5 ms·

I'd rather see the repeal of Prop 13: • more municipal revenue means better schools and infrastructure • better schools and infrastructure would support more

by cwp 7y ago

I'd rather see the repeal of Prop 13: • more municipal revenue means better schools and infrastructure • better schools and infrastructure would support more development • higher property taxes would remove the incentive to hang on to property forever making it easier to buy and develop property • removing the disincentive to sell property also reduces the NIMBY imperative, since home owner can move to another area if they don't like how their neighborhood is developing It's not a silver bullet; we'd still have to tackle zoning issues, remaining (and still powerful) NIMBYs, and the everyone-has-a-veto problem, but it's a good start.

wahern 7y ago
Expenditures correlate very poorly with school performance. The evidence seems quite overwhelming. Which isn't to say funding doesn't matter. Just that it's clear that "investing in our children" through school funding was a dead-end, sort of like expecting increased traffic light expenditures to improve school performance. The primary determinants are economic and sociologic factors in the home. We need decent schools just like we need decent water & sewage, but we're long past the point where such civic infrastructure is capable of transforming our society. Focusing on these things as agents of change is counter-productive if not destructive.
- cwp 7y ago
  I'd settle for the same performance without constant hysterical fundraising by the PTA, parents being asked to buy and donate basic classroom supplies and teachers buying stuff out of their own pockets just to be able to do their job. But really, I just mean "neighborhoods more friendly to kids and parents." School quality is a big part of that, but it's also a matter of finding a good school near your home, public spaces where kids can play etc. SF isn't completely devoid of that stuff, but there's a reason new parents move out to the suburbs. The point is that if we want higher density we need more homes, but we also need more of all the other stuff that people want and need nearby.
  - wahern 7y ago
    When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s (Illinois, Florida, Alabama) I remember teachers buying supplies out of their own pocket. I suspect it's a perennial issue. Expenditure increases usually go straight to salaries--ideally to teachers but these days increasingly to administrative staff. Living in California and observing (but soon to be participant) in how parent participation works here it seems to me, pretense and motivations notwithstanding, that the sociologic function is really about keeping parents engaged with their children's school. Private schools are even worse in this regard, both the cheaper Catholic ones and the expensive ones drowning in cash. My point is that we should stop looking to these things as agents of change. Among other things, it causes us to cyclically attempt to disrupt and revolutionize the system, when what such systems need most are stability and consistency. But education in particular sits at this wierd nexus of public policy where everybody thinks they're an expert, everybody has direct experience with the system, everybody thinks it can do more than it can, and it's a politically neutral subject. And for all our supposed expertise and concern, we invariably have the same ideas--more money, more accountability, etc. Given what we know empirically, the feverish focus seems very counter productive.
    - cwp 7y ago
      I'm not suggesting that we should fund schools because better education will create a better society. I'm suggesting we should fund schools so that people don't have to live far from their jobs in order to send their kids to public school. Fixing the housing crisis implies higher density and higher population in the city, which implies more need for public infrastructure including schools and transit.
- MiroF 7y ago
  > Expenditures correlate very poorly with school performance. Well yeah, because there's a huge amount of noise combined with active efforts to spend more on worse schools in the past few decades. I'd like to see an example study with "overwhelming" evidence that expenditures doesn't help. I don't understand this pessimism re: the role of schools. The science isn't anywhere nearly as settled on "schools do not create change" as this comment seems to imply.
- bobthepanda 7y ago
  More importantly, more revenues could mean more school places, period. If you want all those young freshly minted grads to stay in the area in their new upzoned apartments and condos, eventually they will want to raise kids.
refurb 7y ago
Most cities develop a budget, then set property tax rates to generate revenue. This is why cities with $200k homes have similar per capita budgets as cities with $800k homes. So if you repealed prop 13, the result would likely be a more equitable approach to property taxes, with those protected by prop 13 paying more and everyone else paying less.
- nradov 7y ago
  The problem we had in California before Proposition 13 is that city budgets were increasing without bound due to demands by public employee unions. The only way I would support a repeal of Proposition 13 is if some other mechanism is put in place to give voters more direct control over city budget growth.
  - epistasis 7y ago
    Was that really the problem? We're grannies really losing their homes to property tax? There's been so much mythology built up around a common anti-tax movement that I'm not sure what to believe. There is plenty of economic reason to vote for capped taxes even without excessive spending.
MiroF 7y ago
Or just pass SB 50...
- cwp 7y ago
  Hell yeah. But also get rid of Prop 13.

