Strategic Plan Scramble! Last Minute Highlights Before Approval Tonight!
Decatur Metro | March 21, 2011
OK, so I just glanced over Decatur’s 2010 Strategic Plan one last time and realized some of the most interesting “tasks” in the whole document are under the three goals that I never posted. Read them in full for yourself HERE, or you can read my filtered version below. It’s YOUR internet, MAN!
Without further ado, here are the abbreviated DM highlights of “Principle D: Support a Safe, Healthy, Lifelong Community”.
Under Goal 14: Enhance mobility options within and to Decatur
Task 14A: Implement the recommendations of the Community Transportation Plan.
Task 14D: Establish a speed limit of 30 miles per hour on all city streets to increase safety and make walking and biking more desirable.
Task 14H: Update parking standards to allow innovative parking strategies, such as shared or unbundled parking.
Task 14I: Promote more efficient use of parking with electronic signs, shared use of existing lots and decks, consolidated parking meters, more strict enforcement, higher parking fines, and similar techniques.
Under Goal 15: Expand the variety of high quality housing options to meet the needs of a diverse community
Task 15B: Adopt ordinance changes that allow smaller homes and support accessory dwellings to support affordable housing options in single family neighborhoods. Educate the public about their characteristics and benefits.
Task 15E: Support a wholistic understanding of affordability that looks beyond simple rent or sale price.
And finally under Goal 16: Provide programs and services that support and enhance a safe, healthy, and active lifestyle
Task 16A: Expand the off-street path system throughout the community, especially by using vacant or unbuildable lots, utility corridors, or stream corridors to create mid-block passages.
Task 16F: Improve Dearborn Park.
Latest from Decaturish
CoD can’t legally do 14D on the main roads that are state highways as far as I know. Unless they somehow get the legislature to redo the current code.
no, they can’t. just as Kasim couldn’t throw salt on ice back in january.
There are issues relating to enforcement that effectively negate the speed limits on many – probably most – Decatur residential streets .
A few years ago residents of the Wilton , Oakland, Ponce Place, etc. neighborhood went to the City Commission to push for more enforcement of the speed limits. I can’t remember the exact details, but police must have a certain stretch of straight road in order to get radar readings, other wise the reading won’t stand up if challenged in court . None of the streets mentioned above had the proper area to allow for speed enforcement. The only thing Decatur PD could offer was enforcement of the stop signs. They did do this for a while.
Still , it is amazing how fast cars will drive between stop signs especially on Ponce Place and on Oakland. Definitely over 30mph – and I think these streets have 25 mph limits !
Oh, but why let illegality stop Decatur from making more speed traps? I’ve been looking into the speed trap they set up on weekday mornings on W Howard, and it is completely illegal under GA law. Since most people don’t know their rights, the city can prey on ignorance and rational apathy — it is just easier to pay a ticket than do legal research, especially if you are not a lawyer, so most people pay these illegal tickets rather than fight them.
How’s it illegal?
Numerous ways. Under GA law, a city can’t use radar/laser detection from a point that is obstructed from the view of approaching motorists — has to be visible from at least 500 feet. The spot where the police sit on W Howard is obscured in both directions. Also, a city can’t use radar/laser detection within 300 feet of a reduction in speed sign. Again, the place where the police typically lie in wait on W Howard is about 70 yards from a reduction in speed sign.
I don’t have time to look it up right now, but there are some rules re: speeding violations that apply differently to school zones.
And, DEM, if you thing the enforcement is being done incorrectly:
1. Get yourself a ticket
2. Go to court to defend yourself
That would settle it once and for all.
Steve, I suggest you dispense your personal advice elsewhere. I don’t care what you think I should do and have zero intention of taking your suggestions in any respect. [edited: no personal attacks]
The only such rule I can find is that the “over 10mph” requirement is waived for an officer using a speed detection device to issue a citation in a school zone.
Didn’t they do this on a portion of one of the roads and have to change it back to 35?
Yeah, Howard. GDOT came out and determined the 80th percentile speed was still 35 mph and not 30 mph, so they had to change it back.
It’s a very weird and sort of Catch-22ish method for determining speed limits. Not to mention the fact that it’s a totally car-centric view.
I had to look up 80th percentile speed to figure out what that meant. This helps explain why traffic calming is a useful approach to reduce speeds (and speed limits).
