Judd Owen lives in Decatur with his wife and two children. He has served on the Enrollment Committee and Annexation Committee for the City Schools of Decatur. He teaches political science at Emory.
The second of a two-part series.
Yesterday appeared my obituary of large-scale annexation for Decatur. It was an idea that was pushed hard by some of the City’s political leadership without having been adequately evaluated. The most massive blind spot was the impact on the school system (CSD) and on school taxes in Decatur. The idea was originally presented as being about tax relief, but with scant attention paid to the impact on the larger school side of residents’ tax bills. Once CSD got involved and its own evaluation of the proposal replaced the deeply flawed one of the City’s paid consultant, it became clear that the residential annexation would not be offset by the commercial annexation, resulting in a massive financial loss to the schools and the Decatur tax-payer. CSD opposed residential annexation (while favoring commercial annexation), but the final revised plan for commercial-only annexation died in the state legislature owing to lack of sponsorship.
A fitting end. But the whole experience did bring with it some genuinely beneficial results. First it made many people (myself included) aware of how important is for City and CSD officials to collaborate and communicate. Improved collaboration between City and CSD has been a topic of conversation in subsequent elections for City Commission and School Board, and the process for evaluating the impact of annexation on CSD was vastly improved the second time around. CSD formed an annexation committee, with representatives from CSD, the City Manager’s office, and the Decatur community. That committee recommended “continued collaboration in development of an annexation plan that benefits the schools and students.”
A complete obituary of annexation, however, would have to admit that it’s not entirely dead. The City Commission just last week approved the annexation of five single family residences. So far as I have been able to confirm, it was approved with no consultation of CSD. It was approved with no discussion of CSD by the Commission at the time they voted—with no discussion at all, or even the hearing of the City Manager’s report, which in any case did not mention CSD.
Now, I do not mean to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Five residences are neither here nor there in themselves, and I heartily welcome our new Decaturites. I suspect the fact that they had to work through the City process to get in means that they will be attentive and involved residents, which is great. But these five annexations do not stand in isolation. There have been over 30 such annexations in the last few years, and there is no reason to believe that they will be the last. Decatur at some point hung a sign “We Will Annex.” No consultation of CSD, no discussion; just ask and it’s done. Each in isolation is no big deal. But it is now a clear City policy. Is it a good policy?
First, some facts. The fact is that these annexations are initiated almost exclusively by families who, very understandably, want to enter their children in CSD. The fact is that CSD has a very serious enrollment crisis that it is still trying to figure out how to deal with. The fact is that the property taxes on very few single-family residences support the average cost to taxpayers of even one student. The fact is that CSD has made it plain that it wants to be consulted on annexations. So we need to evaluate this policy as a policy, separate from individual petitions, which make the question personal. I suspect that a frank and open discussion among residents will recommend taking down the “We Will Annex” sign. It’s a discussion worth having among residents and between their representatives on the City Commission and School Board.
A related but quite different question concerns the impact on CSD of large developments, such as 315 West Ponce. Such developments have greatly enhanced the City and in general I favor them. According to a CSD study from a few years ago, single-family detached houses have the largest percentage of students (over 40%), followed by townhouses (25%), then apartments (10%), then condos (5%). These developments will have fewer students by percentage (though perhaps more in total) than single parcel annexations and probably be a net financial gain the schools. But they clearly do have an impact, particularly during the present enrollment challenges, and yet there remains a baffling resistance in some quarters to admit as much. According to a recent Patch article, a City official said that the impact of 315 W. Ponce on “CSOD” would be “minimal to none.” Why? Because, we are told, the 25-40 year old demographic expected to rent there is “unlikely to have children.” At a time when housing prices in Decatur are high, largely because so many people are flocking here because of CSD, some people might at least wonder if apartments would be an attractive and relatively inexpensive way for parents to enroll their children in CSD. National demographic trends don’t necessarily apply to Decatur.
None of this is to oppose such developments, including 315. But let’s admit the obvious potential impact and make it part of our evaluations. CSD benefits parents with school-age children first and foremost, but it benefits everyone in the Decatur. It not only adds vibrancy and builds community bonds and involvement, but it also maintains property values for everyone. Higher property values, in turn, keep tax revenue up for both CSD and the City. We are in this together.
Well said, Judd. I share you concern that the potential impact of multiple developments isn’t being properly evaulated. If the impact is being evaluated, someone is doing a poor job of communicating the results.
But, clearly you haven’t been reading DM very closely. We learned just last week that density cures cancer! 😉
I’m assuming you’re snide remark about density curing cancer was and attempt to get a rise out of the likes of me. Well it worked. (I don’t believe that emotithingys convey any sort of message that I’m supposed to understand and don’t let you off the hook for what proceeds it). You can dismiss the density argument out of hand, smart guy, but if we aren’t going to grow our tax base through annexation, the next best way to grow our tax base is through increasing development intensity in our downtown core, particularly on underutilized and tax-exempt land.
I appreciate all the thought you put into these essays, Judd. They certainly lay out the issues at hand. Now it’s time to figure out some solutions to these issues. We can’t just shut the door behind us. I agree that annexation is probably not the answer. Building mixed use projects downtown helps solve many issues, from local to global, including those in Judd’s analysis. DawgFan’s unfounded skepticism notwithstanding.
your, not you’re
Sorry, WB, that was a failed attempt at humor. I have never dismissed the density argument and have repeatedly acknowledged the many benefits of increased density downtown. However, I have also expressed concerns about whether the effect on the schools is being evaluated. Further, there are some posters here who refuse to consider the negatives of increased density or engage in any meaningful conversation about it. Do not impede!
