|
Post by bob on Jan 16, 2007 14:11:34 GMT -6
But it's been stated over and over that townhouses don't generate many students. One person does not make it over and over.
|
|
|
Post by lacy on Jan 16, 2007 14:13:51 GMT -6
The numbers that have been provided numerous times (by others - not little old me) indicate that multifamily doesn't generate many students.
I think our esteemed SB members have even said it.
|
|
|
Post by bob on Jan 16, 2007 14:32:36 GMT -6
80 acres of any kind of housing is not going to bring in 35 students.
|
|
|
Post by doctorwho on Jan 16, 2007 14:37:30 GMT -6
80 acres of any kind of housing is not going to bring in 35 students. Same planning numbers as 180 apartments next to COD would yield 6 kids -- you have to wonder how - if this was true we'd have all kinds of open school space today.
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Jan 16, 2007 16:30:25 GMT -6
The numbers that have been provided numerous times (by others - not little old me) indicate that multifamily doesn't generate many students. I think our esteemed SB members have even said it. Its called conflict of interest, specifically between builders, realtors, and city planners, to get building permits pushed through and collect tax dollars while ignoring the effect on the SD's overcrowding. Our SB members attend every single one of the meetings where those tired statistics are brought forward to try to push through a mega-development of 6 bedroom townhomes, so they can dispute those numbers in an attempt to save the district. It is unfortunate that you are trying to use those same numbers to try to win a simple argument in the discussion. I'm not buying it.
|
|
|
Post by Avenging Eagle on Jan 16, 2007 16:35:57 GMT -6
Why are you guys wasting so much time on the possibility of new boundaries? BG already has stated that Macom is not an option. Please read the original post of this thread. Our SB offered to take the land for free, and if the builder agreed, then we would need to consider what boundary changes would be needed, if any. I would rather have a friendly discussion here to debate the topic, instead of waiting to see what the result was if the decisions were made behind closed doors by JC, CV, and the rest of the SB. Now that would be truly ugly. Another reason for the discussion is so that everyone realizes what the true implications would be if we were able to get the land for free and there was a site change further south. If you don't want to waste your time reading it, please return to the restaurant discussion threads.
|
|