Regarding Task 6C, if the app is just a guide for visitors then it doesn’t need to be an app. A mobile optimized website will be easier to update and maintain in the long run and cost way less. If it IS an app, I’d like to see it become a sort of tool like NYC’s 3-1-1 number. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/11/ff_311_new_york/all/1
Excellent point, make that known to the City before some digital agency in god-knows-where convinces the commission to pay big money for an app.
Is the city just going completely anti-car? I understand the need to make the city more walkable and safer to bike but it seems the city is oblivious that Atlanta is a car town, no matter how much we don’t want it to be. The bike lanes are great but I’m not sure how helpful they’ll be. For example, getting rid of a lane on Commerce near Clairemont to create a bike lane seems like it will cause more backups.
Not going anti-car. Been anti-car. The idea is to make the city more walkable. It’s drivable enough already.
The reality is that in order to make a place more friendly for walking/biking/transit, the less friendly it can be for cars.
You really can’t have it both ways.
We are chosing people in Decatur over cars. As you note, there are plenty of other places in Atlanta where car is king.
Last time I checked, people drive cars.
Some people value time in their cars over other life activities, yes.
‘the city is oblivious that Atlanta is a car town, no matter how much we don’t want it to be”
Think about what you wrote. You impy that public policy has nothing to do with whether we are a “car town” or not. That is simply not true.
Yes, public policy has an impact on these issues. Atlanta and its surroundings made a conscious decision to be a “car town” a long time ago. I don’t agree with it but we have to live with it. While I think reducing West Ponce to two lanes to create bike lanes was a good idea and I like the narrowing of Church by the pool, cutting Commerce down to one lane as it crosses Church going toward Clairmont strikes me as a bad idea. Traffic already backs up there on a regular basis and I’m not sure that reducing a lane there makes sense. I am all for making Decatur more walkable and pedestrian friendly but if you’ll pardon my cynicism, Atlanta as a whole is a lost cause when it comes to increasing transportation options as long as the surrounding counties and the state Legislature remain anti-Marta.
One could extend that and say, by public policy, the US made a decision 50 or 60 years ago to become a “car country” to the detriment of public transportation at all levels. Compare us to Switzerland, for example, which has made past and present decisions to become less motor vehicular dependent. 60% of the people in Zurich do not even own cars.
Definitely, I agree with you 100 percent. The board that recommended the creation of the Interstate Highway System was headed by the chairman of GM. Companies like GM also worked hard to convert streetcar systems into buses, which is I believe what happened in Atlanta. Had our forefathers been a little more insightful and kept public transportation as part of the mix, Atlanta would not be in the shape that it’s in today. Atlanta — and by that I mean the metro area, not just the city — is just so car-focused it’s hard to see how any meaningful change will come soon. I mean, why did Atlanta tear down not one but two downtown train stations? And even when public transportation is implemented, it’s kind of screwy. Look at downtown Decatur. I have never understood why the square had to be wrecked to put in the Marta station.
Totally off topic but what is going in at the Big H?? There are workers and a permit in the window.
They have a demolition permit. They are “gutting” the interior of the building. That is usually a prelude to a building permit soon thereafter, meaning they are close to or have an executed lease.
DG in the OAK?!?
Love you, Chadly but if you open that can of worms I am opening a can of whoop ass
From what the Gossip understands Nellie, it is NOT the DG that is going in.
Did notice the new “Oakhurst Church” sign that went up though.
Will someone explain Task 15E? What is a wholistic understanding of affordability that looks beyond simple rent or sale price?
It refers to things like transit-proximity and having necessities within walking or biking distance that allow you to own fewer cars, which can free up more money (up to 10 grand or so a year, according to AAA) for rent or mortgage payments.
In other words, by implementing certain development policies, the city can making more units of housing affordable to more people without having to leverage any tax money or offer developer incentives. Simply by encouraging housing options that are underrepresented in most parts of the Atlanta metro area.
So from a wholistic understanding, my 2,000 sf condo in Decatur that I buy for $475,000 and $9,000/yr in taxes (“high quality housing”) near MARTA is more affordable than a 2,000 sf house in Henry County valued at $150,000 with $2,500 in taxes? By my calculations, the difference is about $27,000/year more in Decatur. Lifestyle preferences, yeah. More affordable, no.
