183 replies to this topic

[tessieca]

If we were lucky, we didn't get dessert!! That snow uphill both ways thing is tough, especially in the winter!

[bishmasterb]

There were seventy-three of us living in a cardboard box
All I got for Christmas was a lousy bag of rocks
Every night for dinner we had a big chunk of dirt
If we were really good we didn't get dessert

[Orangetj]

the kids at Folsom Middle School... when my boys went there... I made them ride their bikes... and only drove them there when it rained...

so many parents think that they are the "servants" of their kids... when if anything, the kids should doing so much more for themselves...

I was cooking when I was 8 or 9... my mom never ironed my clothes when I was in high school...

These days, somebody might call the police or CPS on you for this kind of thing. To think - Jr. High School kids riding their bikes on a surface street without parental supervision. Horrors!

Cooking for yourself when you were 8 or 9, what neglectful parents you must have had!

[tessieca]

I think it's funny to drive them in the rain. If you're going to let them hoof it to school, they will not melt if it's wet either. We didn't get rides in rain nor in snow. Our "rainboots" sometimes consisted of sandwich bags and rubber bands.

When I was your age . . .

[Orangetj]

Whatever happened to riding the bus to school? Seriously...do they still do that? All this talk of parents driving their kids to school makes me think maybe they've cut back the bus routes.

When I was a kid here in Folsom, I rode the bus to Blanch Sprentz, then Folsom Jr. High, then Folsom High until I got my own car. We lived in American River Canyon. It was no big deal.

[tgianco]

I think it's funny to drive them in the rain.  If you're going to let them hoof it to school, they will not melt if it's wet either.  We didn't get rides in rain nor in snow.  Our "rainboots" sometimes consisted of sandwich bags and rubber bands.

When I was your age . . .

One of the best parts of childhood is getting chided for having puddle fights on rainy days. If kids would put the Playstation away, they wouyld see that there is plenty to do outside (as I life another piece of pizza and use the remote to see what's on).

[forumreader]

I never cared for walking TO school in the rain. (I didn't like the wet shoes and clothes all day.) But I loved walking home in the rain, knowing that I could change clothes as soon as I got home. We would seek out the puddles and 'waterfalls.'

Of course, back then kids did not have to carry an overloaded backpack of books to and from school each day. There were enough books for all, and kids had lockers.

[FandKJacobs]

I just can't believe that the kids from the parkway have to go all the way to T Judah, it seems that there are at least 3 schools closer.

3 miles??? for us (we live in the Parkway) it's 5.5 and for others we know it's 7... too and from each school day..

[tessieca]

What convoluted route are you using?? Go out to Blue Ravine or Natoma Street. Go up Natoma Street, left on one of those side streets (Stafford??) next to TJ, and you're there! Give a sample address for Parkway, and we can mapquest it or go to Rand McNally.

[pampChefLady]

The politics of school building here has astounded me since we moved from Arizona. I was SHOCKED to find that my kids had to be bussed from our rental home in EDH all the way to Green Valley school. I think people here have come to accept that this is the way things have to be. In Arizona, the developers had to "pay" for the school their neighborhood would need. I don't know specifically if they donated the land, or coughed up fees or what, but I do know that each new subdivision was getting a new school as it was built (this is when we moved in 2000). If the school was getting crowded, new teachers and portables were added temporarily until the new school was ready. NO ONE was forced to drive or ride a bus to a school miles away. It is clear to me, that developers here are given way too much - as evidenced by the lack of schools, finished parks, and ever decreasing lot size. This is a popular place to live; clearly developers would still profit and would want to do business here, even if the city decided to finally require more from them. I think the problem is the numerous opportunities for graft due to the close relationships between so many developers and government folks....

By the way, Orange, there isn't much of a bus system left in Folsom. You have to live pretty far to even have one available. You have to pay extra to use it. And I think that most elementary districts are so small, they don't have any buses. Another shocker for me when we moved here.

[tessieca]

I, too, went to school is Arizona, and we were not only far (miles) from the schools, but we walked or biked to them.

Your take on the buddy-buddy system between developers and government workers does not work in this case. Parker has held out on selling the land for years, after designating a substandard site that cannot even be used for a school. The district and the city have been trying to reach a solution for several years and have had little to no cooperation from Parker.

[bishmasterb]

Tess,

I keep hearing that the developers are being uncooperative. Can you help me understand exactly how that is? Have they defaulted on contractual obligations for instance?

[tessieca]

No legal defaults, yet extremely uncooperative. The only legal requirement is for them to pay the per dwelling fee (1/3 of the cost of construction).

They have showed an extended unwillingness to negotiate (thus the need for condemnation proceedings) and a strong desire to hold out for top dollar which has priced the district out of the market. If the district doesn't buy it, they can still stack townhomes under the power lines and get someone to buy. That's not illegal, but it is certainly uncooperative.

[bishmasterb]

and a strong desire to hold out for top dollar which has priced the district out of the market.

I realize the frustration that the school board must go through in attempting to purchase land for future schools, especially in such a hot real estate market. But, why should we expect developers to behave differently than anyone else? Everyone wants top dollar when they sell their property. Developers are in business to make money, not educate children.

No legal defaults, yet extremely uncooperative.  The only legal requirement is for them to pay the per dwelling fee (1/3 of the cost of construction).

Is that 1/3 of labor & materials only, or the cost or FMV of the land as well? Is that a city, state or county tax?

[tessieca]

Yes, it's frustrating for the district that necessary school land is at a premium. It's also very frustrating for the people who move into homes expecting that they will have a school close by. Thus, the developer who considers the profit motive over and above the expectations of his end-line buyers can end up frustrating everyone.

The 1/3 is part of the state formula that is used to determine the state's share, the local share, and the developer who is making the impact's share. There is a long formula. It does consider part of the land value, but the district is actually the entity making the determination of what constitutes the 1/3 developer fee share.