You SHOULD be sorry, Dawgie. Density curing cancer is ridiculous. Only Jack and Coke slushies from Victory can do that.
And you still owe me 11
Nice in depth writing Judd. Thanks for taking the time to bring this to more people’s attention.
Does anyone know the status of annexing partial parcels? You know, the ones with the city/county line running down the middle of the parcel. I know of people in this boat whose kids go to CSD but school taxes are split between city and county with most school $’s going to Dekalb. Yes, it makes no sense at all. That was suppose to be fixed along with the other annexation issues, but I have not heard if that died as well.
I know people in this predicament and as far as I know it is not resolved. And many of them do not get to go to CSD.
I wonder how many home buyers purposely target homes JUST outside the city limits, believing they can buy the house on the cheap and then get annexed into the city. So a 2,000 square foot 3/2 which costs $400K in the city would cost half that right outside the city.
Since, as Judd says, CoD has essentially created a clear city policy to annex small parcels, I think someone with this plan would have a high expectation that they could play the system and get annexed, saving themselves a couple hundred grand (all numbers are for illustrative purposes only).
Opinions…is this a valid thought process?
Yeah, that’s a bit of a leap I think. Now, I suppose someone buying houses for the purpose of renting them might make such a calculated gamble. It’s sort of a rule of thumb to invest in rental property near but not in a well-regarded area. But I can’t see many people, especially people with children in school, gambling on annexation, especially when the difference between in and out is a different school system, not just a different school.
As for non-investors without children, in my experience they are opposed to any annexation or incorporation that would raise their taxes.
To add a perhaps illustrative anecdote to what I wrote above, I know a young, childless couple who bought just outside of the city limits (on the east side near Avondale station) with the expectation of development raising their home’s value. They then plan on selling and buying in Decatur city limits when they have kids approaching school age.
When annexation first came up I recall reading somewhere about several houses on Derrydown who already had annexation petitions in the works. I think it is safe to assume those petitions are still working through the city process and we will get a few more residences with children.
Most people who bought outside Decatur , my self included did so because we didn’t want to pay the tax’s . end of story period. I DO NOT WANT TO be part of Decatur, or n druid hills, or what ever new city comes this way.
If you people need more money for the schools, charge the parents , not the childless home owner, It really is time that people look at new ways to pay for public education Sorry, my pockets are empty
Until the recent school system decision to halt tuition payments, I think most parents assumed they could buy a more affordable home outside the city limits, and then pay tuition to CSD when they needed to send their children there. I know a couple of families who intended to do this, only to just find out it’s no longer an option.
Thanks for spending the necessary time and effort studying these issues…
Judd and I have spoken multiple times in the past about the issue of “kid-counting” when dealing with one-off annexations of single family homes and my discomfort with reducing motivated people to a price tag, and I’m glad to see this essay consider the matter in a non-personal, more policy-specific way. In short, Judd’s making a call being heard more and more frequently these days in communities across the country: We no longer have the luxury of policies and initiatives that don’t pay their own way, or that set us up for costly liabilities down the line. Hard to quibble with any of that.
I do have a question about downtown development, though. In short, downtown is zoned (or, in legal terms, “entitled”) for a particular scale of development (which, parking and other factors permitting, tends to be around 5 stories). City commission regulates only the defining physical characteristics of this development. Use and programming, for the most part, are driven by market demand.
For example, before Decatur set its height limit at the present 5-ish stories, it had no limit. Yet downtown is not filled with skyscrapers because the small number that did develop in the 60s and 70s easily sucked up all the demand for years to come. And even after the height cap was set, we went years with no meaningful development downtown. Why? The demand wasn’t there.
But now it is. And property owners are quite reasonably moving forward on plans to realize their property’s allowable value.
For the most part, so long as they meet the rules we have in place, they can pull their permits and begin construction tomorrow. Condo, office, apartment, mom and pop shops, chain anchors, whatever. And why not? So long as they’re playing by the rules, they can quite reasonably meet the market, wherever it might be at the time.
So I guess my question is, what further “evaluations” are we speaking of? The fact that any development carries with it potential impacts (schools and otherwise) is already reflected in how the city allows for/encourages future development. We favor directing the bulk of it into housing types that, typically, generate fewer school-age kids. These considerations are inherent in the growth plans and zoning rules now on the books.
So downtown property owners, like anyone else, can legally develop their land and, so long as they play by the rules like everyone else, the city has essentially no say in whether they build one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom apartments or condos or office suites. Which is as it should be because, in the city’s view (in both substance and practice), this type of development offers — in our context — the most benefits and the fewest drawbacks.
Given that any future reduction in these allowable property rights could be viewed as a taking and result in litigation against the city, what kinds of future evaluations are you (Judd) envisioning? (And why is Dawgfan, of all people, coming out in favor of the city having a hand in what can be developed?!…) 🙂
Scott, you’re the expert, but it seems to me that evaluating the impact on schools is actually an obligation. Maybe you can help clear this up, genuine question, no ‘gotcha’s’ here.
