Mrs. Whitbeck,
Thank you for responding. I appreciate the information from your perspective, even though I disagree with that point of view.
Is your definition of overcrowded based on class size, or the number of trailers used at a particular site? Because, thanks to the NEA, an overcrowded class is any class with more than 20 students. I think that number varies slightly based on elementary/middle/high. But, if we're using these numbers to decide that a school needs to add seats "outside" in a trailer, then the unions are creating this "need" where it doesn't exist. These unions aren't protecting the children - they're protecting the state education budgets at the expense of the children. I had roughly 35 kids in my class, from 2nd through 8th grade at a Catholic school, and our education didn't suffer. This actually leads us to a different discussion on the merits of our educational system, and I really wanted to focus on the lawsuit. But since you mentioned overcrowded, I'm curious how you have defined overcrowded for the purpose of your argument.
I also think that if taxpayers were aware of the beautiful office facilities built over the last 4 years on Moakley street, there might be some head-scratching about how those tax dollars were "invested."
I still don't understand that you have an interest in saving the money and investment of developers, otherwise, your position would be supported by someone in that community.
I don't think anyone in business is going to see this suit as anything other than anti-development. It's not for either of us to determine how someone else invests their money. Businesspeople take risks every day. If my choice is to have this project ready to turn dirt the day APF is determined, or I can save my money, and then start planning the project -if- school space -ever- opens up, then I'm going to get as far as I can go, because the process is very long. It's going to take 18 months from my first trip visit with planning and zoning to my final site plan approval anyway.
As a taxpayer, I have to pay to defend this litigation because you don't have confidence in the planner and the attorney. The project must meet APF anyway, today, tomorrow, or 6 months from now. With the caseload of our court system, will it even be heard before APF is determined for these projects? What if the ZO is updated first? That is a work in progress right now, currently in a 10 day public comment phase.
Krebs - you don't want developers donating land (or building swimming pools) that the county can't afford to open and operate, in exchange for zoning favors. I hope that won't happen again. (I think Mrs. W and I may agree on this!)
As far as the impact fee, as described above, that money is going towards public facilities, including education, parks and recs, etc. But, we cannot forget that the same house also pays property tax every year, forever, and our previous commissioner board raised that tax rate. Then add the income/piggyback tax that the working members of that household are contributing from every paycheck. And, those folks are going to visit local businesses creating jobs, and generating sales tax revenues. So that $4500 impact fee then generates how much tax revenue for the county over 1 year or 10 years? My neighborhood has 60 homes, but the folks driving out to go to work in the morning, outnumber the children put on the school bus each day.
