Foraker

A rant about the dangers of the shift to bigger, heavier vehicles over the past 40 years.

Yes, but cleaner does not necessarily mean that the air is clean enough not to have a detrimental impact on our health.

Glad that you agree that property taxes are not the best way to fund schools. But it seems like you're not disagreeing with me that state income tax funding would be a suitable substitute, only that it wouldn't work politically. To that I would say (1) I doubt that property taxes would disappear entirely, those funds would just be shifted to another use. Limiting property taxes to county-wide or state-wide rates would simplify tax collection and make it easier for companies having multiple properties across the state (or in encouraging out-of-state companies to locate in Ohio without them having to dig through all the different tax rates in every municipality); and (2) I don't think that the income tax issue is as big of a problem as you do. I'm guessing we disagree on whether Ohio's income tax rates are high enough (no) or flat enough (too flat already). As a "self-employed" professional, I pay no state income tax. Which is RIDICULOUS.

Back to school funding. The state constitution requires the adequate funding of a public school system. If we were starting from scratch, how should we pay for the public schools? We've tried relying on local property taxes, and that hasn't worked. State funds (mostly generated via income tax) have been needed to fill the gaps, particularly in poorer communities which have greater needs and lower property values, and we have wide variations in property tax rates across the state. A state property tax rate would be simpler. We tried "public" charter schools run by private operators. I don't think the charter school system has worked. The "competition" has not improved traditional public schools. And the oversight of low-performing schools has been terrible. We should shut that program down or be a lot stricter about closing failing charter schools that can't outperform the local public school. Remember ECOT? https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2022/07/07/ecot-owes-ohio-117-million-what-are-we-going-to-do-about-it/ Eliminating charter schools altogether would eliminate the need for oversight that the state has failed to do (let current charter schools operate as private schools if they like, and they can compete for voucher students with other private schools). Beyond that, I'm also in favor of eliminating the use of property taxes to fund education. Fund schools from the general fund (income taxes, or income taxes plus a state property tax). Or restrict local property taxes for use for capital expenditures rather than operations, with the state funding operations. Maybe it's time for a state property tax to fund other state priorities, perhaps transportation in the state, something more closely tied to the land use. Or maybe we should allow local property taxes to go to the communities for roads and sidewalks and such, rather than schools -- infrastructure needs that seem much more tied to the property than schools. I would retain local control over school spending, just change the source of funds to be 100% from the state. Vouchers seem to be here to stay. I'm in favor of fully funding the next step of the phase-in of the Cupp-Patterson Fair School Funding Plan (I'd rather see it fully funded in a shorter time frame). I'd like to see each public school student receive state funding that is no less than the funding that each voucher recipient receives, but I'm not optimistic. What do you think?

Let me clarify -- I think we have a moral obligation to try to help every kid, and that the kids that come from lousy families need more help. AND I said that disruptive kids need to be removed from the classroom ASAP. I would agree that if you need more than minimal police presence in any school you have a real problem. I did not say that I expected every kid to be turned into a model or even non-disruptive student, at least during the typical school years. But I also think we need to put our heads together and figure out what best to do with the troubled kids who cannot be reformed into better students. Maybe help them get a job once they're 16 and let them know that they can come back for more education when and if they're ready. Something other than just kicking them out of school and waiting for them to injure (physically or financially) one of our fellow citizens and land in prison. And I think you're missing the meaning of the Parable of the Sower if you think that Jesus was saying that some people are beyond saving. Jesus says each individual must determine what kind of soil our hearts will be. We decide whether we will have a hard heart, a shallow heart, a crowded heart, or a receptive heart. "Therefore lay aside all filthiness and overflow of wickedness, and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls" (James 1:21). In fact, Jesus is encouraging his followers to be receptive to God's Word -- to let the seeds sprout. Quite different from "Meh, some seeds just won't ever sprout. C'est la vie."

I think we all agree that disruptive students need to be removed from classrooms quickly. Where we seem to disagree is that you are suggesting that keeping most of those kids out of trouble is a lost cause, and I suggest that giving up on kids is both immoral and more expensive for society in the long run. The question then is what to do with the disruptive kids once they are removed from the classroom, and I suggest that we need to find a way for them to get their issues addressed by someone suited to that particular task of helping the kid to not be disruptive and allow the teacher to teach and the remaining students to have an opportunity to learn. A child psychologist/counselor/social worker (or all of the above) is better suited to that task than most teachers. And if the parents are not going to be there to go to bat for them, they need an adult to mentor them, guide them, advocate for them, and encourage them in their education. Absolutely agree. But what does someone who has actually been a teacher suggest? I hope that this statement is just reaffirming what I said above -- teachers generally are not the best people to be focusing their attention on the disruptors.

