Yesterday, I feel I didn't do justice to the issue of property values in the RISD. Certainly, the issue is more complex than the critics of the RISD made it out to be. The issue is more complex than some might have inferred from my own sarcastic response.
To recap, here's my understanding of the argument against the RISD. The demographics of Richardson are changing. More racial and ethnic diversity. More poor people. More run-down apartments. The RISD, by offering better education than the Dallas ISD does, in general, and targeting services to apartment dwellers in particular, makes Richardson a magnet for poor people. More poor people move to Richardson making the situation even worse.
If that's the argument, and if there's truth to it, what should the RISD do about it? Degrade the quality of its education? That can't possibly be what people want, can it? Separate the poor children from the affluent, the apartment dwellers from the homeowners' children? That's illegal. Create economic incentives for developers to tear down those run-down apartments? Is that it? Although no one quite made that argument, it's the only one that makes sense to me.
I'm for creating economic incentives for redevelopment, if it can be done without harming the schools. But can it? After all, "create economic incentives" translates into giving money to someone, money that has to come from somewhere else, in this case, schools. The RISD risks degrading the quality of education by diverting money. (I know some argue that throwing money at education doesn't assure success, but diverting money doesn't assure it, either). The argument for diverting money now rests on the theory that the sacrifices are only temporary. Eventually, the redeveloped areas will be paying even more in property taxes than the RISD gives back today. It's an enticing argument ... for nearby homeowners. For the poor families who live in apartments and send their kids to RISD schools, it's not as enticing. For they lose on both ends of this deal. First, money is taken from their children's schools and given to developers. Then, when developers get the money and tear down the apartments, the families lose their homes, too.
So, the issue is complex. I admit it. The RISD school board recognizes it. The RISD has shown its willingness to cooperate in redevelopment programs. It entered a Tax Increment Financing (TIF) agreement with the city of Dallas for the Skillman corridor. It did so only after ensuring that it was in the best interest of *all* residents of the RISD, not just the developers, not just the homeowners, but the apartment families and schoolchildren as well. Issues that pit homeowners against apartment dwellers put the RISD in a difficult situation. I am convinced that the RISD is attempting to balance all interests. My eyes were opened yesterday to the fact that some reasonable people insist on believing otherwise. Reasonable people on both sides need to resist the urge to suspect the motives of each other. They need to keep talking and working together to develop win-win situations for all.
25 comments:
"The RISD, by offering better education than the Dallas ISD does, in general, and targeting services to apartment dwellers in particular, makes Richardson a magnet for poor people."
I think this is where that argument falls down. The poor are, generally speaking, unlikely to relocate to a city because of that city's reputation for academic excellence. And the subset of the poor that would are the exact kind of people you want in your city anyhow: forward-thinking, able to delay gratification, invested in their children's future.
bloggermouse, thanks for the feedback. I think you are exactly right.
Our neighborhood school has a program called UNIDOS and also holds all PTA meetings in English and Spanish.
This really encourages a lot of the Spanish speaking parents (often times apartment renters) to stay actively involved in their child's education/community - very, very good thing. It also encourage a lot of the English-only speaking parents (many home owners) to transfer up the street to the local magnet.
I had mentioned the PTA meetings to someone who then in turn talked to the PTA President. He said that next year they may not integrate Spanish into the meetings. I don't know how I feel about that. If they still hold them in Spanish, you will have a packed room of parents who care about their children's education and want to be involved. (yes, poor people with forethought *gasp*) If they are English only you'll be lucky to have a handful of people there; being as we were the slim, slim, SLIM minority.
Thanks, Destiny, for giving us this real-life example of how this is a complex issue with no simple answers. Every answer has consequences, some good, some bad. There is no solution that will satisfy everyone.
This subject of apartment dwellers vs homeowners has been an eye-opener for me. First, I learned that there are people who don't value quality education. They see it as a magnet for poor people, who they don't want in Richardson. Frankly, it's a viewpoint I just didn't know existed. Now I do.
Second, I learned that some people charge the RISD with deliberately wanting to increase the number of poor people in the RISD, presumably because it increases the amount of money the district gets from the state. (With "Robin Hood" the district is sending more money outside the district, but that's another topic altogether.) Evidence for this charge supposedly comes from social service agencies who allegedly are sending poor people to Richardson instead of, say, Garland or Plano or Frisco, because the social service agencies have been told by the RISD that the RISD "wants" more poor people. Frankly, it's a claim that I have never heard before. Now, I have.
When I lived in Oak Cliff in the Winnetka Heights Historic District, we had a lot of positive reasons to move and stay there: much cheaper home prices, larger houses, very mature trees, good city services, very involved neighbors, just 3 miles or so to downtown Dallas, "real" Tex-Mex (not the sanitized chains with waitresses named "Tiffany"), an interestingly diverse population...there were lots of good reasons for young professionals to move there and become part of an improving neighborhood.
That is, until the yuppies had kids, and the kids approached 5 years of age...then BOOM, they were gone.
