Anonymous wrote:Or lets put it this way. Follow me

Catania wins in November. He prevails on the council to delay implementation of DME plan by one year, the lottery is held in December under the current boundaries, rules, etc (don't ask me the mechanics of that)

First thing Mayor Catania does on taking office is work with the council and DCPS and the community to develop a plan for the renovation of McFarland, with details as to cost and capactiy, design parameters, curriculum plan, etc. And passes the budget to implement that. Something similar, if perhaps less fleshed out, is prepared for the other new middle schools.

Its now summer 2015. Do you think EVERY high SES family (with choice, IOW) that objected to the DME plan in 2014 will now accept it? Do you think some will still object, and that some of them will say "The new McFarland is not good enough, I bought for Deal, I will move if I am cut out of Deal"? And what will the logical response at that point be, if not "go, we can live without you"

At some point the only response to threats to leave is to point at the door.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Carolyn Reynolds, who’s lived in Crestwood for slightly more than four years, is indignant upon learning that her two children at a nearby charter school won’t be grandfathered into Deal and Wilson under the new policy. “That’s outrageous,” she says. “That’s unacceptable.”

#####

Really? Congratulations to her for being able to afford to freeride her way into the best feeder pattern, but I'm not feeling sorry for her at all.

Oh, Ms. Reynold's house was free? Lucky her. I am not sure you understand the meaning of "freeride".

If there is one lesson I have learned from the DME process, it is that only fools feel empathy.

You understand perfectly well what it means....her kids don't attend either IB elementary school, they go to a tax payer funded charter. Perfectly fine. But no one wants to hear her crying when she loses the benefit she would have had by sending her kids IB. Get in the OOB lottery like everyone else.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loads. People want to pay less in taxes, have more money spent to solve the many problems, and still have a balanced budget. They want more rights for citizens, and less crime. They want more housing, but less impacts from more density. Parking to be less scarce, but not to have to pay more for it.

Life is full of tradeoffs. The proposed plan addressed real problems. It also created losers in the process. There is no way to have avoided that. MAYBE your proposal to delay a year till McFarland plans are fleshed out will result in fewer losers, at minimal cost. But there will STILL be losers, and yes, some of them will leave the city as a result.

Everyone has their own particular interests. For instance, unlike some other posters here, I don't have a personal stake in MacFarland. However, I may be able to help MacFarland in my own small way. But, really, not everyone can be satisfied, so should I care if MacFarland supporters are satisfied? Is it worth looking beyond my own parochial interests? Maybe those people who don't have a good middle school option should just move? New families will move in and some will have babies (new DCUM users!!!).

I don't think the message of "we want you to go to our school but don't care if you move" sells very well. In fact, it is pretty insulting.

Threats tend to drain feelings of empathy. When someone honestly tries hard to reach something that works as well as possible for as many as possible, and someone says " If I dont get what I want I will do X! Ha!" at some point the person threatened is inclined to say "okay, go ahead and do X. I can take it" thats not a lack of empathy, or a desire to insult. Its simply a reality check.

The reality here is someone is going to lose from this, a few of those will move, and DC WILL continue to grow and gentrify anyway. Again, that does not mean everyone should not try to find a way to minimize the losses to anyone - but it does mean that at some point the claims that any changes will lead to disaster need to pushed beyond.

Anonymous wrote:Not affected by changes one way or another, like the previous PP (with the possible exception of set-asides which do not bother me), but what a ridiculous statement to make!

Sure, people are moving in and some people will have babies. This is why DC Office of Tax revenue should not care if people with school-age children move out and are replaced by childless or those with infants - they will still get their taxes. But Kaya's job is all about schools! And why she thinks those who will eventually have babies here will be more inclined to go to bad schools than the people with school-age children who move out, is beyond me. I fail to see why they wouldn't do what people who are dissatisfied with DCPS do now - move (more often than not outside DC), or go to charter/private/parochial.

DC is gentrifying and getting more expensive to live in by the day. It's not the case of newcomers who have no options but to stay where they are and take their lumps. To take the Hill situation as an example (as we used to live on the Hill so I am most familiar with it). Currently few parents in ‘good’ areas of the Hill send their kids to Jefferson/EH/SH middle schools. When their kids reach that age, these parents either move or send them to charters/private/parochial. Even if they stay in DC, it’s a DCPS failure. For every family that moves out from e.g., Brent school district, there is a family who buys their house, true. But if that family ever has children and those children reach middle school age, that family likewise will leave DCPS one way or another, unless the Hill MS improve – these families can afford to have choices. Which, once again, not a problem as far as tax revenue for the city is concerned but a huge indictment of DCPS, which is what Kaya is supposed to manage.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Loads. People want to pay less in taxes, have more money spent to solve the many problems, and still have a balanced budget. They want more rights for citizens, and less crime. They want more housing, but less impacts from more density. Parking to be less scarce, but not to have to pay more for it.

Life is full of tradeoffs. The proposed plan addressed real problems. It also created losers in the process. There is no way to have avoided that. MAYBE your proposal to delay a year till McFarland plans are fleshed out will result in fewer losers, at minimal cost. But there will STILL be losers, and yes, some of them will leave the city as a result.

Everyone has their own particular interests. For instance, unlike some other posters here, I don't have a personal stake in MacFarland. However, I may be able to help MacFarland in my own small way. But, really, not everyone can be satisfied, so should I care if MacFarland supporters are satisfied? Is it worth looking beyond my own parochial interests? Maybe those people who don't have a good middle school option should just move? New families will move in and some will have babies (new DCUM users!!!).

I don't think the message of "we want you to go to our school but don't care if you move" sells very well. In fact, it is pretty insulting.

Threats tend to drain feelings of empathy. When someone honestly tries hard to reach something that works as well as possible for as many as possible, and someone says " If I dont get what I want I will do X! Ha!" at some point the person threatened is inclined to say "okay, go ahead and do X. I can take it" thats not a lack of empathy, or a desire to insult. Its simply a reality check.

The reality here is someone is going to lose from this, a few of those will move, and DC WILL continue to grow and gentrify anyway. Again, that does not mean everyone should not try to find a way to minimize the losses to anyone - but it does mean that at some point the claims that any changes will lead to disaster need to pushed beyond.

Anonymous wrote: