KaiDaiz

KaiDaiz t1_j9idhvd wrote

you mean once you included the screened public schools that carries the score for entire public school system? compare charters to the local failing schools. you see why given the choice of failing local or nil spot screened public that tracks kids OR take your chance with charter...why so many opt for the later.

7

KaiDaiz t1_j9i8lis wrote

> For example, charter schools shouldn't get a choice in rejecting students, etc.

What makes you think this isn't what parents want. Kids are kicked out of charter for "behavior issues" which is basically code for not keeping up with the curve and holding the class back be it in academic performance, behavior issues, disruptions, whatever. Good amount of parents want their kids track. Its why screened public schools are more desirable vs local unscreened schools. Some charters employ a more extreme version of tracking but its not like it was never unseen in public school G&T, honors and other tracking programs. If your grades don't keep up, you not guarantee a spot in next years G&T, honors, etc class. No different what's practice in some charters, can't keep up, you get cut.

Again charter schools wouldn't be necessary if NYC DOE didn't wage war on merit & tracking the first place especially at black and brown neighborhoods. Ever wonder why some charters have some of the best performing black and brown students in the city outside of screened public schools that are not in their neighborhoods? ITs bc the NYC DOE continues to failed these students, left them with poor local choices and left these promising students untracked. The current public curriculum is subpar and watered down with screened schools never expanded despite the demand. Which drives parents to seek alternatives. Again map charter school locations, more often its located in the very same hoods as the terrible local public schools but seen by parents as a better alternative vs what they got.

20

KaiDaiz t1_j619hww wrote

I say if we want to build mass affordable housing...we are looking at the wrong place to build it. Rather spend the zillions of subsidies and forgo taxes from abatements. Use that fund and energy to build many more affordable housing units in the cheaper 1hr+ zones from midtown.

There you get affordable housing. Look at the housing crisis post ww1 and ww2. We didn't build a ton of housing just in Manhattan. we expanded and built massively in the outer boroughs. That's what ease the housing crisis. Its no coincidence most housing in bk were built in the 1920-40s and most in queens in the 50s and up

−10

KaiDaiz t1_j4cc9rt wrote

Construction is a racket and DOB is bureaucratic mess here in NYC that drives up cost. Plenty of licensed contractors subcontract or "lend their license" for a fee to non union/undocumented skilled workers. Then there are expediters who know how to navigate the DOB and have connects to speed things up or find contractors willing to do the above.

Point is, construction is expensive if you use union licensed workers who themselves might subcontract to whomever but charge you the higher rate. Why not skip the union guy to save

3

KaiDaiz t1_j47qasn wrote

300k to remove lol. Go across the bridge to 8th ave. Find a Asian architect/expediter for plans & permits to do it for far cheaper that will get you whomever to sign off no asbestos, lead, whatever plus a connect to a no questions ask construction waste remover.

While the 7 day deadline might be tight to get permits, the guy had yrs to remove and knew this be the outcome. Should had it done years ago

−4