Under the Fair Housing Act, all landlords, including public housing, are required to make reasonable accommodations of their tenant policies where necessary because of a tenant's disability, including a mental health disability. What may look to some as merely bad behavior, may be a symptom. It's case specific and many tenants do not understand that they may have the right to request that their landlord provide such accommodations. Evictions can be devastating. Agencies that are charged with improving housing for people with lower incomes should keep in mind this mission, as well as their obligations to those with disabilities.
David predicts three different scenarios. But the third scenario is flawed.
First, if Repubs do nothing: "They feared, if they continuing to stonewall the court order, they might find themselves with a voter rebellion on their hands. People might start listening to Democrats and moderate Republicans. Anti-public education conservative legislators could find their jobs threatened at the ballot box. They had to do something." Sounds great to me. Second, if Prop 123 passed, people would credit Repubs with increasing funding and third, if Prop 123 failed, then people aren't committed to increased funding.
I suggest that the first scenario is the way that education supporters would have reacted to Prop 123's defeat and that is why we were willing to deny immediate increases in order to fix a broken system. The pro-education "yes" voters denied us this opportunity. Rather, they accept as business as usual that our legislature will violate its constitutional obligations year after year. All education supporters want to vote in a new legislature. But the best way to get that done is if people " start listening to Democrats and moderate Republicans. Anti-public education conservative legislators could find their jobs threatened at the ballot box. " That is a scenario for change.
"and it's the media who created these misleading and educationally vacuous rankings systems that help them sell magazines to gullible parents while they tell us nothing about the real value of the programming in these schools for helping our students develop the knowledge base, character qualities, and intellectual curiosity that will best serve them in later life."
Thank you Let's see ALL the dirty laundry, including TUSD's!
I am disgusted by the number of people who swallow the idea that this "data" indicates whether a student is getting a valuable education or not. Question the assumptions, people!
Five former treasurers (Republicans and Democrats) are against this, saying it is terrible fiscal policy. It would raid the principal of the land trust, which has been funding education for 100 years and was designed by the constitution to continue to do so FOREVER. That's why Prop 123 is an amendment to the constitution to alter our fiscal infrastructure--alter it for the worse. It takes from future dollars for education to fund it now. In ten years, there would be a fiscal cliff when the spigot from the trust shuts off and a future legislature has to figure out what to do with the crisis. Imagine what that will look like. Maybe another raid on the land trust?
Prop 123 is bad governance. We Arizonans have been so poisoned by our toxic government that we don't know what real, solid governance looks like and we think there is no hope for us to ever have it. When education supporters buy in to a shell game like this and advocate that others "hold their noses" and do it, too, we create our own disastrous destiny.
Douglas' plan has nothing directed toward undocumented students. Part of her plan addresses children of migrant workers, as defined by federal regulation. Undocumented students is a much larger group. She shoots down the federal plan and offers nothing on her own, but claims she does. Nice smoke and mirrors, Diane.
Check out this Forbes article featured on the Gov's website, by a PR exec, Travis Brown, who was no doubt paid well by some dark money to blow sunshine where the sun don't shine. Brown makes it sound like Arizona is an economic powerhouse and that Ducey's plan to raid the state land trust to put more money into K-12 is all pros and no cons. Here's the money quote, urging the elimination of the state income tax:
"There’s no need for such an innovative and financially attractive place as Arizona to slap a growth-discouraging premium on doing business in the state."
Innovative and financially attractive? Really?
Neighbor, a woman who calls the police and then will not allow them in sounds like a victim of domestic violence in desperate need of help, not just some irrational person who can't make up her mind. I doubt that eviction is the type of help that she and her family require.
All Comments »
Tucson Weekly |
7225 Mona Lisa Rd. Ste. 125, Tucson AZ 85741 |
(520) 797-4384 |
Powered by Foundation