Uhh, who said that? We’re talking about Decatur and solutions that can provide more non-subsidized options for people who want to live here. So, if you can stomach an apples-to-apples comparison, it means the difference between, for example, a $900/month apartment or $200,000 condo for two people who need two cars and a $900/month apartment or $200,000 condo for two people who only need one car. Or a $600/month studio for someone who needs no car. Or whatever. It’s simple math, not ideology, and obviously refers to future housing given that the plan was only presented last night.
The market is currently serving those with $475,000 with plenty of reasonable options — near transit or otherwise. This is about markets currently underserved. If you don’t base value solely on square footage, and you want to live somewhere where you can reasonably reduce or eliminate your car use, there just aren’t that many options available.
It’s a market-based approach to an existing challenge. You may or may not think it’ll have any effect (or maybe you just prefer over-regulated markets) but it doesn’t cost the city–or you–anything. What’s the problem with that?
I want this in affordibility for dummies, please. How is this city defining affordable these days? I have heard commissioners refer to $200k as affordable. How is that affordable for anyone making less than $60,000 a year? As someone who works with the lowest income people in our region, I get the sense of huge disconnect with the actual budgets of the working poor and the middle-to-upper-middle concept of what one can actually pay.
It’s not. I think the fact is that Decatur, like any highly desirable place, is increasingly not on the realistic radar screen for the working poor. At least not in the most desirable areas of the city. Simple result of demand increasing prices. By referring to $200k as affordable, it seems to me that they mean affordable to middle class incomes in the $50k to $75k range. There are parts of the city where homes can’t be had for $200k — even close to it, really.
Part of the holistic view is that affordability is not something exclusive to those with lower incomes. Conceptually speaking, affordability is self-defined, based on one’s own means, so truly systemic affordability goals should seek to ensure reasonable housing options across the board through all manner of approaches — market-based, housing authorities, non-profits, etc.
DEM’s right that there are a lot of people or couples who might qualify for a $150-200K mortgage that can’t find much in 30030. If city policy modifications can allow the market to provide options to this segment, why wouldn’t we? Just because I don’t feel sorry for people making $75K doesn’t mean I’m against them living here. They’re money’s as green as anyone else’s, and their potential contributions to our community are just as strong.
What kept being said during the meetings is that anyone who wants to live in Decatur should have options for doing so. That doesn’t mean they are obligated to choose those options (someone who wants a single family home, for instance, but can only afford a condo, or someone who thinks they deserve a newly constructed crib but can only afford an old rental, might choose to go somewhere else). What’s important is that a wide, diverse spectrum of housing options is available, which is what really speaks to the issue of inclusivity.
So I take it you are pointing out the inherent contradiction in the public call for inclusion and the reality of the housing stock? Correct me if I am wrong….
Essentially, yes, but also to make the point that putting a specific dollar figure on affordability makes hitting that mark, rather than spectrum-wide affordability, the goal. That’s fine for addressing the issue of lower-income residents but it takes focus off the larger goal of providing options for anyone, at any income level, who might want to live here. Not to mention those already here who would like to stay, even as their income profile changes over time.
I don’t think we want to be a city of two classes — poor and upper middle. There’s a lot grey between those two ends that small development policy changes can address, without the city or housing authority having to bear the cost.
That’s actually a good perspective. I worked in low income housing and still work for low income clients and I think that created a bit of a tunnel vision. Thanks for the insight and enlightenment- what you say makes perfect sense.
Indeed. Perhaps the hardest part of building strong communities is dismantling (or reconfiguring) the silos. People tend to think in terms of solving particular problems instead of in terms of maximizing systems. The desire to overcome this (explicitly stated in policy, no less!) is one of the things I love most about Decatur.
And demand, of course, is not the only reason prices are high. Restrictive building covenants keep the supply low. Check out Edward Glaesar’s book “Triumph of the Cities” or read the excerpt on skyscapers in last month’s “Atlantic.”
“Restrictive building covenants keep the supply low”
Please cite some examples. BTW, such things were discussed in the roundtables, especially in regard to live/work situations.
Well, the downtown building height restrictions for one example. I’m not saying that such ordinances don’t have value, but they can and do drive prices up because they limit supply. Even in this real estate crash, there are still very few available units in The Artisan (for example).
Somebody just tell me what dictionary includes “wholistic.”