——–
§ 36-67-3. Zoning proposal review standards
….The planning department or other agency shall make a written record of its investigation and recommendations, and this record shall be a public record. The matters with which the planning department or agency shall be required to make such investigation and recommendation shall be: ….
(4) Whether the zoning proposal will result in a use which will or could cause an excessive or burdensome use of existing streets, transportation facilities, utilities, or schools;
———–
I guess my question is similar to Judd’s. Doesn’t our city government have a right and duty to evaluate the impact of zoning policy and land use on schools? If so, I don’t understand your position. Doing so would allow us a say in how and what is built, right?
BTW, one housing type that Judd failed to mention is low-cost/subsidized housing. This property type has the greatest percentage of students. I believe about 100%. So, we need to include DHA in this discussion. Particularly as we evaluate the Avondale Marta development. (We just need to understand the impact so that we can plan, that’s all I’m implying.)
The real elephant in the room is the significantly undervalued commercial tax digest currently inside the city limits. The city should 1) regularly attend and defend commercial tax assessment appeals, 2) review the existing commercial tax digest and correct the many assessed value errors, and 3) review current commercial tax assessment and appeals procedures with CSD.
Doing so would go a long way towards reducing the increasing share of taxes paid by residents and help avoid future enrollment issues resulting from underestimating enrollment in the increasing number of high density developments.
Thanks for the question, Pat. Could you clarify where that section lives? I can’t find a section 36 in the zoning regs and chapter 36 of our overall ordinance is reserved.
That aside, note I’m not expressing a position. I’m trying to better understand Judd’s position, in light of current development policy. That is, if property downtown can legally be developed as residential units without influence (beyond enforcement of codes and such) from the city, what does he envision, or how does he see achieving, the evaluations he refers to and, in turn, what measures could be imposed in light of them.
I may or may not disagree. I’m just trying to get a better sense of what he’s getting at and how it could be legally implemented.
Good question, Scott, and you and Pat are both ahead of me in thinking about this concretely and legally. I’m not coming with a specific proposal, but this is precisely the sort of question I hoped to see raised. First I’m working on the will; next comes the way.
Ah, found it, Pat. Didn’t realize you were referencing state code.
Either way, the provision you point to is referring to the zoning/rezoning of property and, in those cases, it does describe the steps Decatur goes through in terms of evaluation/consideration.
It does not, however, refer to individual development proposals in conformance with existing zoning, so I’m back to my original question(s).
I’m pretty sure I’ve annoyed both sides of this debate in the past, because I also have trouble figuring out where I stand.
I’m not sure what you all need, but to me it seems like the piece missing is a joint assessment by COD and CSD of a worst case situation regarding the school system. How many more students can we accommodate before the whole thing is crushed under its own weight? Is that even a possibility? If so, how likely? I feel like that’s not something we discuss openly for some reason.
From there you look at the next 5 years and predict enrollments with the new downtown developments included. What’s the outcome?
From that the commission should then reassess it’s default “annex all who what to be annexed” mantra.
“How many more students can we accommodate before the whole thing is crushed under its own weight?” –The answer depends on what we are willing to do to accommodate more students. In any case, making that the central question implies we are willing, and able, to cap enrollment. That doesn’t seem realistic to me, since people who already live here will keep having babies and people who already have babies are going to keep moving in. I know your point (and Judd’s) is that residential annexation exacerbates the situation and I don’t mean to say or imply that’s not a valid and relevant point. But it’s important to remember that we could pass a sweeping, indefinite moratorium on annexation and we’re still up against it. We are already hard-pressed to afford what we have in terms of the school system and our municipality, and the trend of revenue-negative hh’s supplanting revenue-positive ones is not going to vanish any time soon.
Wasn’t implying a cap. Was implying absolution of the school system.
Ha, wrong word. Meant dissolving the school system or some other word that I’m too tired to think….zzzz…
I believe it is the case that we have a state-mandated cap on the school portion of the millage rate. If and when we reach the point that CSD cannot operate on available funding, there will be no choice but to fold it up. (Not to re-open a different can of perennial–immortal?–worms, but that was one of the significant factors that drove the elementary school reconfiguration in 2004.) So while I agree that it’s not smart to go looking for more kid-heavy residential properties to scoop in, I don’t think resolving the annex/don’t annex question is going to get us out of the soup. The fundamental problem is bigger than that. The only alternatives that I see are to cap enrollment (a non-starter, obviously) OR find ways to get more people to produce more revenue while consuming less services.
“the trend of revenue-negative hh’s supplanting revenue-positive ones is not going to vanish any time soon.”
————————————————————
The only hope to slow down the trend of being overrun by hh’s with 2.3 kids is to build housing units that will “likely” attract hh’s with 0 kids. Yep, you guessed it, build higher density attached housing in our downtown core to attract young singles/couples and aging empty nesters. These are the largest segments of the population and hh’s without kids are the fastest growing segment – so we are meeting the market demand and helping to fix our financial troubles. DawgFan can study this all he wants, but it seems pretty simple to me.
What about converting more residential land to commercial? Probably improbable, but hey, it happens sometimes.
Damn’t WB, I was going to agree with you until your last sentence. Your logic is solid. But, what is the harm in backing it up and making you we aren’t making a collosal mistake? IMO, the demand to get in CoD solely for CSD isn’t common and what has worked in other areas may or not work here. Your mind is clearly made up and I hope (and somewhat believe) you are correct. But, as a parent of CSD students (present and future), I want to know that you right.
missing the edit function.
making “sure” we aren’t making a mistake.