Bully for you. Glad your parents were willing and able to help, and you were willing and able to get the most out of it. But what if the parents are uneducated, don't understand the value of education, or are just crappy parents who don't give @#$% about their kid's education? Are you suggesting that society gains nothing from attempting to help those kids, that the expense of the attempt just isn't worth it? That seems to be Gramarye's position. Just more fuel for the school-to-prison-profit pipeline?

The Amtrak train I was on was clean enough, the European train was surprisingly cleaner. Not a big deal. The ability to schedule a connection with a half-hour leeway sure beats air travel in the US -- an hour between connecting flights can be risky on some routes here. On-time performance for trains can make a big difference.

I took Amtrak from Cleveland to New Mexico a few years ago. Just back from a nameless, relatively poor European country (not Ukraine!) -- and I just want to cry over how much better the trains and the service on the trains was. Mostly on time, cleaner, more comfortable, smoother ride, friendly cart service -- c'mon America, why are you satisfied with third-rate train travel?!?

You might feel "shouted down" when you express your anti-abortion views, but you're not just expressing a difference of opinion when you insist on banning abortion for everyone. Catholics are free to insist that Catholics not have abortions. Go ahead. But if you say no one else can have abortions because of your opinion, then this isn't just "a viewpoint" we are failing to politely disagree about. Similarly, I don't care if you want to send your kids to private school. I just don't want public money going to an institution that isn't held to the same rules as public schools -- including the requirement to admit and educate every student. If you're picking only the best students from the best families for your school and excluding the rest, then you shouldn't get the public's money. "Public" should mean "all are welcome." After acknowledging that school districts in poor communities need more resources, you then argue that districts should receive less funding if they don't produce. I would agree that we should evaluate programs for continuous improvement, and make changes when things aren't working. This not a great analogy, but you can't say "alternators keep failing -- we need to spend less money building alternators" and expect to get better alternators. Maybe you need to find a different way to make alternators, not give up on having alternators. Yes, ONLY adding money doesn't solve any problem. But often that "doing something else" costs more than what is being done currently. When accounting for family education and wealth, private school students do no better than public school students. This is particularly apparent in charter schools. https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2021/11/03/state-report-cards-should-be-a-wakeup-call-for-ohios-charter-voucher-hawks/ So why spend money on charter schools? Or divert money from public schools to vouchers for private schools?

So, the best thing for society is to "delete" disruptive kids?!? Look, I can completely understand the reluctance to put your kids in a school where some number of kids are disrupting learning for everyone. But I disagree that just kicking kids -- KIDS -- to the curb is the best that society can do. Those kids need help. And it's clear that troubled kids are not getting enough of the right kind of help to deal with their disruptive behavior. And yes, we need to move away from every-kid-should-go-to-college that is causing a lot of problems. In fact, I believe that we need to completely re-think how we do education in this country. Starting with funding public schools based on the economic status of the student population. https://janresseger.wordpress.com/2015/12/07/ohio-researcher-proves-yet-again-that-test-scores-measure-primarily-family-income/ But one of the greatest achievements of the public school system in the U.S. is that it took this great "melting pot" of people from all over the world, with different beliefs and cultures, and brought the kids together in one place. I don't think we would be as tolerant of people who are different from us if we all segregate into different schools, and while I agree that not every kid is the right fit for a particular school, if we give everyone a voucher and say they can choose their own schools they're going to self-segregate even more so than they do today.

The students are the environment though, aren't they? And how does EdChoice change that? Do you want out-of-control-disruptive students in your kids' school? Would a private school even give them a chance? Would a private school offer counseling or hire police to patrol the hallways? Or would a private school just say "three strikes - you're out"? (Or in the case of my son's high school, one strike and you're out -- the graduating class was a small fraction of the incoming freshman class). Then what? Have you solved the problem of that public school's environment? Have you turned around the kids who were a problem?

