I don't know why.
She would certainly endorse the principle of formulating policy based on what is "fun."
....my point is, they often don't have the income to pay private school tuition.
And my counterpoint to that is that the public schools' capture of the mass of students prevents the economies of scale that would allow these parents to pay private school tuition.
Name one private school in Florida -- just one -- that wants to accept non-English speaking kids for a K-12 education.
Couldn't tell you of one. But then, I lived in Pinellas, which wasn't exactly burgeoning with Latin Americans. I can tell you that they exist in south Texas, for Spanish-speaking kids. The point, though, isn't the existence per se of non-English private schools, but rather the possibility. This has been addressed above.
LOL...tuition at many private schools are sky high because the owners are BUSINESS PEOPLE in BUSINESS to MAKE MONEY. They will charge as much as they can. This has nothing to do with public schools.
Standard teachers' union cant. Of course they're businessmen. Of course they want to make money. Horrors. But this line of argument ignores some very basic economic principles: economies of scale, and competition. In a truly free educational market, competition would drive down prices. However, we don't have that at any level (elementary, secondary, or collegiate), for the same reason that undercuts the economy of scale -- the public schools capture the consumers. By your logic, the makers of Coke would charge $100 per can simply because they held a monopoly on Coke, and they wanted to maximize profits. This isn't true, though -- Coke costs $1 a can, and why? Because it is far better, and simpler, to sell many units at low profit then few units at high profit. This proves true in virtually every industry, and it has proven true in education. It can again.
You complain about high private school tuitions, but you misdiagnose the cause. It isn't profiteering greed -- it's the distorting influence of government.
And, how did you pay? Via "impact fees"? -- the Homebuilders Association is AGAINST such fees, as they clearly state in the 2nd article I posted above. So, you are not on their side.
I don't recall offering any opinion on impact fees, or proper methods of taxation. Fill me in.
And, you later mention "planning" as a solution. You seem to agree with Gov. Bush, without wanting to say so.
That was pure, undiluted sarcasm. I'll be more explicit next time. I think "planning" is a joke.
(1) the rate of population growth is phenomenal. This is not a normal rate of growth. What is happening in FL is happening at a very high speed in terms of population.
Florida=Texas=San Jose=Northern Virginia. Florida is exceptional, not unique.
(2) the demand by these new consumers is NOT for private schools
Why not give them a real choice, not only by not making them pay the requisite taxes for funding public education, but also by allowing the elementary and secondary education market to flourish? Then you'll see what the real demand is. As it stands, asserting that people "want" public schools is like asserting they "want" Amtrak -- there's no effective alternative for most.
(3) FL voters are very anti-tax. People here don't want to pay more taxes for anything, even though taxes are relatively low. Yet, something has to give with this incredible increase in population.
Something does indeed. I suggest that what must give is the government's self-assumed educational monopoly.
Somehow, there has to be a way to coordinate this constant growth with the need for more public schools.
Schools can keep up with growth as best they can. Making growth keep pace with schools is to hold the economy hostage to a government bureaucracy with a wholly dubious track record.
But, if you think there is absolutely NO relationship between (a) the increased burden on public schools, and (b) new businesses and new homes, then: IMHO, you are living on another planet.
But I don't think that at all. I simply think it's no reason to stop, or slow, building.