Tell it.
“I feel like that’s not something we discuss openly for some reason.”
I have been trying to start that conversation on multiple threads, but I am done. Hopefully someone else will have more luck.
What about DawgFan’s suggestion that we keep downtown (mostly) commercial. There have been a number of projects already approved for multi use. How about revisiting zoning before the next big project comes along and make sure that it’s mostly commercial?
As the push for annexation confirms, the city has been focused on addressing the commercial tax imbalance. Why not accomplish that through zoning?
For one, a (mostly) commercial downtown means that the land is (mostly) underutilized. A retail building is only going to be one or two stories at most. So to maximize the land – and elevate its assessed value – you have to build up. So if you put the retail on the ground floor. What’s on top? – either office or residential. It would be great if it could be office, and we have our fair share. But the market tells us this is not a highly desirable Class A office location. If you look at the characteristics of those, they typically have an interstate running through or next to them – and/or have a regional mall in the area. So we can get some more office, but not much probably. So what’s left? – residential. And why is this an issue? It shouldn’t be – attached/stacked units won’t attract boatloads of children, tend to offer prices not attainable in our single family neighborhoods, and help to meet the city’s goal of “aging in place” as they are attractive to empty-nesters up to elderlies looking for low maintenance/convenient living options.
The reason I moved to Decatur was for both its walkability and its sense of community. The walkability satisfaction goes up the more great commercial stuff pops up. However, I understand that to support volume of businesses, there needs to be a lot of people walking around and patronizing the businesses. Having residential in our core helped move Decatur from somewhat sleepy in ’98 when I first arrived, to bustling now. We need to maintain and grow that bustle to support new commercial on Ponce, Trinity, Church and elsewhere there are commercial holes and/or opportunities. The downtown residential projects will help provide the walking business patrons to support the current and new commercial, and with that support, create new demand for more commercial, which helps with taxes each step of the way.
I want to highlight what Pat said about the undervaluation (tax assessments) of commercial properties. That really needs to be investigated. Not only is it leaving money on the table, it inflates the residential tax bill.
“The fact that any development carries with it potential impacts (schools and otherwise) is already reflected in how the city allows for/encourages future development.”
Scott, you make excellent points. But, I have 2 questions/comments: 1) Is the above a fact? 2) Has the potential impacts on schools been re-evaluated since the recent and continuing enrollment spike? If not, the evaulations may be out of date, and thus, no longer accurate.
I understand that these problems often work themselves out (i.e. overcroweded schools = less demand), and my concerns may be shortsighted and the long-term benefits will outweigh what ultimately prove to be growing pains. But, I do think the concerns Judd articulated are worth discussing further and should not be dismissed.
err – “may outweigh”
Somehow I missed your last paragraph.
There is a ton of case law backing up a city’s power to broadly amend its zoning ordinance and/or maps. We could, for example, amend the zoning map and ordinance in such a way as to not encourage residential development downtown. You are right that I don’t want the city deciding ad hoc whether proposed developments are acceptable or whether the latest or the next one broke the camel’s back. But, for example, if a comprehensive, conclusive report showed that the dense, residential development on all (half, 1/3, 60%, whatever) of the land downtown with such zoning sounded the death knell of CSD, would you not want to take a closer look at the vision of our city and its corresponding ordinances?
And BTW, even the property rights proponent in me recognizes the benefits of and need for zoning and land use planning.
Do you honestly think that creating residential density downtown, to the tune of $2k monthly rent for anything big enough to hold a small family, will attract a stampede of household with children? When the same outlay would get them a yard and a porch and a mortgage interest deduction? I guess it’s possible an asteroid will land on the bandstand, but that contingency shouldn’t guide our municipal zoning strategy or ordinances.
Since you have never proven yourself to be a particularly gifted thinker and believe my concern is akin to an asteroid strike, let me explain it to you. I know that these types of developments have a lower percentage of children. But, I also know that families are doing whatever they can to get their children into CSD. What I don’t know is whether the first fact will hold true given the demand for CSD.
Even if there is a lower percentage of hh’s with children in these developments, the schools are already nearing max capacity. I have previously stated that I am not concerned about any one of these developments – I am concerned with the sum of all of them. Even if they have a small percentage of hh’s with children, they are still adding children to the schools see Gweneth’s post above. As we have diminishing capacity to absorb more children, I think an attempt at an accurate projection is in order. Alternatively, I would like to know whether the increase in tax revenue will cover any necessary additions to the schools. Let’s not forget that the zoning designed to encourage these developments was enacted long before the current enrollment spike at CSD.
Further, these developments don’t exist in a vacuum, and I have seen nothing that suggests that Decatur’s right hand is talking to its left. When you combine these developments with the misguided efforts to annex residential properties, we may facing a big problem. We may not be. But, instead of looking at the sky for falling objects, we shoud at least try to figure it out.
