183 replies to this topic

[EDF]

No... what they should do is not "designate" a school site on the map... They should "dedicate" it the way they do Public Service Easements and if need be, we can have them sign a deed to the "dedicated school" site...

this is the privilege to allow them to build their houses...

I think it's a sad commentary on the workings of our government... city council and school boards...

but what do I know....

I'm part of the great unwashed and uneducated...

[benning]

well said EDF (except for the last part, of course)

[tessieca]

Speaking of naivete, the only misinformed belief going around here is that anyone should be expected to sell their property at a time when it is not advantageous for them to do so.

I think some of us believe that there should be a similar provision to the Quimby Act -- for schools. Developers should be required to set aside land for schools that are necessitated by the development and growth they force on us. They already have to provide for parks, streets, sewers and water. If that is okay, why not for schools?

[benning]

Don't be naive!?! Maybe I should be making that comment to you.  With how hot the housing market is in the Sacramento area... any developer has and still will be able to sell a house if a neighborhood school is not guaranteed.  Like I said in a previous post... a school is a selling point... but not a deal killer if one isn't to be built!

There are plenty of young couples without kids who would purchase a home for slightly less if there was no neighborhood school.

There are plenty of retired people without any kids in the house anymore who would purchase a home for slightly less if there was no neighborhood school.

Schools are important to some people when moving into a house... but not for everyone.  Not everyone is like you!

This is all theoretical, I know, but I'm practially an empty-nester and I would not buy in a subdivision that had no school or intention to build one. Your market for resale just shrunk immensely.