Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

[deleted] t1_jd8b3uu wrote

Reply to comment by heavyiron382 in They’ve Been Warned: Attorney General Says Suburbs ‘Must Comply’ With Transit-Oriented Housing Law by psychothumbs

>were renovated or built in the past 10-20 years

Sounds like they didn't build for an increase in students then. That wasn't a great plan.

2

heavyiron382 t1_jd8bb1k wrote

They did all plan on increases. The problem is that with all the new mandates increases are larger than anyone would plan for.

1

[deleted] t1_jd8cgje wrote

>are larger than anyone would plan for

Whenever your estimating capacity for the 1-3-5-10-20 year marks, you're supposed to go "how many X am I going to need/have in 20 years". Then you double it and then you double that number. Then you think about doubling or increasing it by 50%.

This was just sloppy design work combined with limited resources to build/restructure the schools.

1

heavyiron382 t1_jd8g2ts wrote

So based on your estimation. If your study estimate is 150 additional students per grade in 20 years you would then double that to 300 then double that to 600 then either double it to 1200 or 50% increase to 900. Yeah I don't think any municipality or national planning group would consider that making sense or feasible. By those standards you have created a once town into a city.

Now to staff said increases with fewer and fewer teachers. With your logic. A class room of say 20 students is now halved to 10 then halved again to 5 then halved or split 50% to 2.5 or 3.5 students to 1 teacher until the towns growth reaches your dream number.

Towns invest a lot in growth studies and ensure the school systems can last 20+ years without being strained. When new mandates come into play that are out of the usual then all those studies are thrown out the window and towns are told you didn't plan for the state to tell you that you need to grow at an unusual rate.

Face it, the only area gaining from this is Boston proper. There is a reason the rest of the state and towns are complaining and are being "NIMBYs". It's simply that the rest of the state doesn't want to be Boston and definitely doesn't want to be forced to adhere. Come live in the "sticks" for a few years and tell me, if you are still living here, do you still want these mandates put in place? Or is it just that you live in the city and want us to be as miserable as you with overcrowding?

0

[deleted] t1_jd8gjbx wrote

>It's simply that the rest of the state doesn't want to be Boston

What, specifically, is wrong with Boston, Springfield, or Worcester outside of "lots of people"?

1

heavyiron382 t1_jd8pvyf wrote

I didn't say there is anything wrong with Boston. But myself and the rest of the people not living in Boston or major cities don't live there for a reason. Personally crime, expense, congestion, lack of green space are just a few that comes right to my mind. I don't mind driving to see friends or going shopping. If I wanted to walk, bike or take public transportation then I would move to a city.

1