Why? Because there was no way that most parents - even the most 'liberal' ones who valued diversity above all - were going to put their children into the train wreck called DISD.
Well, really, that's overstating it...I know there are many dedicated teachers in DISD (some of them lived in our neighborhood)...but the school system as a whole has such a hard time delivering the basic services that above average kids (as everyone has ;-) ) are underserved. Compare that to RISD where 6 times from 1984 to 1991, RISD schools won the US Academic Decathlon National Championship, and, as you all have noted, is the largest school district in the state to have the "Recognized" status (I hope that's still true).
In short, the quality of the school district has a tremendously positive impact on real estate values in an area, and since real estate values drive both tax revenues as well as how much your your home is worth when you sell it, well, let me say that I have personal experience in seeing the positive side of good schools...otherwise, I'd be really annoyed at the size of the RISD tax bill ;-)...
Bill
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin, the way you describe things is the way I've always understood things, too. But I now know some other people aren't as pleased with the RISD's performance as I am. I'll have to watch matters more closely, I guess.
Why am I not surprised by McCalpin's comments, as he is someone who grew up in posh Canyon Creek, and still resides in the NW part of the city. Sure, his property values are stellar. Why don't we try to spread a little "diversity" around his Reservation neighborhood and see how Mohawk Elementary does and how well his property values hold.
"Anonymous" at 6/28/2009 1:06 PM, one of the aspects of the recent city council election campaign that pleased me was the relative lack of division between the different geographical regions of the city. Maybe there's more division regarding RISD issues. If so, I fear that all regions will come out losers in that fight.
@Anonymous on 6/28
Interesting that you should criticize me for growing up in Canyon Creek...I guess that means in your eyes that I can no longer exercise my right of free speech.
Unfortunately, you are not exercising your right to think. My comments had nothing to do with my upbringing in Richardson and everything to do with a neighborhood in Oak Cliff 3-4 miles southwest of downtown Dallas, as anyone who can read noticed.
The Winnetka Heights neighborhood was (and still is, I imagine) a place of many different types of residents: elderly whites, middle class blacks, gay (of all kinds), straight (of all kinds), middle class Hispanics (my next door neighbor was a graduate of A&M), white well-employed yuppies, Hispanics of very recent provenance (if you catch my drift), and blue collar workers of all races. The area typically was Democratic but voted for Ronald Reagan (R-Pres) and Bill Clements (R-Gov)...in short, a microcosm of our society.
And the biggest problem the area had was that it was served by DISD.
I lived in Winnetka Heights for 15 years, a far more stressed area than any place in Richardson, so my comments here are germane...yours, however, are irrelevant...which is par for the course with people who hide under the cover of anonymity...
Bill
Ah Ha! Further proof that Bill McCalpin is NOT Ed Cognoski.
(Neither of you may know this, but I get asked a lot if I 'know who Ed is'...no, I don't....but 9 times out of 10 they say, 'well I think it's Bill McCalpin!')
I strongly disagree with that assumption. I'm still working on my case but here's yet another clue to add to my argument...
Exhibit A:
Bill: "so my comments here are germane...yours, however, are irrelevant...which is par for the course with people who hide under the cover of anonymity..."
Bill is always putting down the anonymity of others. To the extent, I think, of sometimes forgetting that Ed uses an alias also. The true Ed Cognoski would not forget such a thing. So Bill COULD NOT be Ed Cognoski.
I do however believe he killed Professor Plum in the library with a candlestick.
Here's some more evidence, Destiny. The comment by "Anonymous" at 6/28/2009 1:06 PM was a case of an ad hominem attack on William J. 'Bill' McCalpin, criticizing the person (or rather where the person lives) instead of criticizing what he said.
The response by William J. 'Bill' McCalpin likewise goes off track when he criticizes the person (or rather the anonymity of the poster) rather than what the poster said.
In both cases, we are not discussing the issue at hand, apartment dwellers vs homeowners, but each other.
P.S. I would never kill Professor Plum.
Ed, you've called it right - really, the issue in many ways are the schools. Simply put, neighborhood parents will flee - whether that be right or wrong - when their neighborhood schools are choked with, sadly, transient appartment kids, regardless of their ethnic background. It's not the apartment kids fault - it's just the hard cold facts. If you live south of Belt Line, particularly the further south you go, then private school or transfers north are the way of life. P.S. I have always thought that Bill McCalpin was Ed - or that Bill's wife was Ed - who knows.
McCalpin growing up in Canyon Creek, and him living in the Reservation definitely influences his perspectives. How could it not? It is very easy for him talk about how the "great" test scores have "improved" Richardson. Hardly. I'd dare say that if we "diversified" his neighborhood or Canyon Creek, the test scores in those schools or the property values in those neighborhoods wouldn't be what they are today. In fact, Canyon Creek'ers would be outraged, and moving out as quickly as they are down south. And, if McCalpin thought Oak Cliff was such a "fabulous" place to live, why did he pull up stakes and move north? It is easy to talk about how wonderful "diversity" is when you don't live in it. I guess, for some, it's fine as long as it isn't in their back yard, next door, or across the street.
