Only?

Only. Sounds restrictive, right? As in singular. Unique. Like Costco saying "only those over 60" allowed during Olde Farte Power Hour, and enforcing it. Sounds like a clear definition, plainly stated in plain English. 

Of course, none of this applies at city hall, where a "Seniors Only" apartment complex really means 80 percent reserved for seniors. That's right, the "Seniors Only" apartments, vocally supported by a majority of the seven dwarfs, with one effusing about looking forward to this development and stating, incorrectly, that it will not affect our schools. 

Wrong on two counts.

First, council approval supports twenty percent open-market units and there will be no prohibition against school age children for any resident demographic. Do you NOT know a grandparent who is raising a grandchild? Or two? Nonetheless, one in five units may well go to a family. With kids. And this is not a slippery slope, it is a mud slide. That this development will be just another unwanted apartment complex isn't likely. It is all but certain.

Then there is the always there damage this city does to our schools on behalf of developers when they throw tax "relief" their way. The city, by way of the developer's authority, takes these properties off the tax rolls, stealing money from our schools so they can hand it to a developer. In this case the corporate welfare check is $7M, most of it coming from school taxes.

Yet someone has the unmitigated gall to suggest there is no impact on our schools. So, is the difference between mistake and prevarication what you know? Or is it what you should know? Or have we sunk to the level that ignorance is an acceptable excuse? Or maybe we just don't care. No one at city hall does.