by cwp 7y ago

wahern 7y ago

Expenditures correlate very poorly with school performance. The evidence seems quite overwhelming. Which isn't to say funding doesn't matter. Just that it's clear that "investing in our children" through school funding was a dead-end, sort of like expecting increased traffic light expenditures to improve school performance. The primary determinants are economic and sociologic factors in the home. We need decent schools just like we need decent water & sewage, but we're long past the point where such civic infrastructure is capable of transforming our society. Focusing on these things as agents of change is counter-productive if not destructive.

cwp 7y ago
I'd settle for the same performance without constant hysterical fundraising by the PTA, parents being asked to buy and donate basic classroom supplies and teachers buying stuff out of their own pockets just to be able to do their job. But really, I just mean "neighborhoods more friendly to kids and parents." School quality is a big part of that, but it's also a matter of finding a good school near your home, public spaces where kids can play etc. SF isn't completely devoid of that stuff, but there's a reason new parents move out to the suburbs. The point is that if we want higher density we need more homes, but we also need more of all the other stuff that people want and need nearby.
- wahern 7y ago
  When I was growing up in the 80s and 90s (Illinois, Florida, Alabama) I remember teachers buying supplies out of their own pocket. I suspect it's a perennial issue. Expenditure increases usually go straight to salaries--ideally to teachers but these days increasingly to administrative staff. Living in California and observing (but soon to be participant) in how parent participation works here it seems to me, pretense and motivations notwithstanding, that the sociologic function is really about keeping parents engaged with their children's school. Private schools are even worse in this regard, both the cheaper Catholic ones and the expensive ones drowning in cash. My point is that we should stop looking to these things as agents of change. Among other things, it causes us to cyclically attempt to disrupt and revolutionize the system, when what such systems need most are stability and consistency. But education in particular sits at this wierd nexus of public policy where everybody thinks they're an expert, everybody has direct experience with the system, everybody thinks it can do more than it can, and it's a politically neutral subject. And for all our supposed expertise and concern, we invariably have the same ideas--more money, more accountability, etc. Given what we know empirically, the feverish focus seems very counter productive.
  - cwp 7y ago
    I'm not suggesting that we should fund schools because better education will create a better society. I'm suggesting we should fund schools so that people don't have to live far from their jobs in order to send their kids to public school. Fixing the housing crisis implies higher density and higher population in the city, which implies more need for public infrastructure including schools and transit.
MiroF 7y ago
> Expenditures correlate very poorly with school performance. Well yeah, because there's a huge amount of noise combined with active efforts to spend more on worse schools in the past few decades. I'd like to see an example study with "overwhelming" evidence that expenditures doesn't help. I don't understand this pessimism re: the role of schools. The science isn't anywhere nearly as settled on "schools do not create change" as this comment seems to imply.
bobthepanda 7y ago
More importantly, more revenues could mean more school places, period. If you want all those young freshly minted grads to stay in the area in their new upzoned apartments and condos, eventually they will want to raise kids.

refurb 7y ago

Most cities develop a budget, then set property tax rates to generate revenue. This is why cities with $200k homes have similar per capita budgets as cities with $800k homes. So if you repealed prop 13, the result would likely be a more equitable approach to property taxes, with those protected by prop 13 paying more and everyone else paying less.

nradov 7y ago
The problem we had in California before Proposition 13 is that city budgets were increasing without bound due to demands by public employee unions. The only way I would support a repeal of Proposition 13 is if some other mechanism is put in place to give voters more direct control over city budget growth.
- epistasis 7y ago
  Was that really the problem? We're grannies really losing their homes to property tax? There's been so much mythology built up around a common anti-tax movement that I'm not sure what to believe. There is plenty of economic reason to vote for capped taxes even without excessive spending.

MiroF 7y ago

Or just pass SB 50...

cwp 7y ago
Hell yeah. But also get rid of Prop 13.