Just make it look better than this eldritch horror: https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attraction_Review-g53449-d4112198-Reviews-Mr_Rogers_Memorial_Statue-Pittsburgh_Pennsylvania.html

Holy shit.

>profoundly vote

Mmmm, alright then.

Probably makes more sense to just change the law to tax them on a prorated basis based on residency, with maybe a 2-month minimum required for tax purposes. Again, they want to be here for cultural and economic reasons. The advantage is in the city's favor and the rates seem reasonable given that. A short-term tax break could help lure some of these people back faster though.

I'm pretty much anti-progressive and have been taxed at some of the higher brackets in the city, and I don't think the high tax rate is really to blame. I think pandemic shutdowns and fear of getting sick drove a sort of self-sustaining exodus out of the city. I also think it's likely temporary, though it could take years to reverse. The city is just too powerful and attractive culturally, with San Francisco and LA coming in a distant second. People saw an opportunity to get a break from the overcrowding and the rat race here, but there's really no comparison to New York culture in North America, _especially_ at the very top end of luxury and wealth. NYC only has a couple of competitors globally for that kind of culture.

That's the non-answer I was expecting.

The problem is both their home lives and mixing them with the general population of students. Diverting funds from public schools that refuse to remove violent or anti-social students to intensive programs that can correct their behavior puts pressure on them to do just that. You address a bad home situation by giving them a safe space during the day at a specialized school that can focus on behavioral problems, and in extreme cases, by removing them from abusive or neglectful homes.

Let me know if you need additional explanation. I advocated for this combination elsewhere in this thread multiple times already. It's not really that confusing. It's pretty simple.

I'm not talking about rich people or private schools. Would you like to respond to the point that Asians in New York have the highest poverty rate and also the highest educational attainment?

>Did you.. not read what I put down? I literally said we could do that in the public school system. You might wanna get your eyes checked, buddy.

No, you said we could throw a lot of funding at public schools without giving any further details and don't seem to support removing disruptive students from regular classes on the theory that the money will just *waves hands* solve things.

You've also made claims elsewhere that per-pupil spending in NYC is expected to be high because... the city is big. You don't seem to understand that spending efficiency isn't supposed to plummet as you scale the system up. I question if you have basic economic literacy.

The minority group with the highest poverty rate in the city also has the highest educational attainment and educational performance. You believe poverty is the root of the problem and its just not. You have a mountain of contradictory evidence in front of you that everyone else can see and you wonder why people ignore you.

> And diverting money away from the public school system is going to help them… how?

I support charter schools only to the extent that they allow parents to pressure and force public education officials to acknowledge this problem and actually address it by removing violent and disruptive students from the population of students that are already motivated to learn. Public schools should be well-funded, and in New York they are. They have the highest funding in the nation per-pupil.

> And you call progressives out of touch with reality. Lmao

Yes, you are considerably out of touch with reality on nearly every topic you give your opinion for in this sub.

> 1.) literally nobody is advocating for that.

Yes, they are.

> 2.) that’s what extra investment in school systems will help with, though. It allows schools to fund extracurricular activities and clubs, provide after school care, give kids tutoring programs to help them along.

Throwing money at kids disruptive, antisocial, or violent kids in the middle of the general population of students doesn't magically fix behavioral problems. They need much more direct interventions with much smaller class sizes and, likely, remedial instruction. Fixing those behavioral problems takes time and cannot be done in a normal classroom without being massively disruptive.

Good luck with your hand-wavy ideas.

New York public schools have the highest spending per student in the country. You need specialized schools to handle kids with behavioral problems and that need much more individualized attention.

It's not really subtle and neither was your original comment.

The people causing the problems in public schools are disruptive students that have no consequences, comrade. It's not some unsolvable mystery. The union teachers will all day the same thing.

Leaving disruptive students in the classroom ruins the education of everyone in the room including the disruptive student. Disruptive or violent kids need much more direct interventions for behavioral problems, and the other kids need a safe learning environment.

> If the argument is that charter schools are better because they aren't government run then let them play the same rules as government run schools do.

Let the government-run schools play by the same rules as the charter schools. Remove disruptive students (after numerous instances of misbehavior) from the general population to schools that specialize in handling children with major behavioral issues. Only when those issues are properly addressed can they be re-integrated into the general population. Leaving them in the general population with no consequences is a one-way valve; they can do vastly more damage to everyone else than any good done to them in that environment, and I'm pretty sure the vast majority of union teachers in the city agree with that from firsthand experience. Here's a teachers union that advocates for removing antisocial students to specialized intensive programs: https://www.aft.org/periodical/american-educator/winter-2003-2004/how-disruptive-students-escalate-hostility

You have to have consequences for antisocial behavior or you put these people on a fast track to jail.

> We don't know why all those kids act up.

Yes we do. They have terrible lives at home, often with parents that don't love them, neglect them, and even abuse them. They aren't disciplined and don't receive healthy boundaries. That describes the vast majority of cases.

> You can't separate every "trouble-maker" child

Yes, you can, and it saves the education of all the remaining children.

> ...and put them in prison. These are kids. We need to address social conditions somehow

You don't put them in prison, but you don't leave them in an environment free to ruin everyone else's life (which is how important education is). Put them in specialized schools that can address the massive behavioral problems that they have. Remove them from abusive households. They absolutely deserve help and a future; leaving them in a normal school population and pretending that will solve their problems does nothing. You might as well send them to jail yourself. Magical thinking.

> Just because you’re poor, doesn’t mean your son or daughter needs to be surrounded by disrupting and violent student. They have a right to learn too.

Progressive people have a tendency to view shitty people like criminals and violent students as victims (of police, bad teachers, society, etc) instead of perpetrators and react by failing to protect innocent people from them.

They believe that keeping these bad people in an otherwise good population will magically reform them and fix their deep lack of discipline, responsibility, empathy, etc. It's magical thinking, and it doesn't work. Antisocial students need to be removed to intensive programs that actually address their major behavioral problems.

The city and state leadership as a whole are rife with inefficiency and corruption. The ultimate bosses of these huge bureaucracies are the people of New York, who unfortunately are not competent enough to hold the leadership accountable in any meaningful way. It's a situation that can be improved, but not without a lot of hard work, better education, and more selfless civic engagement.

Thoughts and prayers are worthless. Call your city council member and demand the actual enforcement of the law.

I'm happy to have someone advocating for forcing homeless into treatment that they desperately need instead of charging headlong off the cliff like San Francisco. The problem would be even worse under a progressive mayor, and they'd be scratching their head and wondering why the two dozen open injection sites made things worse.

There are any number of counties around the world that generally speaking don't have a problem with this kind of homelessness. The difference is that they force people into treatment that need it and don't tolerate extremely antisocial behavior.

> ve had clients assaulted, I’ve had clients’ children assaulted, what little possessions people have are stolen all the time.

Nice use of passive voice as we all pretend that it isn't other homeless people that make them dangerous. If you want to make the shelters safe, put mentally ill homeless in asylums, drug addicted homeless in rehab, and criminal homeless in jail... But the same people saying we don't pay enough for homeless refuse to force people into badly needed treatment.

A lot of sarcasm, but nothing constructive in here.