Why is it that so many of you are afraid to look at this objectively? There are many, many benefits that these developments will bring to the city, some of which we need, but some of which are merely wants. But, there are also costs, but noone seems interested in evaluating those. I honestly don’t get it – it is not what I expect here. People don’t want WM, and they can list 8,000,000,000,000 miniscule, irrelavant evits that WM will bring to Decatur. But, when you talk about something like “socioeconomic diversity” (which is a good thing), almost noone wants to critically evaulaute the proposals. The only thing I have suggested is that we slow down, take a step back and look at this a little closer with current figures, projections and etc. and decide if we still want to proceed on the same path. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
You lost me at “Since you have never proven yourself to be a particularly gifted thinker…” Mainly because I couldn’t concentrate on anything else you wrote because I was picturing in my mind STG dope slapping you really hard.
OK, now you’ve opened the door to ugly personal remarks. I don’t possess the temperament that enables me to respond without letting you have it with both barrels, but I don’t want to descend to that level. So I’m disengaging from any dialogue with you about this today. Please don’t think it’s because your logic overwhelms, because that couldn’t be farther from the case.
FWIW, that is how I took your asteroid remark and the clear condescrension in your post.
But STG’s asteroid remark was about your argument, not YOU. You went after HER.
So THAT’S the difference, before you ask.
And BOOM goes the dynamite!
No explanation necessary. I fully expected to be edited (although I disagree with your interpretation of her post).
Rule violation: Personal insult. Sometimes a clever poster sneaks one in, in such a way that it can stand. But this is a naked, blatant, unadorned personal insult.
About the 315 development, and apartments downtown in general, I believe the high costs of two and three bedroom units will be a barrier to people with children seeking to be in CSD.
Why? They’ll cost less than single family housing.
Because in my experience (a dabbler in rental property, no expert) people who can afford a $2000 a month apartment are generally not the people looking for a way into a better school system. Living with kids in an apartment is a pretty big sacrifice, one rarely made. Apartments are usually the only option, not a choice. Most people, I’ve noticed, will choose a longer commute and a larger house in a good school system (Alpharetta, Johns Creek, parts of Gwinnett, etc.) over a smaller house–much less an apartment–closer in.
I agree, though not so much as a barrier. More that it will remove the incentive for them to buy into the living arrangement they don’t want because the one they do want is unattainable. If people are going to spend a couple grand or more a month, there are more kid-friendly single family options available in that range.
People will be renting in projects like 315 not as a concession but because it offers something they specifically want.
Make that “most people.” Don’t want to imply any absolutes.
“People will be renting in projects like 315 not as a concession but because it offers something they specifically want.”
Yes, I agree with this. In this case I’d say it’s proximity to employment centers and public transportation, and a walkable city with popular bars and restaurants.
A barrier, but some school-age children will end up in multi-family units, for many, many reasons. Single parents, divorces, down-sizing, desperate attempts to get into or stay in CSD, life transitions, and all other sorts of temporary transitions. It used to be highly unusual for me to meet CSD families living in condos or apartments. Even townhouses and cluster homes were unusual. Less and less so. My kids have found that the common areas of apartment buildings, condos, and townhouses have lots of fun potential. And the central location is great for walking to many of our schools. The stereotypes of how a family should live are breaking down and families are choosing all sorts of models. I cannot imagine living with my messy, noisy family in the Ice Lofts. But people do it successfully. Just like we are seeing more and more variations on the institution of marriage, we are going to see more and more variations on family life.
This not a pro or con statement about housing density; just a commen on the fact that some children will accompany any density.
“It used to be highly unusual for me to meet CSD families living in condos or apartments.”
Not having kids, I haven’t noticed this, but I’m curious as to just where they are living. I can only speak for one of the downtown condos, and not with exact numbers, but even so I’d bet there are less than 20 CSD kids in all 4 of the downtown condos combined.
We just happen to hang out with CSD kids in Tally Street, Knob Hill, Oakhurst Terrace, Emory Chase, The Pines. None of these are right downtown, but I know of kids in the Ice Lofts and a friend who lives in 225 Ponce says there’s kids there. I’m not trying to claim that downtown condos are teeming with kids but I think we’d better be careful about assuming that they will remain rare in multi-family housing. Things are changing and kids are showing up everywhere in Decatur. Build it and they will come. Actually, me and my daughter are hot on eventually moving into 225 Ponce. We love the pool and proximity to shopping, MARTA, and the Square. We’ll see if we become one of those families that messes up the enrollment projections……
We live in The Artisan, and next year will have two kids at CSD. I know of at least 3 other CSD kids who live here, but there may be more. There were more here last year, but they have since moved. I don’t know if families in apartments downtown will be a trend, but perhaps it could turn out that way.
How’s the pool? Other common areas? Do you use them? Do the fees and community association matters seem reasonable? Do you think the units will hold value over time. My daughter and I are serious about down(town)sizing!
The Artisan has a small pool, much smaller than the other downtown condo buildings (335 W PdL, Town Square, Renaissance). So no lap swimming, but it is great for cooling off on a hot day!! The pool deck is a lovely place, with grills, a fireplace, tables and comfy outdoor living room spaces. The other amenities rooms are pleasant spaces — tvs, pool tables, book exchange, etc. As for the rest, feel free to contact me directly …
“Down(town) Sizing!” That’s perfect!
Forgot to mention Gateway and Allen Wilson Terrace.
And whatever those condos are on the corner of Superior and Scott. Never noticed their name.
I know I will be thought hopelessly naive, but here’s a thought.
My kids attended private school in another state. Though tuition was already fairly high, we repeatedly received requests for further donations from the school. The rationale was that to keep the school somewhat economically diverse, tuition had to stay down, but to keep tuition down, those parents with means would have to chip in above and beyond tuition.
