Re: [carfree_cities] Do public schools cause sprawl ??
> Even if the parents prefer to live in town, moving to the=v= There are good and bad schools in both cities and suburbs.
> suburbs becomes the economic and practical way to get their
> children into a better school.
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=v= Hmm, and yet urban demand and property values are generally
> district in determining real estate demand and values.
> 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=v= "True school choice" is conservative/propertarian code for
> create more compact urban geographies?
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_.
- --- In carfree_cities@y..., Jym Dyer <jym@e...> wrote:
> I haven't seen any evidence showing that suburban schoolsYeah, but the parents aren't moving to arbitrary suburbs.
> provide a consistently better education than urban schools,
> and my own experience suggests otherwise. ..
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
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 ofHmmm.
> _ad_hominem_ argument, it really adds nothing to
> discourse. It's an appeal to ignore actual
> considerations by making an association with
> chimeric elements. ..
> "True school choice" is conservative/propertarianDouble hmmm.
> code ..