Foraker

Let's take a step back. New Jersey was not cited for the way it raises money, it was cited as a starting point for how much money should be spent overall that leads to what is generally perceived to be a quality education. (Someone above threw out numbers like $40,000 and $100,000 per student and asked how much would be enough/too much -- that's where the reference to NJ's $18,000 spend arose.) Again, that's a starting point. In Ohio, that number should be different than in NJ. The average spend per student in Ohio probably should be less than $18,208; I agree that Ohio currently spends less than that from all sources, local, state, and federal, combined. How the funding for public schools should be allocated between local taxes (property taxes seem to be the preference) and state funding is going to vary by state. And Ohio's Supreme Court has not said that local property taxes can't be part of the mix, they've just said that the state is asking local communities to contribute too much -- that it is the state's obligation to meet basic needs for public education under the Ohio Constitution. It isn't relevant to that discussion what the mix is between local and state funding in New Jersey, or whether New Jersey's funding mix would pass Ohio's constitutional requirement. The state of Ohio should be funding more of public school budgets than it is (under $5,000 per student on average), particularly in high poverty schools, but I would expect that the state will never be willing to match NJ' s $18,000+ per student average while also meeting the Court's order not to "excessively" rely on local contributions. The Court has become more conservative, so what is excessive today is likely to be different than what was excessive under the original DeRolph ruling. I'd like to see the state increase its share significantly -- fully funding the bipartisan Fair Funding Plan seems like a good starting point. What is your argument against that plan? (The state says that they can't afford it, but that is shown to be a lie as shown by the increased funding for vouchers and yet more tax cuts.) How can the state afford to fund the Fair Funding Plan and fund vouchers?

Choice is excellent -- it's just more expensive. I'm not opposed to choice, and I might even be willing to pay taxes to support it, but I'm opposed to the state choosing not to spend enough on public schools. If the state fully funds the public schools and has money left over, go ahead and give out vouchers instead of tax breaks. But the state has decided instead to cut taxes, claim "insufficient funds" and delay fully funding public schools while increasing expenditures on vouchers. The burden of making up the difference is falling on local property owners. That is why more than 20% of the school districts in Ohio are suing the state. The bipartisan Fair Funding Plan should have been fully funded before expanding vouchers or enacting more tax cuts.

"Ohio" does not spend $13,387 per student -- if they did we probably would not have 130 school districts suing the state, again, for more funding. From that same report: I maintain that the state of Ohio is not providing sufficient financial support to "failing" schools -- and I do not know what amount is enough, but the burden should be on the state not the local community to provide the baseline of what is needed. If we are arguing for better schools, NJ is ranked #1 in the country, so that is a good reason to look at NJ. I'm sure that the part of the state near NYC is some of the most expensive places to live in the country, but there are rural areas in NJ as well. NJ also is still struggling with their funding formula. Check out this report. NJ appears to feel like they are competing with Massachusetts in education. https://www.njpp.org/publications/report/new-jersey-school-funding-the-higher-the-goals-the-higher-the-costs/

What's the population of the Cleveland MSA -- about 2.0M? So about 6.5% government employees? How are we defining "government jobs" here? Teachers and firefighters included? Is this municipal employees only? County employees? How does that compare to other big cities -- Minneapolis has a big regional government, right? -- what about NYC, LA, Seattle, Atlanta, Charlotte, Boston, Columbus, Cincinnati, Louisville -- how do these other big cities compare on percentage of population being government employees? In Ohio (tenth in population, 22nd in per capita government spending, and 39th in government employees at all levels) we're at 14% government employees (but that is at all levels, not just local). https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/05/13/states-where-the-most-people-work-for-the-government/39461227/ Are there other big cities that have consolidated their municipal governments and employ far fewer people per capita than the Cleveland MSA's 6.5%?