And it worked. Parents voluntarily gave money to the school.
My family has the means to contribute to education above and beyond property taxes. We already give to the Decatur Education Foundation. I know that here are many other families in our position who would give money if COD asked. Has there been any effort to solicit voluntary contributions from parents? It might sound naive, but I know others in our position who are concerned about the economic diversity of our schools being hurt because less affluent families cannot afford the housing prices or accompanying taxes. This is, by and large, a liberal community that is concerned about economic diversity.
Just a thought. I had wondered if the City Schools of Decatur had considered it.
I think public school systems have to be careful about how they directly solicit and collect donations. It’s got to do with their public, governmental, tax-funded nature. That’s why private, non-profit foundations like DEF exist.
You’re probably right. I just wish there were a way for wealthier families to bear a greater portion of the burden.
I applaud your generosity, but don’t really understand what you’re proposing.
Meeting the shortfall caused by an overabundance of families by soliciting voluntary contributions from parents. It’s what private schools do to keep tuition down, and I was suggesting it as an alternative to raising the tax rates. Something is going to have to pay for school.
But the writer below (I heart chelsea heights) has some compelling reasons it would probably not work.
And quite frankly, there are probably not as many “wealthier” families here as you may think.
I for one would be a LOT wealthier if I wasn’t paying for all you spawners’ kids to learn to read and write, that’s for damn sure 😉
I think that NB is right. Having attended many school auctions for CSD schools and for some family members’ private schools, I was astounded to see the difference in parental attendance, contributions, and bidding. The differences in contributions and bidding are a likely reflection of the wealth base of the families.
Have to add — we are lucky to have incredible local business support of the auctions, through donations to be auctioned or goods and services (like catering, logo work, etc.) for the auctions and for other activities. We are also lucky to have so many families contributing work hours where they can — stretching the budget in many areas where we do the work instead of paying someone to do the work.
Y’all, I’ve done fundraising for K-12s and universities, and BethB explains the model exactly right. Schools could charge everyone the “full price,” or they can lower tuition and make up the difference through fundraising (which is basically generous families with means). Nearly all independent schools do the latter.
To try to make an apples to apples comparison, I guess our millage rate is somewhat similar to tuition. We can’t raise the millage rate (not really sure), but we could theoretically ask people to make (tax deductible) contributions to pay what we aren’t bringing in through taxes, to bridge the gap. We is DEF. So DEF directly asks those with means, and the money would simply go into the general budget that in effect covers everything but nothing in particular. The problem, of course, is that we’d be left begging/scrambling for money to make up the budget each year, and that’s a stressful place to be. What if we didn’t bring in the fundraising revenue one year? Or two? We wouldn’t have en endowment in place like a private school would have. This model does work for private schools, but since we’re a public system and are legally responsible for educating all kids who live here and move here, this fundraising option seems almost irresponsible. Certainly not sustainable. And they are we beholden to the rich families who are essentially underwriting the schools?
Regarding economic diversity – as in people of lower means not able to afford to buy a house in Decatur – I think there are enough other options that we can still achieve socioeconomic diversity. Families can rent apartments and houses. They can also buy condos and townhouses, which are often less than single family homes. At Home in Decatur is right – there isn’t just one way for families to live. I think many families are happy to forego the house with the picket fence – and live in something other than a single family home – to make sure their kids have a top-notch education.
And THEN are we beholden… (not “they”)
The problem with what you are suggesting, at least in terms of socioeconomic diversity, is that the property tax rate is not what makes Decatur unaffordable for many. Heck, it’s not much higher than DeKalb’s now. It’s the high home prices, shortage of rental property and corresponding high rents for what is available.
Then again, maybe tax rates are too high in both places.
The market would suggest that tax rates are not too high in Decatur. Probably too high in DeKalb County.
Not sure what you are suggesting here…are you proposing children from lower income families who don’t live in Decatur be admitted and this be facilitated by some kind of scholarship paid for with donations?
Does anyone know where the 5 recently annexed residences are? I’m just curious.
Midway Road, I believe.
Yes they are located on Midway between Deerwood and Oldfield. 11 homes that are adjacent to those homes were annexed in 2008. Peggy Merris mentioned this in one of the last annexation meetings. These 5 homes started the process during the most recent annexation “talks.” Peggy said that it would clear up the city boundaries and that entire side of Midway Road from S. Candler to Oldfield would be in Decatur. There are children in 13 of the 16 homes annexed. I know for a fact there was no “kid counting” by COD.
BethB – in one paragraph you explained very clearly what it took me a few paragraphs to explain maybe not so well…! Between our two responses, I think ppl will get it.
I was really thinking out loud as I wrote my comments; I wasn’t saying the “private school fundraising model” is a horrible idea. If we are brainstorming, there are no bad ideas! I don’t know the legality of a plan like that, to tell you the truth. I wonder if there are any public school systems in the country that do this? I’m very curious now. I believe that most of the education foundations supporting public schools, like DEF, add “extra” money to the budget. They don’t make or break the budget. But hey, new ideas/models get started just like this when there is problem-solving to be done.
I’d also be curious to hear initial thoughts from Gail Rothman on something like this. She runs DEF.