According to dictionary.com, the Random House dictionary does, but it’s a variant of “holism”, a term coined in 1926 by Gen. J.C. Smuts in “Holism and Evolution”. “Holistic” looks more Greek and impressive than “wholistic”. Definitions tend to read like “relating to or concerned with wholes or with complete systems rather than with the analysis of, treatment of, or dissection into parts < holistic medicine attempts to treat both the mind and the body." In the case of Strategic Plan Task 15E, "Support a wholistic understanding of affordability that looks beyond simple rent or sale price.", I think "comprehensive" is what is meant, not really "wholistic".
The language of this task seems a bit overblown and vague. I would rewrite it as something like "Support comprehensive efforts that go beyond the cost of rent and home sales to keep Decatur affordable."
Thank you Karass. I must need to check for updates on my dictionary.com.
A good point karass. We did look at this and I looked at the definitions too. I like your option. We’ll give it a look and see about substituting something that is easier to understand before we send it out for the final printing.
Wow, it’s neat to see our city officials are reading this blog so carefully! Happy I can occasionally help. And this is the value of a blog. Even though I attended small groups and other sundry Strategic Plan meetings, I never read the plan thoroughly enough to note how “wholistic” was used. But DM’s breaking the plan down into parts and posting them over time made it more digestable and engendered discussion that brought up new points.
I have always regretted that ten years ago, I stayed home instead of attending the City Commission meeting to voice my objections to the 2000 Strategic Plan. Not this time. I did not do as good of a job of arguing against the plan as many of my conservative brothers and sisters have done on this blog, but I am proud that I made the following points. I think the SP will lead to higher taxes, increasing regulation of private property, and less freedom for those of us who want our government to say “No” to the special interest groups that have manipulated the system.
Can you name these secret “special interest groups” manipulating our fair burg?
Maybe it’s those powerful bicycle and sidewalk lobbies.
Praytell, list items in the 2000 plan that led to “higher taxes, increasing regulation of private property, and less freedom for those of us who want our government to say “No” to the special interest groups that have manipulated the system”
I listened to Chris’ comments at last night’s meeting, and while I didn’t personally agree with any of his positions or fears that he brought up, I very much enjoyed hearing our commissioners defend the Strategic Plan in their remarks. It’s refreshing and always reassuring to hear our political leaders make sound counter-arguments to fundamental challenges to what many of us believe works.
I especially liked Mr. Baskett’s “exception” to Chris’ assertion that the Strategic Plan would cost us more money down the road. In essence he said – plans actually SAVE you money, because when it comes to winning grants – something Decatur is exceptional at – having a plan in place that shows clearly that your goals coincide with those of the grant is critical. So, unless Decaturites don’t want to update any of their infrastructure, these plans will save us money in the long-run.
Summed up as an audience member (one of the folks who Chris managed to insult twice– apparently, those of us interested in attending govt meetings have nothing better to do):
* Chris’ knowledge re the Strategic Plan comes mostly from the blogs. He hasn’t read the Plan or participated in any of the available public input options
* He could tell from the 2000 plan that there was an agenda going in and folks were led to agree with it
* All who have participated in the 2010 Plan are basically sheep (my term, not his)
* Chris strongly feels it’s a power grab for City employees by Commission (although he did praise the Commissioners now serving, he fears the unknown future ones and their abilities to look out for citizens.)
* Chris shared a criticism he took for his DM comment re the Plan goal of ridding city properties of invasive plants . (Chris’ fear: What’s next step? Private property owners being targeted? Having to remove invasives when selling your home?)
* Chris said he’ll probably not be here in 5 years ( down from 10 years — probably to escape another Plan)
* Chris would like for the City Folks to keep in mind the folks like him– the ones who don’t want to participate and think that going to govt meetings is boring– when making their decisions
* Chris asked that the Commissioners delay their decision to give the Plan more thought. (?!?!?) Asked them to insert a clause stating that property taxes wouldn’t be raised to pay for any of it.
Really needs an audio clip. My retelling doesn’t do it justice, and Chris might gain from it too.
(Chris, if you’re reading, I would’ve introduced myself, but you left after the decision.)
Deanne, you have just proven why it’s nice to be sort of anonymous on these pages!
About 5 people know who I am and they figured me out because they know me pretty well. I think I am going to work harder at keeping it that way!!
Different strokes. For folks who are willing to own what they say (as Chris and I are), it’s not an issue.
I’m not criticizing you;in fact, I probably agree with your analysisof the comments based on what I see repeated here. I just wonder if having a public profession with certain obligations puts you more in the hot seat when you are of certain opinions on a place like this fishbowl. I am researching ethics and social media on and off at work & this part of the thread recalled a couple of issues that have arisen in which the writer was perhaps indiscrete.
