driftingwood2018 t1_iutwe4s wrote on November 2, 2022 at 11:57 PM

So basically no good options is what everyone is saying?!

restricteddata t1_iuu0s8l wrote on November 3, 2022 at 12:27 AM

What would you define as a "good option"? You have one group saying, "we're going to do what we've been doing, and we don't care how much it costs or whether it gets good results," you have another group saying, "we don't want to impact teacher quality or ability, but this money clearly isn't getting spent efficiently or effectively ($33K per student) and we should figure out what's going on before just mindlessly increasing taxes."

Obviously I've concluded one of those is a better option than the other, but it does seem like a choice is there. The only thing people have said against the latter is that some developers support them, but nobody's explained to me what sinister result I would expect from that.

R_At1antis OP t1_iuu2boc wrote on November 3, 2022 at 12:38 AM

I expect developers to want taxes to be as low as possible regardless of impact to schools in order to sell more units - most new units are not big enough to accommodate families.

That said I don’t get the impression that the Change for Children candidates are operating in bad faith; I just don’t have a good way to evaluate the risks they may pose.

restricteddata t1_iuubzw3 wrote on November 3, 2022 at 1:47 AM

Yeah, I assume they don't want higher taxes, but I was wondering if there was a more direct benefit, e.g., some kind of project they are trying to get through.

Given that they would still be a minority of the BOE, it seems unlikely that they'd be able to enact a nefarious developer agenda anyway, if one existed.