With apologies, I'm not going to respond to most of your post to stay focused on education funding. And I'll take part of the blame for distracting you with extraneous commentary. I completely agree that disciplinary problems in some schools is a big problem that needs more attention. Violence in schools can't be tolerated. But I don't know how that can be 100% prevented -- facetiously, I would hope that you would agree that more guns would not decrease the violence in violent schools. Do violent schools fail to provide the safe environment that we expect -- yes. Do all kids fail to learn in those schools? No, some do despite that. Most schools have bullies, despite efforts to address that problem. Are those schools failures -- to at least some of the bullied kids they are. "Failure" depends on the goal. What is the educational goal? Graduation? High school test scores? Post-secondary placement? If a poor student in a failing school learns to read and do basic math but doesn't graduate, did the school fail? The answer might be yes, but it depends on how you define failure. Point 1: I think people have different definitions of what defines a "failing" school and we should try to find common ground on that definition as a starting point. From that conclusion, what do we do to overcome the problems of a failing school? Do vouchers solve the problem? Do voucher students succeed where their public school failed? Point 2: You suggested that we are spending too much on failing schools, are you suggesting that we should cut our losses, close "failing" schools and just give the kids vouchers? You asked how much is "enough" -- I think we ask the education experts. What do they need and what makes a difference -- do small class sizes, highly paid teachers, extra security staff, extra counselors, wraparound services to provide support to the families to make sure they have adequate food and housing and jobs -- make a difference in our measurable goals? If it is a "school" problem, then why don't charter schools outperform public schools? https://www.thecentersquare.com/ohio/article_1fa93d24-06d0-11ee-9f30-730750397ef8.html And if it's a poverty problem, shouldn't the state do more to address the poverty problems of families with kids in school? New Jersey has some of the best schools in the country and spends about $18,000 per student. Ohio is spending $4,625 per student. Neither is anywhere near $40,000. So that gives us a range. Maybe the state could start with providing $18,000 per student in the big inner city schools that are currently "failing" and find the best way to spend that money. Point 3: If our experience with charter schools is any indication, letting a small number of kids "escape" via vouchers without addressing the poverty-related problems will not reduce the number of students in "failing" schools.

Vouchers don't reach very far. Few inner-city school kids or rural county school kids have options because there aren't any voucher schools nearby or they lack the means to get to them. Particularly in our designed-for-car-owners culture, it's the suburban middle class who is best positioned to take advantage of alternatives. It's helping families who really don't need the help. As you observed, most families using vouchers were already going to private schools, vouchers just makes it easier for them. We'll see how it works out over the next few years but I'd be extremely surprised if Ohio's education rankings changes much from our current middle-of-the-pack status.

I think we disagree with what public money is for. Your first quote suggests that vouchers are good because the money comes back to the individual family that paid the taxes. I see taxes as part of my obligation as a member of society, and taxes should be spent to benefit society -- all of us, and perhaps more so -- the least of us. Ironically the party that wears their Christianity on their sleeve agrees that tax money should follow the individual, tax breaks are more important than needs of the poor, and funding for the public education community can wait. And I agree -- almost all of the vouchers will be used by families who already have the means to send their kids to private schools and would have done so anyway. That still doesn't tell us how much the state budgeted for vouchers.

Education research has repeatedly shown that test scores are correlated with family wealth more than school district or success in life. How are you defining "failing"? Ohio says that they cannot fully fund public schools even up to the Fair Funding Formula, but Ohio can afford vouchers so that kids from families with the resources to get their kid to a private school can "escape" the "trap." Congratulations on your expectation of increased property values, that is probably what will eventually raise Akron's test scores. Maybe you're right -- but I cited the source that prompted my comment. Ohio's reliance on property taxes to fund schools has repeatedly been found to be excessive and unconstitutional. I am surprised that the Republican supermajority has not simply amended the state constitution on this point.

This is like saying that the median graduate of Harvard -- one of if not the most selective college in the country -- is smarter than the median graduate of (name any school that admits 70% or more of its applicants -- 90% of all US colleges). We have no idea how big of a difference a voucher school's "educators" are when they get to cherry pick the best students. I continue to believe that the "schools of last resort" -- the schools that must take all applicants, should be given more resources. That they need more resources to educate the hardest-to-educate, and that society is ultimately better for that investment over the long term. Taking money out of the already-deficient education budget to spend on vouchers is going to continue rather than reverse Ohio's downward slide.