*Not meant as a swipe at aliases. I’m cool with whatever. I just want to be accountable for what I put out there– that’s all.
I was glib and didn’t explain what I meant. Expecting you to read my mind of course!
“Chris would like for the City Folks to keep in mind the folks like him– the ones who don’t want to participate and think that going to govt meetings is boring– when making their decisions”
So Mr Billingsley want decisions to be made based upon the whim of people who refuse, for whatever reason, to provide input to the process?
Steve, I think you are not being very fair to Chris. His comments that you are responding to are second-hand reportage, of course, and you are reducing them to the extreme. I think it is reasonable to ask the City to take into account the views of people who do not attend the key meetings.
I agree that I was responding to second-hand reports, but the comments reported by Deanne are consistent with his prior statements and remarks, including his refusal to be involved with a thousand or so of his fellow “sheep” (also Deanne’s term).
Yes, everyone’s views should be taken into account, but when people are given more than adequate opportunity for input and don’t use it, IMHO they have little grounds for complaint (this includes voting in local elections, BTW).
I agree. Now you write “views” but earlier you wrote “whims” and that was the heart of my objection…
I said “whims” because that is what “views” that are not stated publicly would be. Views are known, whims are not (my definition).
The guy showed up and stated his case in person, so what is the complaint here?
The complaint is that he waited deliberately until the very end of a year-long public process to express his displeasure.
I see, not good enough in your book. I’m sure if you keep posting Chris will learn to follow the Steve Rules of Order for Living in a Democracy.
It may be second-hand reportage, but that was essentially what he said in essence. I can go back and get the exact verbiage later if you’d like. I have it on my DVR.
Again, I appreciated that someone spoke up against the process. With such a large majority census, I think we should be able to stomach a little opposition without getting too flustered and up in arms.
Now, in that same vein of open, public conversation – do I love the fact that Chris tends to drop bombs on DM and then never replies to questions asked of him? Not at all. That actually really bothers me.
Why? Not only is it considered bad blog etiquette, but it subverts the beauty of the medium – and (if I may be so bold) the larger democratic process. None of our individual opinions is all that strong or important that they can subsist forever in a vacuum. It’s the resulting discussion, tension and reconciliation which has real durability. IMO, ignoring that basic fact is a much larger threat to “democracy” than anything that was brought up last night.
DM’s Blog Etiquette 101: Good idea for a future post!
Even better, all of us can chime in on who has the worst blog etiquette. For example, karass is WAY too verbose.
Only joking. I always enjoy reading karass’ comments (when I have an extra few hours available). Tee hee.
What about DTR’s worship of mediocre-at-best 90s metal bands?
Bite your tongue! Hmph.
And on that note, join me in August at Mayhem Fest (Godsmack, Disturbed, Megadeth…)
I like Godsmack. Sully’s hot
Uhhaarrrggg…
I can get along with a Republican. I just can’t stomach STP.
I always thought you and karass were the same person!
We are. Don’t tell my husband or Mrs. DTR. (Succinct enough?)
With respect to the Strategic Planning process implemented during 2010, the City turned back flips to create opportunities for anybody and everybody to share their opinions and concerns. Meeting attendance was not required, alternative channels were offered. If some people nevertheless choose not to participate, then how is the City supposed to divine their viewpoints and take them into account? (That’s not a rhetorical question.)
That’s the most succinctly on-point question on this thread, and basically answers itself in one fell swoop. Well put, stg.
Without the 2000 Strategic Plan, Decatur would not be the place it is today and we would not enjoy the quality of life that we have today if it had not been for the Strategic Plan. The 2010 Plan will guide us the same way for the next 10 years to make our city better.
Mr. Billingsley gives us no details about why he objected to the 2000 plan, which rather than costing tax dollars, it gave us the vision to actually broaden our tax base and provide for the financial stability our city enjoys in a time when governments everywhere are raising taxes and cutting services. Decatur is doing neither and actually gave us tax money back this year.
All we hear from Mr. Billingsley this year are right wing talking points and conspiracy theories, nothing based in fact or substance. It seems like Mr. Billingsley would like to turn back the clocks to the 1980’s (or before) when Decatur was a dead and dying little town, not the great place it is today.