"Anonymous" at 6/29/2009 11:55 AM, you dismiss claims that RISD's "great" test scores have "improved" Richardson. What would the situation be if the RISD had dismal test scores? Would property values be holding up then? Would homeowners be staying around? There may be problems associated with apartments, but RISD high test scores is not one of them.
According to City-Data.com, the percentage of renters in Richardson is 35%, compared to a statewide percentage of 36%. In other words, Richardson has its fair share.
Ed - yes, "great test scores" don't hurt, but they only mask the problem. You see, by offering social program after social program, the Richardson ISD has become a magnet for the economically disadvantaged. They seek RISD out rather than going elsewhere. Consequently, RISD is "forced" to educate those students who live within their boundaries, and, thankfully, they do a great job with it. All this say, wouldn't it just be easier to not offer the programs, and not be a magnet for the economically disadvantaged. If you don't offer it, they won't come. Their current model revolves around this type of student; if you live in a single family home, then they aren't too interested....
"Anonymous" at 6/29/2009 4:07 PM, you make some claims without backing them up with supporting evidence.
You claim "by offering social program after social program, the Richardson ISD has become a magnet for the economically disadvantaged." Do you have evidence that other reasons, like the aging and thus more affordable housing, aren't bigger factors?
You claim "if you live in a single family home, then [the RISD] aren't too interested...." Do you have evidence that administrators aren't interested in ensuring high test scores across the whole RISD?
hahaha, Destiny! No, I never forget that Ed uses an alias, and s/he and I have ironically commented about that on occasion.
The difference between Ed and most anonymi is that Ed is level-headed and restrained, does not attack people (except s/he is occasionally and understandably bewildered by what some anonymi say), and even apologizes on the very rare case that s/he wishes that s/he would have said something differently.
Most anonymi, on the other hand, start off with an attack on some person, and then the conversation goes downhill.
As you know, I am not a public figure, I do not hold any office, and I don't have any power to hurt anyone...yet when a certain person attacks me, s/he insists on doing it anonymously. We are all adults, and we knows what this means...either the person is telling the truth and is afraid that I will hurt them...or the person is not telling the truth and is too ashamed to put his/her name on it...
Since I can't hurt them, that leaves only one option, doesn't it? If this person were telling the truth and proud of it, all s/he would have to do to be taken just a little bit seriously is to come forward and identify him/herself...and when s/he doesn't, then you know all you need to know about this type of anonymous posting.
P.S., I didn't kill Professor Plum either...I think he's got a grant at UTD to study the abnormal psychology of anonymous postings on the Internet ;-)
Bill
Ah, Ed, how can I criticize the person, when I have no idea who it is? I certainly can't make an ad hominem argument when I don't even know if I should make it ad hominem or ad feminam(!) (yes, Ed, this is irony...where's that HTML tag when you need it?)
Really, given that the initial posting - as you pointed out - was quite irrelevant, I thought I was fairly restrained ;-)
And I will make no apologizes for pointing out that anonymous posts are automatically suspect...when a post starts out with an attack rather than discussing the actual subject at hand, then we all know what this means...that someone is not telling the truth...
Bill
@anonymous 6/29/2009 11:55 AM
Your comments are still irrelevant, and have nothing to do with what I said.
Oh, by the way, I didn't say anything "about how the "great" test scores have "improved" Richardson." Go ahead, read what I actually said and not what you just made up, hoping that nobody would notice.
So long as you can't get even the basic facts right, no one is going to pay any attention to such nonsense...unless, of course, you want to come forward and identify yourself and explain to everyone how it is that you know what I think...
I didn't think so...
Bill
William J. 'Bill' McCalpin, thanks for the comments. As we seem to be getting off the topic of apartment dwellers vs. homeowners, I'll not comment further. (Cheers from the crowd.)
Bill M you are a public person. You do hurt people by propping up those who intentionally harm others for selfish gain. Sometimes your intentions seem good but others you promote are not. Take a breather. Stop look around well and listen. I do not want to post my name to you because yes I am fearful of you because you are somewhat obsessed even naive but more of others you promote. Some of your comments are misinformed by the way.
Anon4
Anon4, then come and speak to me yourself. I want good government, and you don't know the conversations I have had with many about it...but I will not abide anonymous gossip and bitter rumor...sadly, people do lie, and they use the anonymity of the Internet to further it...
But at some point, you have to stand up and be counted. The real Founding Fathers didn't hide behind anonymous tips to make their points; they signed their 'death warrants' in writ large on the Declaration of Independence ("so that the King George could read it without his spectacles" as John Hancock was said to have commented when he signed the Declaration).
Just the same with us...healthy popular government thrives not in the shadows, but in the light...I hope soon you'll be willing to come out and join us in the open air, no matter what your stance on the issues or personal opinions...
Bill
P.S., I am still not a public figure and I don't have the power (or desire) to hurt anyone...'saying it don't make it so'
Bill
Post a Comment