Thursday, March 31, 2016
Monday, March 28, 2016
Thursday, March 24, 2016
Everything But Teach
On WABE's "A Closer Look" Mother Meria revealed that she has decided it is time for her public schools to provide three meals a day, adding breakfast to existing lunch and dinner programs. Based on a survey. Historically the smokescreen for all this is "children cannot learn on an empty stomach" which seems reasonable enough. However it is interesting that our public schools seem to be magnets for the impoverished suffering from "food insecurity" -- remember that no one is starving in the United States. APS does such a good job gathering up this demographic that it is clearly what they do best and yet in moments of critical thinking some must wonder if the metric is broken or being manipulated.
But a full belly is only part of the equation. Tired and sleepy children are not adequately prepared for the excellence of the APS learning experience. What Mother Meria will be forced to recognized is that APS must provide three hots, a cot and a place to squat. Next, when she addresses their right to Cable TV APS will have fulfilled its societal obligation to prepare Atlanta's children for the future awaiting them.
But a full belly is only part of the equation. Tired and sleepy children are not adequately prepared for the excellence of the APS learning experience. What Mother Meria will be forced to recognized is that APS must provide three hots, a cot and a place to squat. Next, when she addresses their right to Cable TV APS will have fulfilled its societal obligation to prepare Atlanta's children for the future awaiting them.
Monday, March 21, 2016
Pathways To Destruction
Or is it a bike path? Or perhaps a multi-use trail.
The Brook Run Theatre building seems quite the tempest in a teapot. Should we keep it? Should we fix it up? Should we tear it down? The latest call from Council is for an estimate on razing the structure in the hopes we never speak of it again. But it could be folks writing their names in the proverbial snow, some kind of "my way is cheaper than your way."
What is interesting is the pro-rebuild crowd, who have offered estimates for this fixer-upper, are clearly positioned in support of Theatre in Dunwoody and would prefer a better facility.
Maybe what the anti-Brookrun-Theatre crowd should do is drop "Brookrun" and fess up to simply being anti-Theatre. It is not THAT unreasonable to question whether Dunwoody should be in any theatre business other than the theatre of the absurd down at City Hall.
Or maybe they are just aligning themselves with our Shadow Government favoring development at Perimeter in the hopes that big developers will favor them.
The Brook Run Theatre building seems quite the tempest in a teapot. Should we keep it? Should we fix it up? Should we tear it down? The latest call from Council is for an estimate on razing the structure in the hopes we never speak of it again. But it could be folks writing their names in the proverbial snow, some kind of "my way is cheaper than your way."
What is interesting is the pro-rebuild crowd, who have offered estimates for this fixer-upper, are clearly positioned in support of Theatre in Dunwoody and would prefer a better facility.
Maybe what the anti-Brookrun-Theatre crowd should do is drop "Brookrun" and fess up to simply being anti-Theatre. It is not THAT unreasonable to question whether Dunwoody should be in any theatre business other than the theatre of the absurd down at City Hall.
Or maybe they are just aligning themselves with our Shadow Government favoring development at Perimeter in the hopes that big developers will favor them.
Labels:
broken theatre,
silliness
Thursday, March 17, 2016
They Are Pretty Sure You ARE Stupid
Smart City logo notwithstanding most politicos and developers hovering around daVille are quite confident the Citizens OF Dunwoody are pretty dumb. The content of the aforementioned Shadow Government meeting, where development of high density residences was discussed, indicates that pretty much everyone in attendance is convinced that you are stupid.
In typical Frog Soup fashion it started tepid. The developer currently has zoning for office towers. Three of them. Ranging from 24 to 28 stories. Sounds like a license to print money doesn't it? And just think of the non-voting tax revenue those businesses will pump into the City coffers.
Problem is he actually wants to develop residences: hotel, rental and condo; and has asked for two additional buildings exclusively for these purposes. Additional. Or so they say to get the nod from the Shadows.
Then the soup got hot.
The topic of development timeline reveled that the developer intends to build the residential units "sooner than the office towers because the market is good for that." While the claim, not a promise and certainly not a contractual obligation, was that the "office buildings would be constructed over multiple years" was intended to calm the crowd it really served as a restatement of "we're building high density residential to flood your schools and if it suits our pocketbooks we may build those offices--or we may not if the market isn't good for that."
Shadow voted to approve the Developer's proposal.
Maybe DHA should be rebranded as Dunwoody Housing Authority. Maybe it already has.
In typical Frog Soup fashion it started tepid. The developer currently has zoning for office towers. Three of them. Ranging from 24 to 28 stories. Sounds like a license to print money doesn't it? And just think of the non-voting tax revenue those businesses will pump into the City coffers.
Problem is he actually wants to develop residences: hotel, rental and condo; and has asked for two additional buildings exclusively for these purposes. Additional. Or so they say to get the nod from the Shadows.
Then the soup got hot.
The topic of development timeline reveled that the developer intends to build the residential units "sooner than the office towers because the market is good for that." While the claim, not a promise and certainly not a contractual obligation, was that the "office buildings would be constructed over multiple years" was intended to calm the crowd it really served as a restatement of "we're building high density residential to flood your schools and if it suits our pocketbooks we may build those offices--or we may not if the market isn't good for that."
Shadow voted to approve the Developer's proposal.
Maybe DHA should be rebranded as Dunwoody Housing Authority. Maybe it already has.
Labels:
development,
DHA
Monday, March 14, 2016
Official Shadow Government
"I read it on the internet" is a running joke loosely translating to "you cannot believe a word of it." Not so with legitimate journalism. How can we be so certain? Just ask any legitimate journalist--they'll tell you. The Dunwoody Fan Rag, our local font of legitimate journalism, has exposed Dunwoody's Shadow Government--the Dunwoody Homeowners Association. It is revealed in a recent front page article with this headline:
But not how you might imagine. The exposure resulted when the article, as one of such magnitude must, is split and continued further into the rag.
And lest you think that was just a front page screwup, the article continues with:
How could anyone in legitimate media get it wrong twice? They can't--they're just that good. So the only reasonable conclusion is that "the Council" is just code-word for "the DHA."
But not how you might imagine. The exposure resulted when the article, as one of such magnitude must, is split and continued further into the rag.
"page 9" is miraculously correct |
And lest you think that was just a front page screwup, the article continues with:
"page 3" however is not |
How could anyone in legitimate media get it wrong twice? They can't--they're just that good. So the only reasonable conclusion is that "the Council" is just code-word for "the DHA."
Labels:
city council,
DHA,
silliness
Thursday, March 10, 2016
Monday, March 7, 2016
Third Time Is A Charm
Notice anything interesting in this photo?
That's right! This is the second time the waterline location has been marked and the water line has mysteriously moved! Or could it be that only markings have moved? In that case which of the markings is correct--and by that we mean "an accurate indication of the location of the water line."
Maybe if they come out a third time the line will move again.
That's right! This is the second time the waterline location has been marked and the water line has mysteriously moved! Or could it be that only markings have moved? In that case which of the markings is correct--and by that we mean "an accurate indication of the location of the water line."
Maybe if they come out a third time the line will move again.
Thursday, March 3, 2016
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)