If 10% of the 1.6m public school students take vouchers, that's a reduction of ($4,625*160000=$740m) from the $7.4B public school budget, bringing it down to $6.7B. But if half take elementary vouchers ($6,165*80000) and half take high school vouchers ($8,407*80000) that's nearly $1.2B -- a lot more than the $740m in savings. So what is the total spend that the state has allocated to education? How many students can get vouchers for the first time in this next cycle before the budget is met? I have not yet seen any evidence that there is any limit. And I have not seen any evidence of a dollar amount allocated for voucher payments -- the state seems to have written a blank check and are just hoping that it won't be too many too soon. I hope I'm wrong about that. Fortunately the public school districts are not impacted by the vouchers in the same way they used to be. If the public system loses students, it will be at an average of $4,625 per student lost* -- the public school is not "charged" the voucher amount ($6k or $8k -- much more than they were receiving from the state) which was what happened under the old system. (*The state has a more complex calculation of how much each school will receive based on multiple factors, including poverty and real estate values in the district, so most districts will get more or less than that, but it's still a calculation that does not take into account voucher awards in that district.)

A claw-back clause for any project that doesn't actually start using the money within 24 months! Oh, you mean projects....

No one can tell us the total dollar amount that Ohio budgeted for vouchers because there is none -- "crazy spending" is not Michigan's problem. At least they actually have a budgeted amount.

As discussed above, under the voucher system in Ohio we are giving $6,165 for K to 8 students and $8,407 for high schoolers who use vouchers. Total cost: unknown. The state budget for public (non-charter) schools is $7.4B for Ohio's 1.6m public school students, or an average of $4,625 per student. Ohio spent another $1.01B on charter schools. https://www.the74million.org/article/new-ohio-school-budget-law-makes-historic-strides-in-k-12-education/ Meanwhile, Michigan just passed a budget that spends $24.3B on education, an average of $9,608 per student, double Ohio's expenditure. https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4109056-whitmer-signs-24-3-billion-michigan-education-budget-bill/ One year won't make a difference. But if this pattern continues, Ohio will fall behind.

This bicycle trailer holds around 600 lbs and can work well with an electric bike. https://ebiketips.road.cc/content/reviews/heavy-duty-three-wheeler-trailer/carla-cargo-trailer-3839 In Asia small motorcycle-motor cargo tuk-tuks can carry up to about 1300 lbs. https://rafplay.com/products/megawheels-cargo-tuk-tuk-electric-3-wheels-scooter-trolley-1-7-mtr?variant=39925787033623 A small cargo van can carry around 1500 lbs https://www.caranddriver.com/ford/transit-connect A standard cargo van can carry about 3800 lbs https://www.jdpower.com/cars/shopping-guides/what-can-you-fit-in-a-9-foot-cargo-van If you make "big" deliveries early in the morning with a larger truck (which also is ideal because there is less traffic) you can certainly "top up" deliveries where needed with smaller vehicles.

I think we agree that gerrymandering that means the officeholder has no competition is problematic. But "impenetrable Democratic strongholds" only exist because Republicans fail to endorse policies that actually help minorities in their day-to-day lives and instead spend time banning drag book reading and abortion. Minorities are not inherently monolithic in their beliefs and not inherently Democrats. You want to be the law and order party -- start by rescinding the energy company bailout, increasing support for police pay and training. You want to be the party of families -- provide more support for maternity care and childcare and early childhood education and childhood vaccinations. You want to be the party of business -- make it easier to start small businesses in minority districts -- they need funding and banks won't take that risk. Solve some real problems. Drag book readings are not the problem.

I'm not saying that we should only have 90 miles of range in every car, but particularly in 2-car families many, many people would have more than enough range at that distance. I drive about less than 20 miles per day, round trip, on my commute. Tesla's prices aren't affordable (yet) for most Americans; and I think that something "less" would be a great second car. The Leaf is still near $30k, not that much cheaper than a base Model 3 at around $38k (and both also come with a one-time expense of installing a home charger -- assuming you own a home -- not sure what you do if you're renting; petition your landlord). The median household income in Ohio is only $65k. My point is that there's not enough competition for sub-$30k EVs. I agree that the Tesla has set the standard and at that price point and this point in EV development, the Model 3 is pretty amazing. But that doesn't it make it universally affordable. And a car is near-universally "necessary" in most of Ohio.

Good to hear some positive experiences. If "something with about 40 miles of range" is sufficient, just think how useful a vehicle with say, 80 miles of range would be -- lighter, cheaper, and you should still get 40m of range even in the winter for many years even as the cold saps the battery and the capacity drops with age. The drive to "match" ICE ranges really drives up the weight and the cost and just isn't necessary.