For those who don't know, most of that Planned Parenthood funding from the government is Medicaid -- you know, healthcare for low-income Americans. The overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's work includes screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections, as well as providing contraception. Abortion is not provided at every Planned Parenthood location, and is only something like 3% of their expenditures. Another argument for universal health insurance -- you'd eliminate the need for Medicaid and presumably everyone could go to a doctor not employed by a low-income-population-serving nonprofit like Planned Parenthood. Many public schools in urban areas are bringing medical care to their students who wouldn't otherwise have access or would need to miss a whole day of school to get it. Kids from low-income families often have psychological or food security issues as well, and public schools have taken on these additional responsibilities to meet those needs because hungry, stressed, and sick kids miss school or can't focus on learning. In other words, to keep kids in school and healthy enough to study, schools with students from low-income populations need funding. It's not just a need for smaller class sizes.

The state should be able to audit schools to make sure public funds are spent appropriately. Agree or disagree, voucher recipients are not subject to audit. Should they be?

I will not retract it. I realize that the official church position is "love the sinner, hate the sin" or something similar, but when the teachers tell a kid that the kid is going to hell if they act on their love, that the church will not bless but rather condemn their love, that is damaging to LGBT kids trying to figure out their place in the church, the school, and the community. This is based on events at a Catholic school within the past decade. That is a discussion for another forum other than school funding, however, so I won't continue this discussion here. Except that unlike in the past, the increasing availability of vouchers is funding extreme schools to spread their message. It remains to be seen how that plays out, but the circumstances have changed. I may be overestimating the danger, and you may be underestimating the impact of this new funding source. This is a popular myth. And the Ohio legislature is looking to expand vouchers to every family in Ohio, without regard to public school performance. With a Republican dominated government, I don't see any reason why they won't do what they say they're going to do. Only in the school districts wiling and able to increase taxes on themselves, funding from the state is lower for public school students than what is provided by vouchers. You are correct that public schools are compelled to fund a lot more things that private schools do not have to. For example, private school staff don't prepare IEPs for students with special needs -- those students that private schools choose to accept who need an IEP get it from their public school. Another "unfunded mandate" on the public school, along with busing for those private school students. Private schools also don't generally take students with severe learning disabilities (Lawrence is an excellent exception). Private schools also don't accept kids with discipline problems and can simply dismiss problem students that public schools have to try to educate. You don't need an assistant principal or an extra counselor to deal with problem kids if you can just dismiss the problem from your school. Public schools should be better funded by the state because they have more obligations.

First, private schools are not going away, so this is all theoretical. Second, maybe public schools would have to expand, but it's not so simple. If you add ten kids to a class of 20, you don't add a classroom or a teacher. Finally, we all pay a lot of taxes that go to things we don't want to support. When it comes to schools, we all pay, whether we have kids or not, to educate the kids in our society. Whether they come from a good family or a bad family they don't get a choice, and a good education can change a kid's life for the better and a bad education can make that kid a drag on society for the rest of their life. Yes, if you send your kid to a private school, your property taxes are not going to lower your cost to give your kid a different option. But your property taxes are going to educate a kid who might not have have a family behind him who cares as much as you do, and if that kid gets a good education it's more likely that that kid doesn't turn into a future carjacker or an embezzler of your retirement savings. We shouldn't be funding schools with property taxes in Ohio. A low property tax rate in Hudson can mean tons of money for the schools, and a high tax rate in East Cleveland, which needs the money more, might not generate enough tax dollars. A kid's education should not be so dependent on where they live.

No. I am not in favor of a standard universal education model. I do favor diversity in thought, but I also don't think public money should be used to teach kids that different kids are horrible people. I don't think that public dollars should go to private schools, religious or otherwise. If you want to send your kids to a private school or homeschool them, fine -- but the state shouldn't be subsidizing that choice. I recognize that for now I've lost that argument. But I am worried that opening the door to spending public money on non-public schools means funding schools that a lot of people would have problems with -- we won't be able to deny funding to the China communist school or the Nazi school or the Muslim madrassas that only teach the Koran. I doubt that is the kind of diversity of thought you have in mind. Sending public money to private schools opens that pandora's box and I don't see how you can restrict who can get the money. I do not want the state dictating as much as they do. The "minimum standards" that the state should be setting seem to have morphed into "college ready" standards that aren't appropriate for every student and really restrict opportunities for the diversity you've advocated for. More importantly at this point, if we're going to spend public money on private schools and/or allow the public money to follow the student, the requirements -- the strings attached to those dollars -- should be the same for everyone. And if one of those strings says "you can't get an Ohio diploma without passing this state test" or "you have to bus students who live more than a mile from your school building" -- that should apply to all students and all schools, public or private. If you don't like the strings, don't take the money. Then you're free to do whatever you want.

