Friday, June 3, 2011

Hot topic: Why doesn't the city require developers to invest in San Francisco schools?

This from a reader:
Many new developments are required to set aside units for affordable housing, and to sometimes to contribute to transportation system improvements. It seems that providing more funds for public schools is at least as important an objective. In fact, better public schools, help to make living in San Francisco more affordable. Two problems are solved together.

Where are the voices demanding that the Mayor and Board of Supervisors focus on school funding, and not only "affordable housing" and transit?

12 comments:

  1. This is a good idea. When they require low income housing, it's counter-productive. Spend money to help the poor we already have get middle class so we have no one in SF in poverty. Let people own projects over time so they can get equity and sell and it becomes market housing. When you require low income housing, you add kids to the mix that create schools middle class and upper class people avoid, go private or move to avoid, kids who don't study, test poorly, blame others and have behavioral and sometimes criminal problems, people who if they stay in SF fill up our jails and take our scarce tax dollars. If you make all housing market, and require a tax to be paid to make schools better, we can help hire tutors and get these poor kids into the middle class and better our City. Reuqiring low income housing makes SF worse. Requiring tax for the schools makes it better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. San Francisco doesn't put any discretionary money into schools. It really should, you could attract a lot of people and help the poor get better. You could make this a better City. It's no surprise they don't push for this, they try to draw more poverty to the City. They spend on the arts, transit, consultants, everything, but we don't spend more than Fresno per pupil despite having $5 in tax per pupil vs. $1 in Fresno. Noe of our extra taxes goes to our schools and this should change. We don't spend more per pupil because we have fewer kids, more in private, and more income. We let all these great opportunities go towards other things. What a waste! Schools are the only way to help the poor get rich or well off. Giving money to the homeless doesn't help, they're lost by that point, but good schools and tutors could help these kids never become poor or homeless in the first place. We spend money enforcing victimless crimes (marijuana, prostitution, cocaine, gambling, ecstasy), hiring consultants, paying for the homeless to do drugs, for 30 people to do nothing at the old Cabrillo site, for unneeded police overtime (10 cops dealing with one drunken argument or eating donuts, see it all the time), etc. We need to spend this money on our schools. Marin has similar stats and spends 50% more. We have the money to spend as much as Marin does, same average income, % of kids, but we choose to spend less. It's a disgrace! The supervisors are from the ruling class that sends their kids to private school so they don't care enough to spend any discretionary funds on our schools. They pretend to be liberal but they're really stooges of the ruling class. They simply don't care! That's why Chris Daly, after blocking spending on schools for years for other projects, became a white flighter and Angela Alioto, after blocking spending for schools for years, sent her kids to private school, and these are just two examples.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. When my family renovated our current house in the late 90s and added two additional bedroom, the city required us to write a five figure check per each bedroom for SFUSD. Has anyone actually researched this for accuracy?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Or perhaps this is a case where households' renovating a derelict and condemned house into a family home face fees that developers of multi-family housing avoid?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It really doesn't amount to much. I think we should make this our highest priority. We should get rid of all the bureaucrats and consultants and hire tutors and counsellors, and more teachers. Come on, we get $5 per pupil for every $1 Fresno gets, we could spend more.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Why not have a 2% restaurant tax go to the schools, big deal, a buck, and a 10 cent gas tax. We need some special taxes dedicated to the schools. Prop 13 is unchangeable for the near future, but we need more money in our schools.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Those impact fees are mitigation measures of the environmental impact report. The development is directly related to housing and transportion impacts. The fees are directly related to fixing the problems caused by the development. The fees are not a piggy bank for the city to just impose because it wants the money.

    ReplyDelete