Ok. I don't know the exact rationale, but maybe to avoid situations where drivers just smash into your vehicles, otherwise crash and lose control, or drive up onto the sidewalk and endanger bystanders or other drivers. Get them on video behaving badly, track 'em from the air, find out where they live, and pick them up later. Seems like that could be a better approach, if slower. As long as they don't cause any accidents in the meantime....

What is the rationale -- because whatever they could be charged with is just a misdemeanor? Do you have to leave an out for drivers at sobriety checkpoints? bank robbers too? Terrorists? We can get ridiculous in a hurry.

There are ways to make urban deliveries easier and more efficient than they are now, but I think we all agree that the efficiencies will never reach your ideal Big Box multi-loading dock, just-off-the-highway delivery model that you say is the most efficient. Don't confuse discussions about how deliveries can be made in urban areas differently than from the outer 'burbs as disagreement with the acknowledged fact that things sold in smaller urban establishments are going to be more expensive than in a big suburban box. You probably know far more about Twitter than I do, but putting down other commenters for their opinions is probably more likely to get you blocked on this forum than it is on Twitter. Keep it civil.

Cops need small rockets that fly into the tailpipe and foam up, blocking the exhaust and stopping the bike. :-)

Nailed it. Couldn't have said it better. Define "efficient" and for whom. Retail in car-only strip malls externalize the cost of transporting the goods "the last mile" to the consumer (who now has to buy a $30k car and spend $2k per year on gas and maintenance just to get to your retailer). The most efficient system for the manufacturer is the factory outlet in the same building. Few companies only have that point of sale. Maybe efficiency in the manufacturer's distribution isn't the only consideration. And the added cost isn't because the neighborhood is walkable, the cost is because of the size of the store and the required delivery frequency. The 15-minute city doesn't mean that everyone is within 15 minutes of a Target and we need to have thousands of mini-Targets. Small towns don't all have Targets and no one expects that they ever will. You can still have walkable areas with retail (Crocker Park, Downtown, Legacy Village, Pinecrest, Van Aken, etc.) and that retail doesn't have to be tiny -- as long as you can access a transportation network to get there. If you're delivering to a bar or restaurant, those businesses are never going to "scale" in the same way and you're always going to have to make big deliveries to distribution centers that can then distribute locally. Rural and urban bars and restaurants each have unique challenges, including delivery of supply and supply of customers and workers. We should study how Europe manages their distribution into their old cities with narrow streets and carfree zones. My guess is that there are distribution centers on the outskirts, just like here, but that they use smaller vehicles for deliveries into the cities that are easier to maneuver and park. It probably is more expensive to make those deliveries -- but probably not so expensive as to keep Parisians from shopping or dining out with their less-car-use savings.

Then let's discuss -- I think the 15-minute-city is a great idea, but in practice we'll never get everything we want within 15 minutes. Plenty of small towns (and neighborhoods in large cities) don't have a doctor or a grocer or an optometrist and they have to travel to the "next town" for that. But it is an aspirational goal to work toward meeting community needs within 15 minutes. A public park, library branch, elementary school, child care, the local pub, a restaurant, hair dresser/barber, tailor, dry cleaner, shoe repair, etc. It is an excellent tool for planners to use in looking at a city and identifying areas that need a commercial district or a park or whatever public amenity is missing within that 15-minute boundary. And then to look across a broader area of networked 15-minute cities/towns/neighborhoods to see what amenities are missing from all of them, and how to facilitate people traveling to those amenities. And then you need mass transit, preferably rails but alternatively bus, for travel between neighboring cities/15-minute-neighborhoods for variety and to find the things missing from your own neighborhood. So, what do you think of the 15-minute-city concept?

I didn't feel like I got a good summary of the pros and cons of the 15minute city from this video. The title seems like a more accurate description of the video: "the anti-15-minute-city backlash is ridiculous" -- but she does try to guess at where the anti-15-minute-city conservatives are coming from, which seems like it would be an important starting point for discussions about what she got right and where she went wrong. I'm wholly in favor of urban areas having lots of 15-minute neighborhoods within them, but I don't believe that everyone would choose to live in that kind of neighborhood.

Interesting. I don't remember the McDonald's so I'm not exactly sure what lot that is, but hopefully someone can clue us in to what is going on. The CVS at Noble and Monticello is closed -- and I'd love to see that corner redeveloped. If I had a million dollars...