A lot of "settled" law has changed over time. 70 years is a fraction of the time the country allowed slavery, for example. Roe v. Wade lasted for 50 years. We absolutely should reconsider past actions and evaluate whether past actions were the best course of action. Whether and how we fund private schools should always be worthy of debate -- all public spending should be debated. Where do you draw the line on what public money can be used for? Should the state fund Nazi homeschooling? https://www.wtol.com/article/news/local/state-homeschool-regulations-questioned-after-upper-sandusky-couple-accused-of-teaching-nazi-ideology/512-d85499ba-3aad-4f70-8d3f-05032ad4b699 (As long as parents consent, can schools teach kids to hate Jews?) What about teaching LGBT kids that they are damned -- I assume that's ok, right? Catholic schools are all over that one. Granted, the current political party in power gushes over religious schools and sending government money to private interests (in return for campaign contributions from for-profit schools or highly paid "nonprofit" executives), so you're right that this is unlikely to change. And despite repeated Court decisions saying that the state funding model for public schools is inadequate, that won't stop the state executive and legislative branches from ignoring the Courts. But a bigger problem for the backpack bill or vouchers-for-everyone bill is cost, which runs up against the Republican plan to cut more taxes, particularly for the wealthy. I just don't see where the state gets the money to adequately fund both public and private schools. Nevertheless, I predict that the courts are going to say that funding for public schools must be at least as great as the funding for private schools. And the state legislature will continue to increase funding for private schools and cut state funding for public schools until the public school system collapses and Ohio's academic achievement rate looks a lot more like Alabama's than Massachusetts's. And Republicans will claim that that will bring the Fortune 100 running to Ohio like never before. Rinse and repeat.

Maybe. If Kahlil can make something happen at Severance, he'll deserve all the accolades. But Cedar-Lee-Meadowbrook might not have been such a huge lift; it's unclear how critical the mayor's role was in overcoming obstacles to the project. Forest City Flaherty & Collins was already building Top of the Hill and was looking to do another project in the city -- so the Mayor didn't have to search far for a developer -- and he already knew the developer from his time on council during the debate and approval of Top of the Hill. Plus I think the city planning director, Eric Zamft, has been a huge help in streamlining the approval process and making this project move through the city departments much faster than Top of the Hill. The mayor inherited Zamft and did make the good decision to keep him. The current Council also was strongly in support of this project. I don't remember the mayor being out in front of the campaign to defeat the "we want a park" people. I'm sure the mayor is a strong advocate for the project, I just don't know how big his role was in overcoming obstacles to say that "it wouldn't have survived without his help." Is there something more you know about particular obstacles that the mayor was instrumental in overcoming -- that you could share with UO?

Yes, the Taylor Tudor developers are in close contact with the Orthodox community in the area. The Taylor Tudor buildings will be mainly studio and 1-2 br units, but the makeup up of units in the later phase(s) across the street could be more tailored to Orthodox families. The design of those buildings has not been as thoroughly fleshed out as far as I know. I do know that they are starting with rehabbing the existing buildings, so stay tuned. I also heard talk about infill construction on vacant lots in the area, with some push for Orthodox-adaptable designs. But I don't know whether anything has come from those discussions. Developers probably prefer new construction on cleared large lots on which several multiples of units can be built rather than 1s and 2s on scattered infill lots.

Love this quote from CH Business Development Manager Brian Anderson : Crains also said that Matthew Wymer of WXZ Development, the company behind the Taylor Tudors project, "hopes" to start renovations this summer. I hope he's right. https://www.crainscleveland.com/real-estate/cleveland-area-projects-win-unexpected-state-historic-tax-credits

And I've heard that Tucker Ellis is subleasing a bunch of their space. It will be interesting to watch whether the building owner can fill the vacant space and whether Tucker Ellis gets a sweet new deal on their rent to keep the building from emptying out....

Yes

Ditto. But I don't understand why you aren't willing to take time to help me find any articles on the matter, but you keep finding the time to respond to me saying I'm not sure I believe you. I wonder what that says....

Interesting (long) article with researched recommendations for ways to improve bus service. As much as I and others may prefer light rail, we're likely stuck with buses as the primary way to get around in most US cities. These ideas seem like chicken feed compared to building rail, we just need buy-in from our cities and transit agencies to implement them. https://marcochitti.substack.com/p/getting-bus-priority-right-lessons/comments