BethB – I know just what you are saying. It just hit me that sales tax is regressive, right? Isn’t the percentage of the home value paid the same for everyone? (Or millage rate, however it works exactly.) Meaning, for example, if property tax is 5% of a house worth $100,000, it’s also 5% of a house worth $800,000? Maybe it should be like income tax with the richer paying a larger percentage. Again, thinking out loud.
In a place like Decatur, I’d think there are many of “haves” who would be willing to give a little more to help the “have-nots.”
And I won’t even get started on property taxes funding schools… if you’re poor and live in poor neighborhood, your school will be under-funded and probably sub-par. So you start out behind before you even start school. Other countries give MORE money to schools like that. Here, we just let them struggle along with the small amount of money they do have.
Just had a thought. I am remembering that at Fernbank – I think – money that the PTA raises goes to pay for things like an additional teacher to alleviate classrooms that are getting too large.
I am also remembering a NYTimes article about the “good” public schools in NYC and how they raise money like a typical independent school does. The article mentions all of the things that they do with the extra funds. (The problem there, of course, is that rich schools with larger budgets to begin with get even MORE money, and the poor schools end up poor. The rich schools don’t want their school’s hard-earned money to go to anyone else. But here, all of our schools are good, and we’re a tiny system. DEF almost works like an umbrella PTA of sorts that uses contributions to do things to benefit the system overall.
OK – I found it – I read it a while ago so may have remembered a few things not exactly right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/03/nyregion/at-wealthy-schools-ptas-help-fill-budget-holes.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
And here’s another one that looks to be somewhat similar – and interesting:
http://colorlines.com/archives/2012/06/power_parent_fundraising_or_not_in_the_new_public_school_economy.html
That first article was quite interesting but I wonder how much aggressive fundraising people would be willing to tolerate. In that case if didn’t sound like writing a check for a lot of money would be a big deal. But here Decatur schools are a good value and that’s why I’m guessing people with children choose them. If you started contributing hundreds of extra dollars a month, maybe some would decide they could have a bigger house outside city limits and not pay much more to send their kids to a private school. Of course that wouldn’t be true if you had tons of kids.
I completely agree with this turn of discussion, that the Decatur city school community should and must develop a strong culture of philanthropy directed at the school system.
I’ve always been astounded by how little philanthropy exists within a community that is so passionate about the schools that their children attend. As I see it (and I’m not an insider by any means so I could be wrong), the schools have only one revenue stream (tax receipts). Whereas the private schools my children have attended have always had more diverse sources (tuition, endowment, PTA, capital campaigns, lots of volunteerism, etc).
In private schools, we’re pretty much habituated to getting what we are willing to pay for. Sometimes, we pay for things that we never benefit from directly, just as we benefit from the philanthropy of those who came before us.
My sense is that city of Decatur taxes are pretty much up against the upper boundary of what residents are willing to pay. If the parents continue to insist upon maintaining their privileged city school system, and I am all for the highest quality school system, it is not unreasonable for city taxpayers to expect those who benefit directly to contribute over and above what taxes provide.
Philanthropy would be a great way to do this, but user fees shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand, either.
Finally, let me clarify one misconception…philanthropy isn’t a wealth thing…more of a priority thing. There are all sorts of new cars we haven’t owned and vacations we haven’t taken because of our choice to send our children to private schools.
ps, I’m a liberal
“I’ve always been astounded by how little philanthropy exists within a community that is so passionate about the schools that their children attend.”
——
I’m calling B.S. on this one. From my perspective, CoD residents are VERY philanthropic. Just because you don’t see us contributing all our charitable donations to our schools doesn’t mean we aren’t putting those contributions elsewhere.
“… their privileged city school system.”
——
Uh…what? The system succeeds because of the teachers, administrators, parents, para-pros etc. There’s nothing “privileged” about it.
” …philanthropy isn’t a wealth thing…more of a priority thing”
——
Thanks for the judgemental and arrogant lecture. Everyone has different priorities based upon a variety of internal and external pressures. Just becausetheir priorities don’t match yours doesn’t mean they are not legitimate.
“ps, I’m a liberal.”
——
Who the hell cares? Why does political preference have to enter every conversation?
Whoa! The CSD community is full of philanthropy whether it be supplies for the teachers, doubling/tripling up when sending in field trip money, selling wrapping paper and cookie dough, attending and spending at fundraisers, or huge DEF donations. Everytime I total it up for the IRS, my husband raises his eyebrows at the amount. But philanthropy in the public sector environment is much more challenging than in the private sector. Public schools have to follow mandates and regulations that private schools do not. They cannot always take the most cost-efficient route. The need can be infinite in a public school which has to accept all comers including students with severe disabilities that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in remediation. Private schools can control their admissions to match their resources. And, truth be told, parents are valued customers in private schools rather than the tolerated stakeholders that they are in public schools. Private schools know how to attract and reward philanthropy with great customer service and responsiveness. Public school systems, even great ones, operate like the government entities that they are and think in terms of short-term expediency vs. long-term value.
If you are so liberal and full of philanthropy, why aren’t you investing in our community school system that serves all kids from all walks of life and of all abilities rather than pulling your resources, time and children out to private school where there is by the very nature of the beast much more privilege than you would see here in our public system.
