmy attends
        a middle school for academically advanced students,
        and both are less than two miles distant, so both can
        walk to school. But parents DON'T have this kind of
        choice. When they're locked into one middle school and
        one high school, parents do what they can to find a
        district that offers a lot all around, or that offers
        what they think their kids will need.

        > Since "peecee" is a chimeric appeal to a form of
        > _ad_hominem_ argument, it really adds nothing to
        > discourse. It's an appeal to ignore actual
        > considerations by making an association with
        > chimeric elements. ..

        Hmmm.

        > "True school choice" is conservative/propertarian
        > code ..

        Double hmmm.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.