[edited: no personal attacks]
“It seems like Mr. Billingsley would like to turn back the clocks to the 1980′s (or before) when Decatur was a dead and dying little town, not the great place it is today.”
OakhurstGossip – that’s quite a mean-spirited personal attack.
I don’t think that is a personal attack at all. i think that is the heart of Mr. Billingsley’s objections to the 2000 Strategic Plan and now the 2010 Strategic Plan.
Mr. Billingsley does not like the way Decatur has become or the majority of the people who live here or its leaders. And that is an urbane, progressive, forward thinking town and all the values that it encompasses.
That is the heart of the objections. That is the ugly of the matter. Not a personal attack.
hate the game
not the player
A BIG THANK YOU to all the City Folks who’ve worked so hard to put together our guide for the next 10 years. Our City Folks actively seek to keep raising the bar– their “can do” spirit is truly inspiring! And it’s really remarkable the degree to which citizens are encouraged to give input and participate in all initiatives! It’s a beautiful thing to live in the “we’re all in this together” City of Decatur!
@chris – I would not have expressed it the same way, and we do not agree on all your points, but rest assured, you’re not the only one who believes that many city activities are driven by an active minority.
The challenge is keeping up and staying informed on the minutiae of civic activities. Working too many late hours on the day job, managing kids, home and hearth and handful of personal interest areas leaves little time for a working parent to stay fully informed on city politics/projects. State an opinion, especially a conservative one, and you risk a barrage of comments from over-informed advocates and activists. That’s fair, of course, but certainly not fun. Surely it’s not friendly, as we’ve seen in the responses to you above. And if it’s been a de-motivator for me, I assume it has been for others as well.
However, even though I don’t have any free time to contribute, I concede that there are plenty of options for input. It’s a tradeoff, a choice, not to participate – to choose family time over research time, to choose t-ball over focus groups. I think we should all agree that lots of good citizens make each choice.
And with all that, we still generally get good government here. That’s why I hope (and have faith that) our city leaders recognize and understand that the vocal minority are not the only constituents, the loudest voices are occasionally the most extreme, and that the city that governs lightly, often governs best.
Just one more conservative’s opinion. Cue the attacks.
Well said, George.
Aren’t all representative government’s driven by active minorities? I don’t what to put words in your mouth, but are you saying that the political make-up of the active minority doesn’t reflect the population at-large?
What about the silent majority?
See, Goldstein, E., ‘The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism’, (Ministry of Truth Press, 1984).
Please help me make the 1984 connection.
I was joking, Winston, I mean… DM!
Check this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/20459394/Emmanuel-Goldstein-The-Theory-and-Practice-of-Oligarchical-Collectivism
It Decatur is part of this, all I can say is “WOW”!
Yes DM – I suspect the active population is different. I’ve been here for 16 years, and I know plenty of very active citizens, good people all. But I know even more who don’t ‘participate’. Those two groups of people, in a very unscientific observation, are different.
I thought about your first comment, and I agree that many types of groups are driven my active, vocal minorities: Politics, business, primitive tribes and apparently high school glee clubs. Part of the way the world works, I guess.
George-
Differing views are a good thing! They hopefully compel us to examine things in ways we might not otherwise. They certainly lead to lively discussions on here!
Chris’ conservative viewpoint isn’t what’s drawing the reaction. It’s how he chooses to phrase his points. It’s also how he usually doesn’t seem to want to invest his energies into looking for better options for things he finds objectionable, yet he always wants his disapproval duly noted. It’s frustrating to read some of his essays (for lack of a better description). He wants his views known, but doesn’t seem receptive to considering input from others, or, as DM pointed out, even replying to direct questions. (Other than the one aside, I tried to accurately convey Chris’ points as he framed them. Not an attack.)
Sincerely intended– the Open City Hall online option is another good way to be able to stay informed & participate.
Trying to be succinct:
– Discussion on blogs = good
– Personal attacks = bad but common
– Me and Mr. Billingsley = political disagreement
– Me worship Mr. Billingsley as teacher
– Many posters = different in person than on blog
Karass, how come you didn’t connect this more strongly with Westchester or CSD?
Cannot limit myself to few words.
Westchester = great school, closed
CSD = great system, closed-minded
I heart Westchester.
p.s. nelliebellie, you started it.
p.s.s. karass, i would like to meet you someday
Forunately, karass has a good sense of humor!
And I sort of miss her writing in complete sentences.