Think what all that private school tuition that you dole out could do for CSD, or for children who lack even the most basic necessities in third world countries. I guess it is all about priorities.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
You are not a CSD parent and I really do not think you have any idea what you are talking about. This is not a private school system and there is no comparison. We have PTAs, we have the Decatur Education Foundation, we have bonds for capital. But we are a PUBLIC school, which means we have people of all income levels and means. There is no expectation the way there is with private and why should there be?
Oh… and pulling your kids to private school is not philanthropy. I have no problem with families choosing private school, but don’t call it philanthropy.
Since the modern definition is “private initiatives, for public good, focusing on quality of life”, supporting private schools is the opposite of philanthropy.
Just something for people to consider. Many have talked about the need to re-appraise commercial properties which are value too low so that they pay their “fair” share. What do people think is “fair” for commercial properties, for which 70% of the taxes go to the school system but which do not allow commercial property owners or their tenants access to the school. Commercial properties pay millions of dollars to the schools but have no access to them. What’s fair about that? Maybe these families with many kids aren’t paying their “fair” share?
Just something for the masses to consider! i think if you pay you should be able to play!
Relevant to this thread from the AJC, County to County news today:
DEKALB
Apartments worry superintendent
Decatur schools superintendent Phyllis Edwards wants a joint meeting with the city government discussing the revival of three large apartment projects and their effect on city schools. Two developments totaling a projected 435 units figure to break ground next year, with a third, on the Callaway property, approximately two years away. Decatur schools anticipate total enrollment doubling to over 6,000 by 2018, but Edwards said these new apartments “don’t figure into our projections.” Bill Banks for the AJC
http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/county-by-county-news-for-thursday/nW5r9/
This makes me think that Dr. Edwards thinks apartments and condos have enough kids to affect school enrollment. I tell you, families and where they live have changed. The apartments across from Westchester have lots of kids too–a lot of Emory grad students with families live there.
I agree with AHID’s premise that “family with kids” no longer equals “single family home” to the extent that people will go for the back yard and deck even if it means a locale that’s not their first choice. But I don’t think we’re going to see a stampede of apartment-dwelling kids any time soon. This ain’t Manhattan and it ain’t gonna be. (And trying to get my head around blending “Manhattan and Mayberry” just makes my head hurt.)
In any case, the challenges confronting CSD that stem directly from burgeoning enrollment are bigger than just downtown density or residential annexation. Kids are going to keep flooding in, even if we try to jam stoppers in those two pipelines–which I am not convinced is even feasible, never mind the trade-offs required, particularly with respect to downtown development. See Warren B’s numerous articulations of why we need to encourage density and varied use downtown from a fiscal perspective. And then there are the non-tangible, non-material values that Decatur residents have repeatedly indicated we want to preserve and nurture.
Decatur is a great place to live. Ensuring it is still a great place to live 10, 25, 50 years from now requires thinking beyond the schoolyard. As long as we depend on property taxes and state funding (such as it is and such as it may be down the road) to finance our public schools, families with school-age children are never going to foot the entire bill. That’s as it should be. Our vested interest in public education shouldn’t be all about property values–it’s supposed to be a path toward an informed, engaged citizenry. But I digress. The point is that we all need to be not just willing but happy to ante up.
ON THE OTHER HAND, keeping Decatur desirable for people in age and life-stage segments other than child-roaring (oops) means offering quality-of-life incentives beyond lovely schools. Which bring us back around to things we Decaturites have already said we value, through not one but two cycles of strategic planning that span 10 years. Walkability. Diversity of all kinds. A vibrant downtown with places to eat and drink and shop and just be. An infrastructure that supports not only young families but those just starting out, and older households and the option to “age in place.”
Too late to make a long story short. Bottom line: We shouldn’t look at everything ONLY through the lens of what it might mean for CSD classrooms given current configurations. More kids are coming because more people are coming. Maybe they’re coming a few at a time through annexations. Maybe they’re coming a few or more at a time through residential development downtown. You can be damned sure they’re coming through more single-family properties turning over. (How many single-family sites in Oakhurst that changed hands in the last 15 years passed from one no-kids household to another? I’ll bet you can’t find a dozen, certainly not two.) So the school system, like the municipality, has to figure out how to grow and change to accommodate what’s coming while preserving its heart and soul and whatever it is that makes us Decatur. Not easy. Really, really hard. It needs all of our attention and energy and imagination. Focusing too narrowly on the evils of annexation or downtown density amounts to rearranging deck chairs.
And here’s a challenge to anybody that wants to rush in and poke holes in my metaphors: resist. It’s too easy.
I want to make it clear that I am not against a walkable, vibrant downtown per se. I want to age into a Decatur that is hospitable to seniors. But I want folks to use realistic assumptions in their projections. Apartments, condos, townhouses are no longer for single yuppies and empty nesters only. Some children are coming along with any new housing built unless we have adults-only housing.
I’ve never gotten the impression that you resist a walkable, vibrant downtown–quite the contrary. And I did not mean to ascribe that view to you. Just using your point that apartments–any new housing–will bring some kids, as a jumping-off point for my own sermon: more apartments won’t necessarily bring a critical stampede but instead represent one of multiple streams contributing more kids (along with more young adults, more older adults, more dogs, more bicycles, more beer drinkers, more festival volunteers, etc.).
I wasn’t feeling singled out. I just didn’t want my assertion to be misunderstood. The fact that children are going to come along with multiple-family dwellings is only one of the factors that should be considered. But it shouldn’t be ignored.