Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Or fewer "eyes on the street" as in less people walking by notice a burglar. And perhaps even driving, since few non-residents would be driving on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric
Not how it works.
Fewer eyes on the street makes it more likely the crime will be reported in reality. Of course, if there's no eyes on the street that's even better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408
Not exactly, fewer eyes on the street makes crimes of opportunity much easier.
The eyes on the street keeps the criminals from being bold. No eyes not he street is best for criminals, they can get in, get out and no one is any wiser.
I wish I could find the article, but for a while Stockton was having a he issue with home break-ins in all of those new developments. Since everyone was a commuter to Silicon Valley, or somewhere else far, they neighborhoods were empty during the day. Criminals just scoped and robbed and no one was even remotely around to see anything. They had hours to clean the homes out since the residents were gone from 6a to 6p or longer!
My sister's friend lives in a new home community in Antioch, and similar stuff happened in her neighborhood. Everyone got cameras and alarms, after half a dozen homes were hit over a week or 2.
But as I have mentioned before, we get way to hung up in suburban/urban. Particularly when many people are using urban as a euphemism for walkable.
My own perspective, if I were to have kids, is really related to perspective they would get in school. I am a big believe in public education. In some suburbs (and some urban communities) kids can be raised in a bubble where everyone is exactly like them: same ethnicity, same social class, same education level, etc.
In my book this is bad, but the consequences are different depending on where you lie on the income scale. But no matter if your are poor, getting by, rich or comfortable, if the only people you interact with on a regular basis are people just like you, you end up with a really warped perspective. And unless you are super rich, then it isn't going to reflect reality later in life.
The biggest benefit for me, for public schools, that it kids kids an opportunity to interact with people who are not like them, if that is considered a core value of school system.
I think in many cases, many communities are really homogenous.
I certainly agree about education. I abhor these charters and magnets.
I still can't understand why you have a strong dislike of magnets. Don't have much opinion on charters.
Well, I don't have as big an issue with magnets as I do with charters, but they do tend to segregate kids, as in all arts people (Denver School for the Arts), STEM (Denver School of Science and Technology), etc. Now these schools also have to offer than standard DPS curriculum (e.g. math, science, language arts, social studies, etc), and they are part of the regular public school system, as opposed to charters which are run independently and don't have to implement the standard curriculum. In both types of schools, you don't see special ed students and other students with special needs much. In the case of some charters, not much at all. DPS does mandate that a certain % of magnet school kids be low-income, but some districts don't, so there's a lot of economic segregation, too.
Well magnets do segregate kids by ability and/or interest. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, just has positives and negatives. Colleges obviously segregate.
As for economic segregation, that's a downside, but much of that exists already with neighborhood-level schools.
Well, I don't have as big an issue with magnets as I do with charters, but they do tend to segregate kids, as in all arts people (Denver School for the Arts), STEM (Denver School of Science and Technology), etc. Now these schools also have to offer than standard DPS curriculum (e.g. math, science, language arts, social studies, etc), and they are part of the regular public school system, as opposed to charters which are run independently and don't have to implement the standard curriculum. In both types of schools, you don't see special ed students and other students with special needs much. In the case of some charters, not much at all. DPS does mandate that a certain % of magnet school kids be low-income, but some districts don't, so there's a lot of economic segregation, too.
Sorry to pull this off onto another tangent, but...
In my suburban high school, kids were separated, within the same school. I was in the CAD/CAM vocational/technical program; the auto-shop guys were across the hall, the welders and cabinet makers were down the hall. We CAD guys/gals didn't share any classes with the other vo-tech kids. We didn't share classes with the mainstream/college prep. kids, either, unless we wanted to. I guess one difference from a magnet school is that we could opt into college prep courses with the mainstream kids.
Sorry to pull this off onto another tangent, but...
In my suburban high school, kids were separated, within the same school. I was in the CAD/CAM vocational/technical program; the auto-shop guys were across the hall, the welders and cabinet makers were down the hall. We CAD guys/gals didn't share any classes with the other vo-tech kids. We didn't share classes with the mainstream/college prep. kids, either, unless we wanted to. I guess one difference from a magnet school is that we could opt into college prep courses with the mainstream kids.
Well, yes, that happens, too. In my district, the Vo-Tech kids go to their regular high schools for English, math, etc and to Vo-Tech for auto mechanics, cosmetology, and the other vocational programs.
If anything, I would think that magnets would allow for students to be in an educational situation that fit their strengths. So, that would seem to be a plus and it could allow that lower income, high achieving student to get into an academic program that may be a better fit for them. I know in some cities, a reason for having magnet schools was for integration purposes.
No, they're NIMBYs. This is very common in Boulder, CO.
Because they see the value in not being crowded with cheap edge developments, they're doing something wrong?
Making a standard plan around developing a rural growth corridor for the folks who want a cheap house with a long commute is fine. Put in a 2 lane highway with no expansion planned or possible. Build houses right up to the edge of the road. Values will stay low because it's inaccessible and everyone will be happy, no? Force the builders to put in the highway, and reflect that in the price of the houses. If people want to cut down on costs even more, make it a 30 mile gravel road with no stop lights! Connect it to the freeway, but meter traffic to only let 1 car in every 15 seconds.
Forcing congestion on existing communities because people are entitled to own cheap, inaccessible homes doesn't make any sense. Call it NIMBY-ism, but it's exactly the same reason people complain if you wanted to open up a rendering plant or a unsupervised community for 100 sex offenders next door - it's undesirable to everyone but the few who get some direct benefit.
And lets not kid ourselves, the only reason the houses in these areas are cheap and affordable is because access is bad. If they were accessible, prices would be higher. There's no easy way around that trade off. Purposely building in remote areas to drown them in congestion and depress property values (which is exactly what happens now) is foolhardy.
Well, I don't have as big an issue with magnets as I do with charters, but they do tend to segregate kids, as in all arts people (Denver School for the Arts), STEM (Denver School of Science and Technology), etc. Now these schools also have to offer than standard DPS curriculum (e.g. math, science, language arts, social studies, etc), and they are part of the regular public school system, as opposed to charters which are run independently and don't have to implement the standard curriculum. In both types of schools, you don't see special ed students and other students with special needs much. In the case of some charters, not much at all. DPS does mandate that a certain % of magnet school kids be low-income, but some districts don't, so there's a lot of economic segregation, too.
From an article on a magnet school I liked. On the segregating students into different schools:
This is not a trivial objection to selective public schools – it has real teeth. Unfortunately, it’s also true that large, socially-integrated institutions can quickly become internally segregated – kids are extremely good at seeking out their own “kind” and ostracizing outsiders. And it’s also true that large, socially-integrated institutions will, perforce, have an institutional character that is amorphous, one that is not optimally suited to bringing out the best in many of their students – including, quite possibly, the kinds of students who would thrive at Stuyvesant...But as long as we have institutional diversity, why shouldn’t the nerds get a school of their own?
The bolded quip is closer to why I like magnets more than any of the reasons you gave. The rest of the article, as well as the linked to Reiham Salam article is a good read, though more on specific education issues than urban issues.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
