Eleven Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 Getting rid of these knuckleheads AND consolidating are the only hope for WNY. Who knows, at this point, with GM and such, it may be too little too late, anyways. The same boobs who keep re-electing the same morons for the past 2-3 decades have gotten what they deserve. With the exception of Brian Higgins, not a single WNY politician is worth their weight. They are a collective '0'. Why would you keep any of them? Should Erie County be consolidated? Absolutely. 1 police force, 1 fire department, etc. Population continues to flee, why keep the status quo government? Eventually there won't be anyone left to tax. Wipe them all out, consolidate, and VOTE BASED ON RECORD. Idiots... I'm not so sure about Higgins, either. Collins gets another year to show me something, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 I'm not so sure about Higgins, either. Collins gets another year to show me something, though. Well, for years there is nothing. Now small things happen on a more routine basis. Tolls close. Development does happen in downtown Buffalo. Waterfront progress. RESPONSIBLE Greenway spending (no comment, Niagara County). Higgins is attached to all of these and many more. Now, he is either the most opportunistic sly fox, or he is actually doing something for WNY. More than can be said for that carpet-bagging Clinton... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 I have to discount the anecdotal evidence. Not to be a dick, but it conflicts 100% with my experience; since anecdotal evidence doesn't really mean much anyway, I'll discount mine, too. On top of that, it appears that your anecdotal evidence concerns an intra-district, rather than inter-district, situation. I still don't see how a judge can force students to attend schools in different districts. What would be the basis for it? If that's correct, why can't the hypothetical judge just do that now, anyway, and force some kid from Eggertsville to go to Williamsville North? They are both in Amherst, but they are not the same school district. I know of no legal basis to force students from one school district to attend a school in another district generally, and the forced busing decisions that I'm familiar with all rely upon the concept of an underserved protected class, which is missing here. I also don't understand how you reach this conclusion: " BUT if you change the municipalities, the districts WILL change as well." Why? We've already agreed that school district boundaries are completely different from municipal boundaries. Why would changing one necessarily result in a change to the other? I agree that consolidation probably never will happen, for political reasons, but while you've shown me that you're concerned about an effect on school districts, I can't see that the effect actually would happen. (To answer your last question, I used Tulsa, Okla. as an example of a single city with three separate and distinct school districts, one of which are shared with part of a suburb. It's not very dissimilar from what Amherst does. Students attend schools in the districts in which they live.) The way how a judge could force district reshuffling WITHIN a contiguous municipal boundary IS through having "an underserved protected class." The underserved protected class could be demonstrated by either inequitable inputs or inequitable outputs. It isn't a stretch to expect that $'s spent and results could be significantly different between Williamsville South and Riverside or between x school and y school. If a judge rules that the various school districts w/in the SINGLE municipality are different and inequitable, then the judge could force a restructuring of the districts WITHIN that SINGLE municipality. (The old separate but equal ain't equal argument.) Whether districts would be consolidated voluntarily or involuntarily, I would expect any countywide consolidation would necessarily include school district consolidation. Heck, using your example of Tulsa, we have a municipality about 2/3's the population of Erie county with 3 school districts. Williamsville alone has that many. It doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be consolidation w/in school districts when every single other public service would be consolidated. Does Erie County really need 20-30 separate Superintendants? It's very doubtful. When you combine the inefficiencies of having multiple superintendents along with the very real likelihood that there would be lawsuits about equitable treatment, that is why I see district consolidation coincident with municipal consolidation. Let's even look at the hypothetical where you are correct and countywide consolidation doesn't result in a single school district line being redrawn. There is absolutely no way a priori that people will know that. Even if the current batch of politicians said "oh we'd never change district lines" there is no guarantee that future pols or judges wouldn't change the lines. Right now, the politicians and judges can't mess w/ the lines; if the municipalities change, then so can the districts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 8, 2009 Report Share Posted June 8, 2009 The way how a judge could force district reshuffling WITHIN a contiguous municipal boundary IS through having "an underserved protected class." The underserved protected class could be demonstrated by either inequitable inputs or inequitable outputs. It isn't a stretch to expect that $'s spent and results could be significantly different between Williamsville South and Riverside or between x school and y school. If a judge rules that the various school districts w/in the SINGLE municipality are different and inequitable, then the judge could force a restructuring of the districts WITHIN that SINGLE municipality. (The old separate but equal ain't equal argument.) Whether districts would be consolidated voluntarily or involuntarily, I would expect any countywide consolidation would necessarily include school district consolidation. Heck, using your example of Tulsa, we have a municipality about 2/3's the population of Erie county with 3 school districts. Williamsville alone has that many. It doesn't make sense that there wouldn't be consolidation w/in school districts when every single other public service would be consolidated. Does Erie County really need 20-30 separate Superintendants? It's very doubtful. When you combine the inefficiencies of having multiple superintendents along with the very real likelihood that there would be lawsuits about equitable treatment, that is why I see district consolidation coincident with municipal consolidation. Let's even look at the hypothetical where you are correct and countywide consolidation doesn't result in a single school district line being redrawn. There is absolutely no way a priori that people will know that. Even if the current batch of politicians said "oh we'd never change district lines" there is no guarantee that future pols or judges wouldn't change the lines. Right now, the politicians and judges can't mess w/ the lines; if the municipalities change, then so can the districts. I'm not sure your first point is correct. It may be, but I'm not sure. I think that judges can resolve inequities within a district, but not between/among districts. Same w/ your second point. Does Amherst really need three superintendents? It has them, though, because people in the Sweet Home district do not want to pay as much for education as the people in the Williamsville district do. But your third point is definitely correct and pretty much renders the debate moot. Opponents of consolidation (public sector unions and politicians) will use this to muddy the waters & confuse voters. That's why it's never going to happen. Frankly, even if we ended up with one giant school district, the money saved might be enough for you to send your children to private or parochial schools! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleven Posted June 15, 2009 Report Share Posted June 15, 2009 Taro, thought this might interest you. The city and town of Batavia are considering merger. No changes to the school district, but it's a district that already encompasses both the city and the town (so it doesn't fit our debate very well). But still, interesting & momentum in the right direction as far as I'm concerned: http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/othe...ory/703755.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.